Sitting of 5 April 1995

Preamble
The House met at Ten o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  Adjournment of the House
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  10.4 am
  Mr. Peter Brooke: I thank you warmly, Madam Speaker, for inviting me to open this debate. I was guilty of a solecism on the question of private notice questions yesterday. If today I commit any further solecisms—because I have never taken part in one of these debates before—I apologise to the House in advance.
  I do not intend for a moment that, as radio broadcasts suggested overnight, this should be simply a debate on London health, although I have to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health would have only herself to blame if it were. I shall be brief, because other hon. Members have other matters that they wish to raise.
  We have debated London health on three occasions since the House reconvened last October—on 21 October, on 31 January in a general debate about the health service, and on 14 February. I did not speak in the third debate, because it was on the eve of the deadline for the consultation on Bart's. However, I spoke in the earlier debates, so I shall not rehearse my views on the London health position that I expressed on those two occasions.
  On the first of those occasions, I said that I had sympathy for the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, both on the rationalisation of specialties in London and on what was argued to be the over-provision of London hospitals. Others will decide whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's cheerful casualness this morning on the subject of London hospitals was the most wholly constructive tone that could have been struck in the present circumstances.
  On the question of Bart's, I have from the start recognised the difficulty of merging two great hospitals. Bart's has entered into the spirit of the merger conversations in an effort to make it a success. In one of my earlier speeches in the House, I commented on the way that the process was being managed and the sensitivity of the leadership being given to it.
  In the context of the decision announced yesterday, I have to say that the stunningly juvenile trivialisation of an anti-Bart's press release that has emerged from the Royal London trust within the past month has in no way encouraged me to believe that the lesson was being learned about how sensitively that leadership has to be conducted.
  1652
  The decision has now been taken, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health did not announce it to the House in person yesterday. She has specifically said that she wants to ensure that the ethos of Bart's is carried on into the new merged institution. Much will hang on what use is made of the Bart's site, which, in the minds of many who have been associated with Bart's, is hallowed ground because of the history of nine centuries of medical care on that site beside the great priory of St. Bartholomew.
  How the use of that site is handled will play a large part, over the next five years, in the way that the merged institution will develop. I understand my right hon. Friend's difficulty about making a statement on that, beyond the relatively general remarks about a project team that she made in her written answer yesterday. Her announcement was about the decision to close Bart's, and it could not be complicated by other observations, which, at that stage, could not really be made. However, it is absolutely critical that that work goes forward in an imaginative way, and that it enjoys the Government's support.
  I commented yesterday on my right hon. Friend's decision not to make a statement to the House. I understand that she would have received advice from her civil service advisers that, if she made a statement on one hospital, she would have to make a statement on all of them. If a hospital, however, has been around for 900 years, for it to receive its death warrant through a written answer does not seem to be wholly worthy of the traditions of our party.
  I am afraid that my view of the manner in which the decision has been announced is that it bore signs of some of the insensitivity with which the proposed merger has been carried forward so far. I hope that everyone will have learnt a lesson from the episode, and that we can look forward to a better future than some of us might think we can look forward to.
  10.10 am
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I wish to raise the subject of Nicholas Ingram, who was born in my constituency of Cambridge. He awaits a horrific death by electric chair in Georgia in the United States of America. His execution has been timed for 7 o'clock tomorrow, 6 April.
  I must make it clear that in no way do I condone the crime of which Ingram was found guilty. I understand that he was convicted of tying a middle-aged couple to a tree as he burgled their home. He was 19 at the time. The crime was supposedly committed after a day's drinking and drug taking, during which he and an accomplice had already broken into two homes. Later, he shot the couple and the man died, while his wife survived.
  I have the utmost sympathy with victim of that crime. I have not heard from her in the Ingram case, but I am sure that his execution will raise many unpleasant and difficult memories for her. If Ingram did commit that appalling crime, he should, of course, be properly punished. In all cases, the punishment should fit the crime. It should not be more barbaric, cruel and vicious than the crime which he perpetrated against his victim.
  The intended method of execution—the electric chair—is performed only in the United States of America. Nick Ingram has been waiting for that for the

  1653
  past 12 years. A misapprehension exists that execution by electrocution is painless and swift—it is not. Elsewhere, the overwhelming trend is towards more humane forms of execution.
  I should like to describe what observers at previous electrocutions have reported. They have reported that the body turns bright red as the temperature rises, that the flesh swells and that the skin is stretched to the point of breaking. Sometimes, the prisoner catches fire, especially if he perspires excessively. The prisoner's fingers, toes and face are severely contorted. The force of the electrical current is so powerful that sometimes the eyeballs pop out and rest on his cheek.
  The prisoner often defecates, urinates, vomits and drools. Witnesses have often heard a loud and sustained sound like bacon frying, and the sickly sweet smell of burning flesh permeates the air. In the meantime, the prisoner almost boils. The temperature of the brain approaches the boiling point of water, and when the post-electrocution autopsy is performed, the body is so hot that it cannot be touched by human hand.
  When we speak about barbaric acts, that is what we are talking about. Execution is not instantaneous. Death is not painless. Torture is prolonged and painful. Victims can take minutes to die, or even to lose consciousness, and they struggle to free themselves from the excruciating pain.
  Nick Ingram is a British citizen. He has been awaiting that horrific end for the past 12 years. He knows very well what happens to prisoners who are electrocuted. I ask the House to judge whether that punishment really fits the crime.
  The sentence is decided by the Georgia Board of Pardon and Paroles. The legal adviser to that board has already said that he will listen to any appeal from the United Kingdom Government with the utmost gravity. In view of that, I find it extraordinary that the Prime Minister has felt unable to express any view on behalf of the UK Government.
  I wrote to the Prime Minister about the matter last Thursday, and to date I have not received any reply. I was informed by a journalist on Monday that a letter from the Prime Minister was on its way to me. What is more, the journalist was able to tell me what that reply said. He told me that it differed slightly from that sent to Mrs. Ingram, Nick Ingram's mother.
  To Mrs. Ingram, the Prime Minister said that there were no proper grounds for him to intervene. Apparently, Nick Ingram's dual nationality somehow takes away from the fact that he is, in all seriousness, a British citizen, having been born in my constituency. To me, the Prime Minister has apparently said that no formal grounds exist for him to intervene.
  A great deal of difference exists between those two replies. If that is what the Prime Minister has said to me in his letter, an explanation is required. If no formal grounds exist for him to intervene, surely he can intervene on informal grounds. His recent trip to Washington would have been an ideal opportunity for him to take a view of the matter and to express it both to the President and to the authorities in Georgia.
  Yesterday, a federal judge in Georgia threw out a civil rights lawsuit filed by Ingram, in which he claimed that electrocution was a cruel and unusual punishment, banned
  1654
  under the United States constitution, and inconsistent with a mature society. At a hearing this afternoon, two lawyers from this country will try to convince the board that Ingram was not mentally fit to stand trial for the murder of the Georgian man during the drunken robbery in 1983.
  I make a plea yet again to the Leader of the House and to the Prime Minister to make it known to the Georgia Board of Pardon and Paroles that this country considers electrocution to be a barbaric method of execution, and that it should not be perpetrated in any civilised state.
  It has been left to the European Parliament, which yesterday called on United States President Bill Clinton to spare the life of Nicholas Ingram. Klaus Haensch, the president of the Parliament, said in a letter to President Clinton yesterday that there was
  "abhorrence in much of Europe for execution by electric chair".
  All I ask is that our Government should do the same.
  10.17 am
  Sir John Cope: I welcome the holding of this debate. It is a sensible adaptation of our procedures to continue to have general, open and, as a rule, relatively low-key debates before recesses.
  At this time of year, my right hon. Friend the Lord President will be giving special attention to the programme for the next Session of Parliament. The newspapers have already picked up some ideas about what is in line, all of which sound highly desirable, but, in addition, I hope that my right hon. Friend will encourage his colleagues to include a construction contracts Bill, based on the proposals in the report of the Latham review.
  We all know that our former colleague Sir Michael Latham is an especially assiduous and hard-working man, with a detailed knowledge of the construction industry. It is no surprise, therefore, that the proposals are carefully researched and widely supported in the industry.
  The construction industry is, of course, of major importance to our country, especially these days, when the infrastructure needs to be developed and redeveloped efficiently and economically. The problems that the proposals deal with are serious and deep-seated, and lie at the heart of the complex contractual relationships that are negotiated between the many different parts of the construction industry day by day.
  It is extremely bad for our country that that important industry should be continually distracted to the degree it is by argument about contracts and payments. The industry cannot sort out these problems on its own, but needs a Bill. I believe that the Latham proposals point the way.
  I can see three reasons that might make the Government hesitate to legislate on the proposals, but, in my judgment, none is a show-stopper. First, they may be seen as introducing more regulations while the Government are trying to deregulate. Secondly, new regulations usually involve costs, and the Government are, of course, major buyers of construction. Thirdly, the proposals include legislation on late payment, which is something that we have resisted before, none more than me when I was a Minister and, for that matter, before and since being a Minister.
  On the first point, I see the Latham Bill as an anti-paperwork Bill. The intention is to reduce the amount of paperwork as well as the amount of argument, both of

  1655
  which bedevil the construction industry. The Bill is designed precisely to minimise the arguments that ensue under the present contractual arrangements.
  My second hesitation involves cost to clients, including the Government. However, the Bill is designed to cut costs, and Latham suggested that it would cut them by up to 30 per cent. Certainly every subcontractor now has to allow a huge contingency against contractual arguments and payment delays involved in the present system. Therefore, the Treasury should support the Bill.
  Although I have worked for small businesses throughout my political life, I have argued against general legislation for statutory interest on late payment before, during and since my time as Minister with responsibility for small firms, and I remain firmly against it in general. Such legislation would be very complex, and would need to allow for different practices in different trades.
  Small firms that cannot now lean on their large customers for payment would have the same difficulty in getting the interest. Of course, a very large number of small firms are retailers which take cash over the counter and which would be hit, not helped, by the introduction of statutory interest.
  I am, however, convinced by the Latham report's suggestion that the construction industry is different. The cash flow, and hence the health, of the industry is seriously compromised by the present contract system, and the use that is made of every opportunity for a dispute to delay payment.
  I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend the Lord President will do his best to include the Latham Bill in next year's programme, and will tell his colleagues, especially the Secretary of State for the Environment whose primary responsible it is, that there is support for just such a Bill in all parts of the House.
  10.22 am
  Mr. Ray Powell: I welcome this innovation of Adjournment debates in the morning instead of the afternoon, because I now have the opportunity to speak. When such debates took place in the afternoon after the business of the House, at about 3.30 pm to 4 pm, and we had only three hours, I usually failed to be chosen, so perhaps this innovation is a step in the right direction.
  Although I want to get back to my constituency and family, perhaps it would have been wiser were the House not to adjourn so early for the Easter recess, but instead were to consider issues of grave importance not only to my constituents but to the country at large. I am thinking of the escalation of crime, especially joyriding.
  In my constituency in the past few months, joyriders have killed numerous motorists who were unaware that they—the joyriders—were drunk or sometimes drugged, and had no licence or insurance. Two weeks ago, a young boy of 14, together with three other boys of the same age, took his parents' car. He was not licensed to drive and, at 14, was incapable of driving properly on the main road. He drove into another car at about 70 or 80 mph and killed the young lady who was driving and some others in the car.
  On 12 March, I received a letter from the uncle of that young lady, Lianne Davies. I think that I should read to
  1656
  the House the sentiments expressed in that letter, because they encapsulate the problem and tragedy of joy riding. Mr. Davies wrote:
  "In the wake of the tragic death of my niece, Lianne Davies as a result of 'joyriding', I feel that something must be done to try and prevent this tragedy happening again and again. The whole of the community has been touched and angered at this tragic waste of a young life, someone who was just embarking on a new life with her boyfriend, Christopher, together with her young son, Thomas.
  Not only has this tragedy angered honest, hard-working and caring people at a local level but it has disgusted and angered people nationwide.
  The time has come to stop the minority in our area, and nationwide, 'ruling the roost' and laughing in the faces of so called law and order. We must now have a punish that befits the crime. Time and again these 'yobs' are getting off far too lightly. The person who drove the car which killed the Mansells, last August, received just 7 years and his accomplices are only on a charge of car theft. That driver is a murderer and should have been sent down for a minimum term not a maximum. The others in the car with him should be on a charge which is greater than just car theft.
  During the week after this terrible tragedy we are still hearing stories of cars being stolen in our area and in fact, in the early hours of Saturday morning the 11th of March, the day after Lianne's funeral, Maesteg town was cordoned-off to try and catch 4 'joyriders'.
  The issues, as we all know, are greater than just considerably increasing the punishments for car crimes. The underlying issues are those of discipline at home and in our schools. Human rights have swung too far in the favour of those who now turn around in school and say to a teacher, 'you touch me and I'll have you on a charge of assault'. The so-called 'do-gooders' in our society have ruined it with the softly, softly approach. Surely we must return to some level of common sense where a teacher is able to discipline a pupil, and a policeman can perform his duty without threat of losing his or her job. A few canes didn't do me any harm. The world and the 'law' has gone crazy. The police must have more powers to handle difficult situations.
  There is much more that could and should be said but what I, on behalf of Lianne's family, want is some sort of legislation which severely punishes car crime, and more police presence at all hours in the community to stamp out this crime and others, such as under age drinking, which is rife, and drug-taking. Punish the parents, punish the landlords, punish the criminals severely and let a prison be a prison not a community centre. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH."
  Lianne's uncle suggests that, if I want to discuss the issues further with him, I should.
  The whole town turned out at Lianne's funeral, and everyone shared the family's grief. One can imagine the shock of a parent who has reared a daughter and a son until they are 21 and 14 respectively, and who is informed, an hour after they have gone out for a ride in the car, that both children are dead. Nothing can compensate a father or a mother for the death of two children.
  A month before Lianne's death, a father of 32 and a mother of 31 were driving home from the seaside on a Saturday evening. Another car, driven by a person who was unlicensed and under age, with three under-age people as passengers, drove down a hill directly into their car, killing them both and leaving a young son of three an orphan. That tragedy was caused by joyriding. It is high time that the House and the Government took action, together with the motor manufacturers, to try to resolve the problem, which would be in everyone's interests.
  We should also have more police on the beat to ensure that joyriding does not take place. The incident I have described could have been avoided if the 14-year-old boy involved had been apprehended when he took possession of the car and before he went out driving. I appeal to the House and the Government to do something. If they do

  1657
  not, there will be further deaths as a direct result of joyriding by people who are unlicensed and who should not be on the road.
  10.31 am
  Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) on his speech. He has expressed views that are shared on both sides of the House. I thank him for bringing the matter to the attention of the House; he deserves support.
  I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to refer my remarks to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, because they specifically concern the final decisions on the reorganisation of local government in Devon. When the Local Government Commission for England first considered the matter, it went to a great deal of trouble and published three alternative suggestions for the reorganisation of Devon.
  The first suggestion was for a unitary authority of four areas; the second was for a unitary authority of six areas; and the third was for Plymouth to change its status and, once again, to be a unitary authority, with the rest of Devon remaining the same.
  There was much consideration of the proposals throughout the county, and the third proposal seemed to be fairly widely accepted, although not universally. As shown on page 104 of the commission's report, 31 per cent. of the county accepted the proposal, and a further 14 per cent. wanted no change. The commission's proposal was the nearest thing to leaving the county as it was. Everyone accepted that Plymouth, one of the largest cities in the country, should have its own unitary authority.
  Much to everyone's surprise, when the commission made its final decision, it produced a recommendation that had never been put as an alternative, which was for Plymouth and Torbay to be made unitary authorities, with the rest of the county to remain the same. This immediately provoked an uprising—perhaps that is an overstatement: a considerable amount of adverse opinion—in the city of Exeter. Exeter is one of the oldest cathedral towns, and it could not see why the upstart Torbay should be given unitary authority status when it was not.
  There were immediately problems in South Hams as well. For a local authority between Torbay and Plymouth, it was worrying that the two local government areas on either side might become unitary authorities. It was feared that one or other was likely to want to extend its boundaries and slowly to eat up South Hams. It has been mooted that perhaps South Hams should become a unitary authority.
  My local authority of East Devon is remarkable, because it is one of the few local authorities in the country that has no debt in housing, or in anything else. That is a pretty remarkable achievement for a local authority at this time. East Devon has even allowed some of its capital allowances to be used by other authorities because it does not need them all. We have a pretty good local authority in East Devon.
  East Devon is suddenly saying that, in view of Exeter's position, it should perhaps now be considered for unitary authority status by the Secretary of State for the Environment. East Devon is much larger than Torbay, it is much larger than Exeter, and it has a larger population
  1658
  than both areas. People ask why, if Exeter is being considered for unitary status, East Devon should not be considered.
  From looking at the report of the Local Government Commission for England, I see that 14 counties in which it was originally suggested that unitary authorities should be created will not now, in the final recommendations, have unitary authorities, but will remain the same. The 14 counties are Cumbria, Lancashire, Cheshire, Shropshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire, Wiltshire, Surrey, East Sussex, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk. All will revert to their previous positions. Yet in Devon, contrary to the original recommendation, a new unitary authority is being suggested.
  I point out to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that it is suggested on page 104 of the commission's report that there is
  "widespread support for unitary authorities for both Exeter and Torbay".
  That is a massive overstatement. Many people have told me that, when an opinion poll was carried out in Torbay, they did not vote because the suggestion that Torbay should become a unitary authority was not an alternative given by the commission; they did not take it seriously.
  The only people who voted were those who were keen to bring about a unitary authority. The other people did not bother, and did not think that the suggestion should be considered. I very much doubt, therefore, whether the words "widespread support" are accurate. Devon county council, East Devon district council, Mid Devon district council and, I think, Teignbridge district council were all very much in favour of the Local Government Commission for England's original recommendation—for the status quo to remain, except for Plymouth.
  The great difficulty is that, when the measure comes before the House, it will be by way of statutory instrument, to which there can be no amendment. Therefore, we cannot vote on what the local people might like. We will either have to accept the measure or reject it absolutely. That puts some Members of Parliament—I believe that the same is true of counties other than Devon—in a difficult position.
  Therefore, will the Secretary of State look at the matter again before he brings forward such a measure? If the majority of people throughout Devon were consulted, they would be more likely to support the commission's original recommendation—that Devon county council and Devon district councils should stay the same, and Plymouth should become a unitary authority. I believe that people would be much happier if we proceeded in that way.
  10.40 am
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am aware that the debate is popular and many of my colleagues want to contribute to it, so I shall be brief.
  I wish to follow the remarks of the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and record, as people sought to do yesterday, the general dissatisfaction about the way in which a major health announcement was made yesterday.
  I wish to place on record how extraordinary it was that such a major announcement—covering so many hospitals and constituencies, and involving so much money and emotional investment—should have been made by way of

  1659
  a written answer, particularly as the original proposal was announced in the House. In addition, we discovered that, on the same day, the Secretary of State for Wales was making a policy statement to the opposite effect.
  The Secretary of State for Health will suffer as a result of the way in which the announcement was made. The right hon. Lady's failure to provide an opportunity for questions means that people's frustrations will be pent up until they can question her. I always thought that there was a majority in the House against the Secretary of State's proposals, certainly as they relate to the south London arrangements and Guy's hospital. She has done nothing to reduce that opposition, and may well have produced firmer opposition to Government plans. I fear that, as a result of the way in which she handled the matter yesterday, she will not have heard the end of it.
  I shall flag up questions now to allow the Leader of the House to give the Secretary of State early notice of what she would have been asked about yesterday. If the Secretary of State accepts—as she appears to do by her written answer, her press statement and her letter to me and other colleagues—that there are preconditions for the closure of the Guy's hospital accident and emergency unit, and if those conditions are not met in three, four, five or six years' time, does that mean that the closure will not go ahead?
  Those conditions are that the London ambulance service should be fully equipped and should do its job properly, that all other accident and emergency units in south London should be fully functioning and able to cope, and that there should be adequate funds. Logically, if the conditions are not met, the closure should not go ahead.
  The health commission said that the closure should go ahead only if the preconditions were met. If that is so, has it been decided that the accident and emergency department will close if it will close only if certain other things happen? The truth is that it may close, so it would be far better to say that it will remain open but that, if various conditions are met, it may close. It would be better to do that than to blight the department for four years when, at the end of that period, it may still be needed and may stay open.
  I have a set of questions involving Philip Harris house. The press release says that it will be in full use. The letter sent out to the chairman of the health authority said that it would be used substantially in line with original plans. Elsewhere it states that three quarters of the space will be used as originally intended. What is the truth? Is it not true that £1 million worth of equipment will have to be taken out of Philip Harris house so that it can be converted for uses other than those for which it was originally intended?
  Is it not the case that, although the special trustees may leave their money in, Philip Harris, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Kidney Patients Association are not willing to give their money and their money will be taken out? Is it not true that large parts of the building of Philip Harris house will not now be used as originally intended? Is that not madness, given that it is a state of the art building in the health service?
  What about the other two newest buildings: Guy's tower and new Guy's house? In the past two weeks we have put it to the Secretary of State in a letter, and to other people in other ways that, suddenly, King's College London and the United Medical and Dental schools would
  1660
  not need as much space as before. Up to 20 floors in the two other newest buildings will be available. Why was that fact not dealt with in the written answer, the letter or the press statement? Why has no thought been given to those matters? Does it not materially change the logical way to plan when one of the prospective users no longer wants to use the site—as happened two weeks ago?
  Was the regional health authority general manager correct to say that that development may mean that part of the Guy's hospital site—the new Guy's house and Guy's tower—may be disposed of? Does "disposed of" mean sold off, and does that therefore mean that part of Guy's hospital will be sold out of the national health service? If so, we should have been told. I do not think that a majority of the House would be in favour of that.
  What about the worries that having a minor surgery unit and some non-emergency beds without intensive care or intensive treatment units is dangerous? The consultants say that they will not carry out such activities without intensive care back-up in case of emergencies. Is it not entirely irresponsible to have such units without that back up?
  Why have we still not received the trust business case, which was meant to have been produced before the consultation began? In a letter to me yesterday, the Minister for Health said:
  "The full business case for the redevelopment of Guy's and St. Thomas' has been submitted to the South Thames Regional Office, and the Trust is now exploring private finance options. We look forward to seeing the completed full business case from the Guy's and St Thomas' Trust in the near future."
  Not to have the business case at the end of the consultation or even on the day of the announcement, when it was meant to be the basis of the proposal for the hospital, is, to say the least, extraordinary, and probably hugely incompetent. How on earth can a decision be made when one of the decision's building blocks is not in place?
  Have not all the consultants in the south-east of England said that they are dissatisfied with the proposals relating to neurosciences and paediatrics, will not use the services as currently proposed, and will send all their patients to Great Ormond Street hospital rather than elsewhere in south London? Has not the neurology debate involved various changes of view in recent weeks, some of which were raised at the regional health authority meeting, but none of which was addressed, let alone answered, in the Secretary of State's written answer, press statement or letters?
  What will happen about the management of the trust—an issue raised by the hon. Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) in last week's debate? Will we be left with a management—with the most highly paid chief executive in the land who was previously employed to run one of the two hospitals in the merged trust—which does not have the confidence of the people who work in and use Guy's hospital? I have never said this before in the House, but the chief executive has to go, and the management must be changed. It is entirely unacceptable that people are running the trust in a way that does not enjoy the confidence of any of the people in Guy's hospital. An urgent decision is needed, and the Secretary of State should ensure that it is taken in the next few days if there is to be any prospect of credible progress.
  The written answer was two pages long. It would have been possible to make a statement of the same length. It was entirely unacceptable that such a statement was not

  1661
  made. All the questions that remain to be answered will remain to be answered until they are answered fully. When they are answered, we may discover how illogical, inappropriate and unsupported the decision was. To quote what a Conservative Member said yesterday, it was at least—and to put it mildly—politically inept.
  10.49 am
  Sir Peter Fry: Before I commence my remarks, I commend the speech of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). The more often such sentiments are expressed, the more likely it is that there will be action in the direction that we both want. May I offer the hon. Gentleman a word of advice? Perhaps he should have a word with some members of the magistrates bench in his area, some of whom I fear seem to leave all common sense behind when they are put on the bench and reach some very strange decisions and sentences. I am sure that the House was grateful to the hon. Member for Ogmore for raising that issue.
  As we are debating matters which should be raised before the adjournment for the Easter recess, which is the first main holiday of the year, I hope that it is appropriate for me to raise what seem to be unfair advertising practices by sections of the travel industry. There are two practices which are virtually scams inflicted on the travelling public. The first is that of holiday travel insurance.
  At the moment, there are numerous advertisements for holidays at various discounts from 4 per cent. to 15 per cent. I have a copy of such an advertisement which is in general circulation. However, in order to obtain that discount, according to the advertisement to which I have just referred, it is necessary for the operator's
  "travel insurance to be purchased at the time of booking and as part of the same transaction."
  That advertisement, and other similarly phrased advertisements, fail to inform the public of the very substantial commission paid on the travel insurance premium by the insurer to the operator.
  The Travel Trade Gazette issued a list of insurers and the amount of commission payable. It is clear that up to 50 per cent. commission can be obtained by an operator. The usual level of commission is 40 per cent. to 45 per cent. for longer haul holidays. Therefore, someone booking a £400 holiday which was subject to a 7 per cent. discount would receive £28 off the cost. If there was a 4 per cent. discount, he would receive £16 off. However, that could result in that person paying back in insurance premiums, through the commission that is paid, more than the amount saved. That is not quite the bargain that the operators would like to let the public believe it is.
  Some operators provide their own insurance, trusting that they will be able to make a handsome profit after having to pay claims. That practice reminds me of the collision damage waiver policies of some American car hire companies, which add enormously to the advertised costs of car rental. However, to revert to travel insurance, let me quote at length from the Travel Trade Gazette, which is one of the most authoritative journals on holidays and travel. It states:
  "The multiples generally charge more for their insurance than other travel agents, banks or building societies, to claw back the cost of offering holiday discounts. They offer a bad deal to families,
  1662
  whereas most independents offer discounts to children or cover them for free. A family of four travelling to Florida could pay up to £218"—
  for their insurance—
  " with the multiples, when the net cost to the agent is £50. Underwriters and brokers see little hope of change while insurance is used to fund discounts … Commercial Union's Travellers Insurance Association manager … said high retail prices cause problems when customers were disputing claims.
  'Travel agents put too much emphasis on making profits from insurance.'"
  That would be bad enough, but other aspects of that policy must be aired. If a potential holiday maker has his or her own annual insurance, the discount may be withdrawn by the operator unless he or she agrees to sign an insurance indemnity.
  I recently met the well-known television travel presenter, Mr. John Carter of "Wish You Were Here", who showed me a letter that he had received from a Mr. Cushway of Chelmsford. Mr. Cushway has his own annual insurance, but he was astonished to read the terms of the indemnity that he was expected to sign by the operator, "Going Places", if he did not take out the operator's insurance. The indemnity reads:
  "In consideration of Going Places agreeing to book my holiday/travel arrangements without proof of my insurance arrangements, I hereby agree on behalf of myself and (if applicable) My Party to indemnify and keep indemnified Going Places and the tour operator for any costs, claims, liabilities or any other losses whatsoever that are incurred by Going Places or the tour operator and which would otherwise have been met or satisfied had I taken out insurance with Going Places or the tour operator."
  That means that if one received an injury resulting in a personal accident claim, even if that was the liability of the operator, the holiday maker would not be able to claim against the operator. Is it therefore no surprise that Mr. Cushway wrote:
  "After a careful read it appears that they are getting customers to completely indemnify both Going Places and the tour operator from 'any' claims. This also includes claims that are clearly the fault of these two companies ie: flight, hotel cancellation or overbooking."
  I hope that hon. Members will agree that the public should not be subjected to practices like that. It would seem that steps should be taken, either to remove the condition of having to take out the operator's travel insurance or to make the amount of commission paid more public and to allow travellers to purchase their own insurance without signing an indemnity.
  The other issue to which I want to refer briefly is that of flight fare advertisements. For years now, the travel pages of our newspapers, particularly the Evening Standard, and the teletext advertisements on television, have offered tempting offers of tickets to far-away places at very attractive prices. Unfortunately, a considerable number of those offers prove to be bogus. The excuse is that they are limited and are no longer available. However, at least one operator advertised services which never existed in the first place, let alone any fares that could operate on them.
  Too many of the advertised fares are unavailable—[Interruption.] I was somewhat deterred there by an irrelevant intervention from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). As a result of the practice that I have described, many people will be paying far in excess of the amount that they thought they would be paying when they communicated with the advertiser. I once telephoned a company which advertised flights to

  1663
  the United States for £199. I was told that all those seats had gone. When I asked what the next cheapest category was, I was told £299, but there were no seats at that price available. I eventually paid £349, nearly double the amount originally advertised.
  That somewhat unfortunate state of affairs has come to the attention of the Advertising Standards Authority, which has drawn up new guidelines for ticket advertisements. It has suggested that four main aims should be achieved. First, if flights advertised are not all available at the quoted fare, it should be clearly stated that flights are available "from" the quoted price. Secondly, the ASA suggests that there should be sufficient seats available at the price quoted to ensure
  "that there is a reasonable prospect of obtaining the price that is advertised."
  Thirdly, all fares should be available between one and six weeks after the appearance of the advertisement unless otherwise stated. Fourthly, multiple insertions of advertisements should not be made if there is a strong chance that the prices featured may change.
  However worthy such guidelines are, there are serious questions to be asked about how effective they will prove in practice. For example, it will be up to local trading standards officers to investigate, but they already have to cope with the whole mass of consumer legislation and their efforts are likely to be patchy in effect.
  The interesting factor is that the other bodies expected to check on the advertisements are the newspapers in which they appear, which have no direct knowledge whether advertised fares are available. An unofficial survey by Holiday Which? checked one edition of the Evening Standard advertising flights to Spain, and it was discovered that of the eight companies offering flights, only two could provide them at the cheapest advertised price.
  What happens if a company is found to have transgressed the ASA code? After persistent contraventions—I stress that they have to be persistent—the authority can apply to the High Court for a restraining injunction. Only if the company continued to transgress, in breach of the injunction, would it be liable to prosecution for contempt of court. It is clear that in practice the code is difficult to enforce and does not work. The result is that the British consumer is being ripped off.
  What redress is needed? I suggest, first, a clear and more effective sanction against such advertising, carrying heavy fines. Secondly, we could consider legislation similar to that being advanced in the United States, which specifically prohibits deceptive advertising. Thirdly, the Office of Fair Trading should conduct an investigation to find out whether such advertisements should be monitored so that action could be taken much earlier. If the United States Department of Transportation can take strong steps there is no reason why our Department of Transport, or the Department of Trade and Industry, cannot do the same.
  The two problems that I have raised are blots on a successful British industry, and their removal would do much to raise its standing in the eyes of the public and enhance its image. It might even help bookings to pick up this year. If the industry cannot put its house in order, the demand for legislation will inevitably increase. Action is urgently needed if the consumer is to be properly protected against such scams. Holiday travel should be a pleasure, not an opportunity to be overcharged.
  1664
  I hope that the Leader of the House will support my views and pass my suggestions to the relevant Ministers, and I hope that representatives of the media who may be with us will take on board the fact that this is a case of commercial sleaze—a subject with which they are much preoccupied—and perhaps give it some publicity.
  11.2 am
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The debate began with an eleventh-hour attempt by one knight of the shires, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), to save one of the London hospitals. Then we heard from another knight of the shires, the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who wanted to save the old-fashioned Devon county council. There has also been an eleventh-hour attempt by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) to save a man's life in America. I shall make an eleventh-hour attempt to save 74 jobs for disabled workers at Remploy in Derbyshire.
  We all know that Remploy has been a huge success. There are about 90 units throughout the United Kingdom, and as far as I know from my research, until now not one has been closed on commercial grounds. Closures have taken place only because of fires or other planning difficulties.
  However, according to a lobby of disabled people who came to Parliament yesterday, the Remploy factory in Alfreton is to close. I have informed the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), in whose constituency the factory lies. He knows about the closure, says that he has made representations, and is fully aware of what I intend to say. I must raise the subject because many of the workers at the factory live in Bolsover; several more live in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).
  The factory employs 74 people, many of whom use wheelchairs. Others are epileptic, and they all have all the usual problems that disabled people face. Over the past two or three years we have talked about disabled people at length in the House, partly because of all the private Members' Bills that my hon. Friends have tried to introduce on successive Fridays. It is appalling that, with the Government-sponsored Disability Discrimination Bill, which talks about looking after disabled people's rights, on its way to the other place, 74 disabled people are being kicked out of their jobs in the middle of Derbyshire.
  It will be said that those 74 people have been offered other jobs—that is the usual cry—but it is not easy for disabled people to travel long distances, and the proposal to shunt them along to Mansfield means an average journey of about 10 miles. Yesterday in the Lobby I spoke to someone from Clay Cross, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East, which is 12 miles from Mansfield. That person finds it difficult enough to travel the five miles to Alfreton, without piling on more by going to Mansfield and back.
  It is a disgrace that Remploy is being allowed to shut the factory and that, seemingly, the Government are doing nothing about it. The people concerned have written to the Prime Minister but, as has been said earlier in the debate about other people, they are still waiting for a decent reply. I think that the Prime Minister passed the

  1665
  letter on to one of the Ministers in the Department of unemployment. That is why, even at this late stage, the matter must be resolved.
  On Friday 7 April a 50th anniversary celebration will take place at Remploy, and the directors in Cricklewood have had the cheek to invite the 74 people from Alfreton to travel down for a celebration party and to cut a cake, just days before 20 April, when their jobs will be cast aside. They will not go. Every one of the 74 workers is backing the trade unions' attempts to save the jobs. Incidentally, there are about six unions involved at Remploy, every one of them committed to fighting the closure. Those people will not go to the celebration because they do not find anything to celebrate in the fact that they are being chucked out of work.
  I appeal to the Leader of the House to ask the Ministers responsible to act. I suppose that the subject comes under the Department of Employment, or possibly the Department of Trade and Industry—and of course it affects social security, too. We are often told, especially by Ministers, about the massive sums spent on social security and we all know that it costs about £9,000 per annum to chuck somebody out of work. Yet the proposal is to get rid of 74 jobs, which will cost the Exchequer—that is, the taxpayer—£9,000 apiece. That is crazy economics, and that is why Ministers should call on the directors of Remploy to ensure that the factory is not closed.
  Now that the true figures have been revealed this morning by one of the groups of chattering-class people, which has told us that the unemployment statistics are wrong, we all know that what we have always said is true, and that there are at least 4 million people without a job. Now a further 74 people are to be chucked on the scrap heap to join that pile of human misery.
  What about the work that the 74 people do? They produce jumpers for Marks and Spencer, and throughout the entire period of that production Marks and Spencer has not made one complaint about the quality of the goods. There is no argument for closing the factory on those grounds either. So what is the reason for the closure? As we all know, the reason is that there are people running Remploy who are hand in glove with the Government. Disabled people know that the only protection they have is through membership of a trade union, and all the employees belong to a trade union. We know that the Government have a thing about people who are members of trade unions.
  I call upon the Minister to convey my message to his colleagues. The closure is due to occur on 20 April. There will be no celebrations for the employees of the Remploy factory in Alfreton, but there could be if the Government would listen to the people who came to lobby their Members of Parliament yesterday—as is their right—and to present petitions.
  I now turn to another matter regarding a different lobby. Last week, 5,000 people came to lobby Parliament about education cuts, teachers' pay and the larger class sizes that will result from the Government's proposals for education. The people who came from Derbyshire to lobby their Members of Parliament had to take the day off to do so. Everyone should have the inalienable right to come to this place to petition Members of Parliament.
  1666
  Fire fighters, teachers, parents and kids took part in that lobby and they presented a petition to the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and I helped them with their petition. What is wrong with people travelling to London to petition Parliament?
  London is 150 miles from north Derbyshire, so when teachers and others travel to London to lobby Parliament they cannot work on that day. In the education debate that followed the lobby, the Secretary of State for Education, prompted by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), had the gall to attack those teachers for taking the day off. She talked about calling in the auditor. That is appalling. Not everyone can get to London easily or at the drop of a hat. People in many parts of Britain have to take time off work to carry out their duties of petitioning and lobbying their Members of Parliament.
  I have a typical letter from one of the schools involved in the lobby in which it is made abundantly clear that no money was lost to the local authority as a result of its involvement. It has written to the Secretary of State for Education to say:
  "We regret the necessity of writing to you"—
  that is the Secretary of State—
  "on the subject of your totally unfounded remarks made in the House yesterday on the subject of the presence of Derbyshire teachers at the lobby of their MPs".
  It refers to the closure of the school in north Derbyshire and explains that the lobby:
  "was on a day already scheduled for inset. It therefore caused no inconvenience to pupils or parents, nor is there any accruing cost to the authority as the time lost will be recouped in a series of evening sessions which have already been arranged. You will note that the only cost has been to the teachers themselves".
  Members can imagine how those teachers felt when they switched on their televisions last Wednesday and heard the Secretary of State attacking them for having the temerity to come to their Parliament to lobby Members and to petition the Prime Minister and others. It is the height of arrogance for the Government to attack people in that fashion. The Secretary of State for Education should have the decency to apologise to those teachers in accordance with the requests made in the letter.
  I have spoken about two lobbies today. One concerns a group of disabled people who are fighting for their jobs. Surely the Government could intervene and call upon Remploy to keep the Alfreton factory open. Secondly, the Minister should have the decency to apologise for her unwarranted attacks on the teachers, parents and kids who came from Derbyshire last Wednesday to fight for teachers' pay, people's jobs and for a decent education.
  11.13 am
  Mr. John Carlisle: As usual, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has given us a colourful account of various matters in his constituency. I regret his latter remarks about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. Teachers and other professionals have ample opportunity to visit this place to lobby Members of Parliament or whatever during their holiday time.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the teachers travelled to London on a training day. One is bound to ask why training days occur during term time when they could take

  1667
  place during school holidays. Children are often forced to take days off school because of teacher absences due to training or due to lobbies such as that described by the hon. Gentleman. There is ample opportunity for those activities to take place during the school holidays—which are substantial, although well deserved nonetheless.
  I crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments as I wish to refer to a matter which has been discussed many times on the Floor of the House in the past few weeks. Education in Bedfordshire was the subject of certain comments by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, who referred to the fact that Bedfordshire education authority has mounted a massive campaign against the Government. Although the financial settlement is tight, I believe that it will benefit my constituents and the teaching profession as a whole.
  In opening the education debate, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) made what I considered to be a most unfortunate speech—I have certainly heard him speak better on previous occasions—in which he castigated taxpayers for not pouring more money into the problem. That is a typical example of what Labour Members do if they are in any sort of difficulty—they chuck money at the problem and hope that it will go away. The Government take a more responsible approach. Many teachers, parents and school governors have written to Conservative Members about their difficulties and we could have agreed that more money would solve their problems. That would be the easiest way out. However, the Government are more responsible than the Labour party when it comes to spending other people's money.
  In my county of Bedfordshire, the approach of parents to education ranges from the ignorant to the very genuine—obviously, the majority fall into the latter category. However, there are parents—some of whom may also have written to my right hon. and hon. Friends—who display an ignorance about the education system which makes me wonder whether they have any idea what happens to their children between the time they leave them at the school gates and when they collect them, or deputise someone else to do so, at 3.30 pm.
  One constituent from the Sunden Park area was very abusive in his letter to me, using foul language which I shall not repeat to the House. I replied that as he was so oaf-like in his attitude to education he was not fit to have a child, let alone to demand that others look after that child on his behalf. Another constituent who wrote to me was distressed that the dinner supervisors could be made redundant due to education budget savings which would have to be made at the school. She protested that that would mean that she would have to pay more in child minding fees because her child could not come home for lunch when she was at work. Some parents use schools purely for child minding purposes and give no thought to education. That sort of ignorance distresses us greatly.
  The education debate should add a new dimension to parental responsibility. Some 99 per cent. of parents are entirely genuine in their concerns. They have written to me to express their fears at what might happen as a consequence of the savings which have been threatened by, in many cases, Labour and Liberal-controlled local authorities and which must be made in accordance with the Secretary of State's strictures. Like the majority of counties, Bedfordshire received an increase in its education budget and in its standard spending assessment, although one would not think so from reading the letters.
  1668
  I hope that there will be greater involvement by parents in schools and that they will take more responsibility for their children's education. In many cases, they leave it totally to the teaching profession, feeling that once their children are at the school gates they are somebody else's problem.
  I hope that there will be greater parental involvement in parent-teacher associations, which are doing reasonably well in my constituency but could do with a membership boost. I hope that there will be larger attendances at open evenings. One often hears from head teachers in particular the lament that parents do not turn up for open evenings and take no interest in their children's academic progress. I hope that more parents will stand for governing bodies. Sadly, in many schools where there are places for parents they have to be begged and cajoled to serve as governors, to assist schools and the community.
  If the strictures rightly being placed on schools are to do positive good, parents should understand that while they may lobby Members of Parliament—rightly, as the hon. Member for Bolsover said—and councillors, they must play a larger part in the education of their children and the running of schools. I hope that the several hundred parents who wrote to me will make it their business to help to ensure that their children receive a decent education and will become personally involved in the running of local schools.
  I am lucky to have in my constituency many excellent little schools and larger ones, and good teachers. However, I was disturbed to read national figures, which may not necessarily apply to my constituency, showing that the amount of time that teachers spend in the classroom is dropping. In some LEAs, teachers spend less than 70 per cent. of their time in front of classes during the course of a shortish day in terms of hours, albeit onerous in terms of the work to be done. Nevertheless, a figure of 70 per cent. or 75 per cent. is not good enough. Many savings could be made if the system allowed teachers to spend more time in front of their classes.
  I mentioned in response to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover the basis of so-called Baker days. At a time when teachers' holidays are rightly generous, it seems wrong for several more days to be taken up by training in school time. Only recently, a local school teacher was seen in town on a so-called Baker day, busily shopping for her family's needs. That may have been a minor exception, but it is incredible that training days must be taken when the school is open, when they could be held during the long summer holidays or other holidays that teachers rightly enjoy. To take a day away from teaching children is totally wrong.
  Why is it—the hon. Member for Bolsover may have the answer—that despite the assistance that the Government have given teachers, the massive rise in salaries, way above inflation, that the profession has enjoyed, and the fact that the number of teachers has not fallen during the past few years, one third of 14-year-old children have a reading age of 11? Are teachers happy with that situation, and is the taxpayer getting value for money? The majority of teachers, certainly in my constituency, are first class, but when the taxpayer is expected to fund additional pay to a profession already generously remunerated by comparison with some others in the private sector, the taxpayer is bound to ask why it is that levels of academic achievement do not seem to match the needs of employers.

  1669
  I remain concerned at head teachers who almost avoid going in front of classes. One appreciates that there are problems of supply and sick leave. In some cases, the situation is exploited. We all know of cases of teachers on extended sick leave who cannot be got rid of for one reason or another. The opportunity exists for head teachers to spend more time in front of classes. They may plead that they have administrative duties, but in spending more time at their desks than at the chalk face they are failing in their duty to children.
  I am close to the teachers in my constituency. In the past fortnight I have seen 24 head teachers in individual meetings. I am confident that my constituency has a first-class band of professionals, but improvements could be made to any system. I regret the campaign mounted by the Labour and Liberal-controlled Bedfordshire education authority which, in the words of the Conservative leader Mr. Philip Hendry, seems to want to heap a great deal of misery on parents, teachers and pupils for political advantage. When Bedfordshire's education budget was before the county council, two options were open—a 3.5 per cent. cut proposed by the Labour/Liberal majority and a 2 per cent. cut proposed by the Conservatives, which would have halved the number of proposed teacher redundancies. The council, being controlled by Labour and Liberal members, chose the former and then inevitably blamed the Government for the problems that would follow. It could easily have accepted a 2 per cent. budget cut, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on the Floor of the House.
  Over the past five years, Bedfordshire has enjoyed a real increase of 30 per cent. in its standard spending assessment. Where has that money gone? As a Member of Parliament, I cannot blithely tell the local education authority, "Of course I will go to the Secretary of State for Education and ask that more money be poured into your pot and of course I can go to the Secretary of State for the Environment and ask him to raise the cap", if I am not satisfied that the money will be properly spent. When a local authority that receives such an increase over five years still pleads poverty, makes teachers redundant and imposes substantial education cuts, one is bound to ask where the money has gone.
  I can give one example of the way that money was spent which may amuse Opposition Members—if not embarrass them, as it should. Bedfordshire recently received applications from 21 members of the public for a master's degree grant. As the House knows, many local education authorities do not have the money to fund such grants. A county council spokesman was quoted in Bedfordshire on Sunday for 29 January:
  "We have a general policy that we do not award discretionary grants for this type of degree."
  Only one such grant was made. It was—surprise, surprise—given to Councillor Adrian Heffernan, the Labour councillor for Leighton Buzzard. All 21 applications from the public were turned down, but, extraordinarily enough, the Labour and Liberal-controlled local authority made a grant for a master's degree to the Labour county councillor for Leighton Buzzard. Opposition Members accuse us of looking after our friends. Bedfordshire stands accused by me and by my hon. Friends representing constituencies in that county of not spending its money correctly and prudently. Yet the
  1670
  authority was able to afford to give a grant—of all the applications, it was the only successful one—to a Labour county councillor. I should add that the councillor expressed some surprise and embarrassment that his was the only application to be approved. Never let us stand accused of looking after our friends, bearing in mind the example that I have given of what is taking place—perhaps in a tiny way in some instances, but in a considerable way in others—in education authorities that are under Labour and Liberal control.
  Bedfordshire will battle through. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for putting us on our mettle and ensuring that we are giving the people of Bedfordshire value for money. I hope that the local education authority will take up the challenge, as have teachers, governors and pupils in my constituency. If the exercise is successful, as I believe that it will be, there may be openings for some form of growth next year. As things stand, however, the settlement was necessary and it has my full support.
  11.30 am
  Mr. Richard Burden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on her contribution to the debate. Her remarks were heard in silence by the House, which reflected their force. I hope that, even at this late stage, they will be conveyed to the Prime Minister.
  There was not just one important and controversial announcement yesterday transmitted by means of a written answer that should have been transmitted through a proper parliamentary statement. Apart from the announcement made by the Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for the Environment made a potentially important statement about mechanisms for water charging in future.
  The good news was that water companies would be allowed to go beyond the year 2000 using rateable values as a basis for charging for water. Like so many other things, however, there was bad news as well. The bad news outweighed the good news. For the first time, the Secretary of State stated that official Government policy was that metering should be the norm as a means of charging for water in future. The right hon. Gentleman's statement will be profoundly depressing to many people and organisations throughout the country. I have in mind organisations ranging from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and the National Consumer Council. Representatives of the water industry such as the Water Services Association and the Water Companies Association have warned of the problems involved in moving towards a compulsory system of water metering as the basis for charging for water.
  There are some fans of compulsory water metering, including the Director General of Water Services, Mr. Ian Byatt. His enthusiasm for compulsory water metering is well known. Over some time, he and Ministers have undertaken trials to assess compulsory water meters. There have been many well-founded reservations about the usefulness of the trials. The first trials took place on the Isle of Wight and in Bromsgrove. If, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you decided to select representative areas to determine whether water metering was a good idea or a bad idea and whether there would be technical problems,

  1671
  I do not think that you would select places such as the Isle of Wight and Bromsgrove. They were selected, however, some years ago.
  It is sometimes argued that compulsory water metering is a great environmental measure because it leads to the conservation of water. It is about time that the Government started to listen to those who say that if they, the Government, did rather more to reduce leakage of large amounts of water from pipes, much more could be done for conservation than would result from the imposition of compulsory water meters. If there is a conservation argument in support of water metering, I do not find it acceptable to say to consumers throughout the country that those who are expected to conserve water are those who cannot afford to pay their water bills. Compulsory water metering hits those on low incomes, those with large families and the disabled.
  There are some people who can benefit from the introduction of water meters. For years, they have had the right voluntarily to opt for the installation of a meter. We are now faced, however, with the thin end of the wedge that will lead to compulsory water metering. Ministers have said that they are not looking towards compulsory water metering, but we have seen over the past few years that new properties have water meters installed.
  A petition was presented to me a month or so ago from people in the Weoley Castle area of Birmingham. They had moved to a new housing estate. It was an example of new housing association property. My constituents are very pleased with their accommodation, but they were never asked whether they wanted water meters to be installed. They have the same needs now as they had when living in their previous homes but they had no choice when it came to the installation of water meters.
  We are faced with a developing two-tier system. Some people are having water meters forced on them. In the long term, perhaps, everybody will be in that position.
  There are other options. In December 1994, I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for the Environment, in which I asked him how much the water meter trials had cost consumers. I asked him also about the research that had been undertaken in assessing other charging mechanisms. The reply read:
  "The national metering trials cost £19 million. The Department of the Environment funded just under half of this amount. The water companies involved funded the rest. There are no proposals to undertake trials on other alternative charging mechanism."—[Official Report, 6 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 133.]
  There we have it. In fact, there is work to be done. There are other options. For example, we could consider updating rateable values as a means of charging for water. There is a real argument to support that option. There is a real argument also in support of using the council tax as a means of charging for water. Water companies have said that we should examine how the council tax could be so used. What would need to be done to the tax bands? How far could the council tax be related to water charges? Unfortunately, the Government are not prepared to spend one penny to ascertain how the council tax could be so applied. They have ruled out the use of the council tax and have opted for metering, with no apparent justification.
  I believe that the Government have adopted an opinion on what water, the supply of water and the reclamation of sewage are all about. Their opinion is very different from mine. It seems that the Government regard water as a
  1672
  commodity. They appear to take the view that we can have water in the same way as we can buy a pint of beer, or go to the local supermarket to buy other goods.
  Water is not like that. It is the most essential public service. It will remain a public service whoever owns it, whatever the charging methods and whatever regulatory system is in place. Supplying water and reclaiming sewage are public services. It is about time that we recognise that and introduce suitable systems for charging for them. It is not acceptable to treat the supply of water in the same way as the supply of a pint of beer. It is no more acceptable than using such a charging mechanism for the emptying of our bins or for sending our kids to school.
  We must recognise that water is a public service. I hope that, despite the written answer that appeared yesterday, Ministers will think again. I hope that the Leader of the House will provide time for a proper statement and debate on the water industry and the charging systems that should be adopted, fair and equitable systems that will be in the best interests of the most important people of all, the consumers—every one of us.
  11.38 am
  Mr. David Amess: I wish to raise three brief constituency matters before the House adjourns for the Easter recess. First, I was a member of this place when legislation was introduced in 1984 to enable television cabling to take place. In 1991, legislation was introduced to permit road works to take place as a result of cabling. We all have our views on cabling. Personally, I have no desire to sit down with a piece of machinery, flicking from channel to channel—I think that companies are offering 48 channels and that people will be able to shop by television, and there is also competition for telephones, and so on—but as a Conservative, I believe in choice and that the general public should have that opportunity.
  Let me return to 1984 and 1991. Perhaps I was not listening carefully to the debates then, but I had no idea of the impact that cabling would have on one's constituency when the contractors arrived. My constituency does not primarily have paving stones; it has tarmac. Ever since United Artists moved to my constituency, we have found that, week in week out, month in month out, a number of problems have been caused: water works exploding, electricity cut off, people's cars blocked in—all manner of problems. Although I am delighted that United Artists has its eastern headquarters in my constituency, with all the jobs that that has created, I do not think that the House looked carefully enough at that legislation and its impact on the lives of our constituents. I am less than happy with the way in which the contractors in my constituency have carried out their work.
  I must tell my colleagues on both sides of the House that when cable companies come to their constituencies—if they have not arrived already—they should learn by the mistakes from which my constituents have suffered over the past year. There was a public meeting in my constituency last Friday and a lively exchange between United Artists and my constituents. I hope that there will not be further problems.
  The second constituency matter that I wish to raise is housing. My constituency has been privileged to sell the highest number of council and commission houses in the

  1673
  country. That policy was fought line by line by the two socialist parties—the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. Of course, when it became popular and we won in 1983 and again in 1987, they changed their policy and became in favour of the sale of council houses. Then when we had the economic slump and mortgage rates increase, they decided that perhaps it was not such a good idea. Conservative Members have been entirely consistent on the sale of council and commission houses. It sickens me that socialist councillors in Basildon are running around the town at the moment, before the local elections are held on 4 May, trying to claim credit for matters for which they do not deserve any, and trying to pass on to other people criticism for which they are entirely responsible.
  Thanks to our excellent Conservative-controlled district council in Basildon and the Department of the Environment, money has been put into the estates. Work is being carried out to fit new roofs for the Vange, Crudons and Five Links estates. Later this afternoon, I very much hope to have a successful meeting with a Minister from the Department of the Environment, because, although the Government gave a great deal of money to redevelop the Crudons estate, there has been what I would describe as uneven treatment between the people who still rent and those who have purchased their properties. I was told yesterday that 29 home owners will have to pay for their new roofs. That is totally unfair. I also believe that the Department of the Environment must do all that it possibly can to enable the Five Links estate to be redeveloped.
  The final constituency point that I wish to raise concerns socialist-controlled Essex county council. It is interesting that, two years ago, the electorate in Essex were deceived into voting socialist. They were led to believe that both the Labour and the Liberal Democrat parties had become respectable—in other words, that they were capitalists and that socialism had been put by the by. The past two years in Essex have been a shambles because of the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition. They are socialists through and through and have caused absolute chaos in my constituency and the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink).
  Dr. Robert Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the vulnerable people in Essex who are suffering most because of the shambles caused by the socialist control of Essex? The old people and the disabled people are having their home care withdrawn. Because of the socialist control in Essex, £8.5 million was lost in the past year from the social service budget because the council was following politically correct policies.
  Mr. Amess: I could not agree more. Two weeks ago, when Essex county council submitted its budget, the alliance did not have the stomach for what it had been doing, so it pulled out of the arrangement. A Conservative budget has rescued Essex county council. Quite wickedly, the socialists in Essex absolutely devastated care in the community, which had been carefully worked out. As a result of their wicked, cruel policy, our hospital waiting lists were growing, our accident and emergency queues were lengthening and it was taking much longer to have an operation. All that was the result of socialist-controlled Essex county council.
  1674
  The socialists also caused chaos in education. They brought in, without any consultation, a policy of nursery education. I would have liked the issue of rising fives to have been addressed before they introduced that policy, causing great distress because of the differences between the schools that do not have nursery education and those that do. I congratulate the Conservatives on Essex county council who, as a result of their budget, have restored the Labour-Liberal alliance cut of £1 million. Primary education in Essex was going to be cut by £1 million. Care in the community has been restored as a result of the Conservatives. There will be no cuts in the fire service. That is all due to the Conservatives on Essex county council.
  Two years ago, the general public in Essex were deceived by a new type of socialism, which I have seen change dramatically ever since I became a Member in 1983. On Monday, an historic debate took place. Every year, the University college of London holds a president's debate; it has done so for 166 years. The motion is that this house has no faith in Her Majesty's Government. Only once had that motion been defeated in the 166-year history of that debate, until last Monday. I am delighted to say that that motion was defeated and a great many young people who attended that debate had their eyes well and truly opened as to the reality of socialism, which is very much alive.
  11.48 am
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: I wish to associate myself with the difficult speech that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), at the start of the debate. I thought that she put the case for mercy on behalf of her constituent very well.
  I shall concentrate mainly on the answer that the Secretary of State for the Environment chose to give in the form of a written answer, instead of a statement, to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) yesterday about charging for water. The Leader of the House will know that, on several occasions since last September, when the water industry put its points in a well-worked-out document to the Minister, I have asked in the House when the response would be made and when we would have a debate on the issue.
  I was, therefore, surprised and extremely disappointed that the Government's response crept out in a written answer the day before the Easter recess. The only good thing is that it is clear from the announcement that to extend the use of rateable values beyond the year 2000 will require parliamentary time after Easter. By raising the matter today, I seek to ensure that proper time will be given for a debate of the issue after the recess because everyone feels strongly about it.
  As the Minister knows, the only region where there has been a drive towards widespread metering is the Anglian region, where it caused so much public antagonism and outcry that Anglian Water, concerned about its deteriorating public reputation, decided to drop its policy of compulsory metering and, along with companies throughout Britain, to start to offer a choice to its customers. We want to ensure that there is no element of compulsion, for owners of new or of old properties, in yesterday's written answer. That is by no means clear at the moment.

  1675
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) was correct when he described the provision of water and sewerage as one of the most essential public services in Britain, not to be confused with a commodity that can be bought and sold by the pound or the pint.
  The delivery of water and sewerage cannot properly be measured by quantity in that way. The industry recognises that the treatment plants, piping and sewage plants account for approximately 85 per cent. of the industry's costs in delivering the water and sewerage service. A minimal amount—15 to 20 per cent.—is related to the volume of water and sewage that goes through a system. Therefore, water is not like other utilities. Metering is inappropriate for water and sewerage.
  With regard to conservation, the National Rivers Authority is concerned, first, to reduce leakage; secondly, to install more water-saving devices in people's homes; and, only then, to cut usage by metering, and it recognises that that has the disadvantage of putting pressure on families who are particularly hard up.
  I tabled a question, the answer to which will appear in Hansard today, asking how popular metering is in areas such as Northern Ireland where it does not exist at the moment. The answer was that not one household in Northern Ireland has asked for its water supply to be metered. That should be borne in mind. If there is choice, people will choose to have their water and sewerage priced on the valid basis on which we have charged for water and sewerage for more than 150 years—property values.
  The water industry, in its submission to the Government last September on property values, stated:
  "It is clear that a linkage to properties must remain."
  Why have the Government refused to listen to the industry's clear argument and, indeed, rejected it? The policy is clearly put forward by the industry because it leads to immense administrative savings. Every metered bill has an individual charge which has to be measured and which may result in an argument about the amount on which it is based. A property-based charging system offers administrative savings by cutting the overheads of the water industry. That is what we all want. We do not want expenditure in the water industry to be wasted either on top salaries or on unnecessary administrative overheads.
  I hope that the Leader of the House will draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for the Environment early-day motion 72, which was signed by no fewer than 210 hon. Members from all parties, recommending that probably the best way forward for charging for water and sewerage would be through an amended form of council tax bands, and saying that many finance officers in English and Welsh water companies are at a loss to understand why they cannot follow the lead set by Scotland in that regard.
  The reason for that is that the regulator of the Office of Water Services and the Government have almost an obsession with water metering which is leading them against the principle of consumer choice, and that will cause problems for them.
  In my area, Yorkshire Water took the step, endorsed by the board and the regional Ofwat customer services committee, of moving right away from compulsion, offering people in new and old properties a choice when it came to charging for water. That was popular in Yorkshire.
  1676
  The director general's reaction was to write to every other water and sewerage company expressing his disappointment at what Yorkshire Water had done and saying that he would ensure that its policy was strictly time limited so that a property-based system opted for by one householder would not apply to any subsequent owner-occupier. That is a rigid and unnecessary interpretation of a rule leading down the road of compulsory water metering.
  The Government missed a big opportunity yesterday to put charging for water on a sensible basis for the future. The only thing in favour of the Government is that yesterday's statement is strictly time limited. It has neither relevance nor credibility, because the water industry, its customers and the country are waiting rather impatiently for, first, the retirement of the water regulator and, secondly, the Government's defeat in the next general election. Only then will water and sewerage be brought firmly into public control where it rightly belongs.
  11.59 am
  Mr. David Nicholson: As one who is associated with the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) in the all-party water group, I hope that Ministers will take account of their concerns—although I cannot associate myself with some of their comments, particularly the hon. Lady's final observations.
  I also admired the powerful speech of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell)—not for the first time. Some years ago, I agreed with what he said about the rights of grandparents. I hope that the Government will not be shy of moving in the direction that he suggested; after all, if Opposition Members can be rigorous about such matters, we do not want to be outbid by them.
  I wish to raise several matters relating principally to local government. The first—of which I gave notice to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House during Thursday's business questions—I do not wish to pursue at length; I should prefer the issue of demographic assessments and their implications for housing developments in the regions of the south-west, particularly the counties, to be debated in one of our excellent Wednesday morning "subject" debates, so that a number of my hon. Friends who are equally concerned about it can participate. Nevertheless, I question here and now the assumption by demographic experts that the drift of employment to the south that took place during the 1980s and previous decades will continue into the next century. The recession, which is now ending, has made that a doubtful assumption.
  I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to remind the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that I await the satisfactory outcome of a proposal to which it has objected, because it involves the use of grade 1 land—the proposal involving Longforth farm, in my constituency. The community actually wants a housing development there—which is more or less unique nowadays—because it would bring infrastructure benefits to a town that faces considerable problems.
  Let me also put down a marker for legislation next year. I read in the press that legislation to abate noise nuisance may be postponed until the publication of the general election manifesto. I hope that that will not happen, because such legislation is badly needed. It irritates me

  1677
  that environmental health officers can go around bullying small shop owners because they have broken certain food hygiene rules, but can do nothing to stop noisy neighbours who make the lives of my constituents—and, no doubt, other people—absolute murder.
  We have debated the implications of the local government settlement for education on various occasions, but the picture is changing. The capping criteria were confirmed yesterday. We should remember that each local authority's circumstances are different. A limited agreement has been reached in Somerset between my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) and me, and members of the leading group on the county council: they have agreed to take funds from other budgets and put them into education, and we have agreed to support their action in exceeding the cap by 1 per cent., provided that that money is also put into education.
  If those councillors keep their side of the bargain, I shall certainly support them; but that does not mean that I agree with the way in which they are using their resources in other respects. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Carlisle) is not present, because he would warmly agree with me. The councillors are spending what will probably turn out to be hundreds of thousands of pounds on litigation, taking their case through the High Court to the Appeal Court and possibly further: they want to ban hunting on the Quantock hills, on the border between my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater. However we may feel about the issue—I know that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) disagrees with me—we must agree that that is not a sensible use of council tax payers' money, and it will not help Somerset's appeal to the Secretary of the Environment for more resources.
  There has been a tight financial settlement for local government in the coming year. I hope that every local authority—Somerset probably has a better reputation than many others in this respect—will concentrate its resources on front-line services rather than on bureaucracy and other matters to which I have referred. I hope that Somerset has been dissuaded from setting up county council offices in all the small towns. I also hope that we shall have a better overall settlement next year, as do my hon. Friends, and that the Government will give serious consideration to the area cost adjustment.
  In the mean time, as well as considering the way in which resources are allocated between different budgets, we must constantly ask whether schools are using their money effectively. I was delighted to read in The Times on Saturday that at long last—heaven knows, it has taken long enough—we are beginning to see certain reforms in schools. According to the article,
  "National tests for 11-year-olds are triggering a revival of traditional teaching methods in state primary schools … Multiplication tables, spelling bees, public gold stars rewarding children's progress and dividing classes by ability for some subjects … are making rapid returns as teachers revert to more formal techniques to prepare classes for government tests … Government inspectors have identified the sector"—
  the primary sector—
  "as the weak link in state education and last year reported that one third of lessons for children aged eight to 11 were unsatisfactory."
  1678
  I am delighted by that sign of improvement. National taxpayers and council charge payers who are paying for education, and for other local authority services, want the best possible value for money. I hope that we shall use the breathing space offered by the coming year's tight budgets to ensure that electors and children are given that value for money, before returning—I hope—to happier financial circumstances.
  12.6 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I bet the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) that Somerset charge payers would consider pursuing hunters on the Quantock hills and securing a ban on hunting an excellent use of council money. No doubt I shall be able to debate the issue with him at some future time; but in the five minutes allocated to me I, too, shall speak of value for money. I refer to the value for money—or lack of it in my view—provided by the sale of county hall, the riverside building that was the subject of a recent National Audit Office report, which has now been sent to the Public Accounts Committee.
  The building on the other side of the river is now in the hands of a Japanese company, Shirayama Shokusan. As the report admits, it is difficult to obtain details of the sale because of the confidentiality clauses inserted in the contract. Shirayama's original offer price was £60 million; but when the London School of Economics, which was also in the market for county hall, was forced to withdraw, Shirayama tried to force the price down.
  The report describes the negotiations that followed. Eventually Shirayama paid the London residuary body £50 million, the extra £10 million being deferred. That £10 million was to be paid in instalments out of profits from the development of county hall, which Shirayama said would become a hotel. The payments would begin in 1997 and end in 2012. Amazingly, Shirayama's statement—quoted in the report—reads as follows:
  "Consequently, the family has no such illusions or expectations in making any profit from this investment—even for more than two decades."
  I do not believe that London will ever see the deferred sum of £10 million, and that strikes me as a pretty rotten deal for Londoners.
  What is this Shirayama organisation that now has possession of one of London's prime sites? It is a private company. No independently verifiable information was available either to the Government or to the London residuary body: it is all in the report. No bank guarantee was offered for the purchase price, and other than county hall the company has no known assets in this country. Despite all that, however, Shirayama's offer and its accompanying proposal were accepted gratefully by a grovelling London residuary body, supported by the Government.
  What is Shirayama going to do with the building? Proposals reveal that it now aims
  "To develop facilities that are both exciting and unique for London itself—an attraction for the family such as a family entertainment centre. A more leisure and education orientated concept in comparison to having just a 'Hotel', which would comprise mainly of guests just sleeping over."
  That is not the only thing that people do in hotels, as the House found out recently, but the original proposal for which planning consent was given was for a hotel. The company is now changing the proposal.

  1679
  In November 1994, the concept of a hotel was dumped. Shirayama started talking about a Pacific Asia centre and suspended development pending a so-called London referendum on the use of county hall—what a way to handle a building on one of the prime sites of London, right opposite the Palace of Westminster. What sort of a deal is that for Londoners, who have been robbed by the London residuary body and that peculiar organisation called the Shirayama group, which is controlled by a family? Even the word "family" has a certain resonance in this context. It is not the nuclear family we hear about in this House; it is more like the family we hear about in the Mafia lands of Italy.
  There is a public interest in the disposal of county hall that has been totally ignored. The way in which it has been handled by this second-rate, shoddy, incompetent, unimaginative bunch of Ministers must contrast with how Paris would have handled it. If Jacques Chirac had been responsible for the development—and he is a right-winger—what would he have done? Would he have handed it over to the Japanese? Of course he would not. The building would have been used imaginatively and it would be something of which all London could be proud.
  Who can have any confidence in the Shirayama organisation to redevelop county hall, either in terms of a concept because it does not have one, or in terms of its future financial backing? The Government could still do something about it by extricating Shirayama from the deal, which I am confident will never turn into a proper development.
  If the Government will not do so, I say to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that, as nothing will have happened by the next election, there is an opportunity for the next Labour Government to take back county hall and use it for the purpose for which it was constructed—as the home of a Greater London authority.
  12.11 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The House should not break for the Easter recess without recording our congratulations to the parents of Gravesend grammar school for boys who voted by 70 per cent. to become a grant-maintained school. A number of my hon. Friends representing Kent have tabled early-day motion 962 recording that fact.
  It was a successful campaign led by the chairman of the governors, Eric Hammond, who the House will recall was general secretary of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union. He led a successful campaign that was best described in the Evening Standard on 14 March, when he was quoted as saying,
  "It is not in our interests to be tied to an expensive bureaucracy."
  By that, he meant Lib-Lab controlled Kent county council. He continued:
  "Like Mr. Blair, we are putting the interests of the children first. I would like to see the Labour party becoming wholehearted in its support for grant-maintained schools."
  Gravesend grammar school for boys will join nine other schools in the borough of Gravesham that have become grant-maintained and have made considerable progress. St. George's Church of England school has put a great deal of money and effort into improving the site and Northfleet high school for boys said that freedom to
  1680
  allocate its resources has allowed it to invest in its curriculum, its buildings and better staffing and to transfer resources from administration to the curriculum.
  Southfields school, which, sadly, under Kent county council control was at the bottom of the performance tables, has increased its staff by two, reversed and eradicated its deficit, put new furniture in every classroom and provided a new computer network for pupils, and its results are improving all the time. It is extremely encouraging.
  The decision is notable because of the hostility of the Labour and Liberal-controlled Kent county council. When that unholy alliance took control of Kent county council, it immediately diverted £100,000 of education funds to fight grant-maintained schools. I have asked the council for the figure that it has spent so far on fighting grant-maintained schools, but it would not tell me. I have calculated that it is already up to about £250,000.
  Last Wednesday, we had a debate on education cuts, during which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), speaking for the Opposition, alleged that
  "under the Conservatives, in the late 1970s, Kent county council undertook a major study of the impact of the voucher system in nursery education? Kent spent £9 million of public money on that experiment, and then abandoned it."
  That was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and the hon. Member for Brightside went on to say:
  "Yes, it cost £9 million to undertake a prolonged experiment in one part of Kent. The fact that Conservative Members do not know what happened is a good reason why they should start to listen and to learn, instead of talking about inflicting vouchers on the rest of Britain".—[Official Report, 29 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 1037.]
  Yesterday, on Radio Kent, the hon. Member for Brightside withdrew that allegation. He has been asked to apologise for misleading the House, but so far he has refused to do so. I must admit to a certain amount of sympathy for the hon. Member for Brightside because he received those allegations from the Labour group on Kent county council. They turned out to be bogus allegations and they have embarrassed the Labour party education spokesman in the House.
  I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Brightside because now he knows how Kent parents have felt over the past few months as they have been fed a series of bogus figures by the Lib-Lab controlling group on the county council, which claims that Government funding has been cut when in fact it has been increased by 2 per cent. The Lib-Lab pact has imposed a 5 per cent. increase in its council tax demand in Kent and simultaneously is cutting school budgets in real terms, underfunding the teachers' pay settlement, slashing adult education funding by 20 per cent., cutting out discretionary grants to students and hitting many other services.
  I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) whose county of Essex is suffering the same unholy alliance of Labour and Liberal Democrat. He told us that when it came to cutting the education budget—a proposal by the Lib-Lab pact—the Liberals lost their nerve and ran away, hence the Conservative budget, which would have preserved the budgets of schools, has been retained in Essex. I wish only that Kent had had typical Liberals who run away from hard decisions, so that a Conservative county council budget could have preserved education spending in our county. The people

  1681
  of Kent now have to watch their schools being under-resourced because the Labour party wants to make some cheap party-political point.
  12.17 pm
  Ms Tessa Jowell: I join hon. Members who condemned the manner of the Secretary of State's announcement yesterday about the future of London hospitals. It is a great pity that she did not listen to her Cabinet colleague, the Secretary of State for Wales. I should like to speak about two aspects of her announcement yesterday: first, her decision in relation to Guy's hospital and, secondly, her decision in relation to the kidney unit at Dulwich hospital.
  This morning, like other hon. Friends, I received a letter from the Minister for Health. He says, by way of explanation for the decision yesterday:
  "In reaching this decision she"—
  the Secretary of State—
  "has taken account of the concerns and views expressed during consultation, including those from local Community Health Councils and MPs".
  Let me make it clear that, in the course of the consultation to which the Minister of Health refers, the health commission received 52 letters in favour of its proposals, the majority of which were from staff directly or indirectly associated with St. Thomas's hospital. It received 542 letters and 3,000 postcards against and the House received a petition presented by a number of my hon. Friends which comprised 1 million signatures pledged by people up and down the country in support of Guy's hospital.
  The Minister's letter continued:
  "Guy's will continue as a major hospital, especially geared to the needs of local people."
  It cannot do so without its accident and emergency department and the necessary in-patient beds to support the work of that department. Indeed, the proposals have been condemned by consultants at Guy's as being clinically unsafe. They do not believe that it is safe to conduct minimally invasive surgery without intensive care and other back-up facilities on site. It will put patients' lives at risk to shuttle them, as proposed, between Guy's and St. Thomas's if something goes wrong.
  It is also important to remember that primary care in that part of south-east London is among the worst in the country. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us whether she intends to put in the £28 million that the health commission said would be essential to ensure that improvements in the quality of primary and community health services could be achieved.
  The Minister's letter refers to the accident and emergency department not being closed until alternative and related services are fully equipped to provide improved services for patients. We want to know whether that £28 million will be invested, as without it those improvements cannot be achieved.
  I want to raise the issue of the Dulwich kidney unit, which is to be moved to Guy's hospital in the face of opposition by every member of staff and every patient at the unit. The Secretary of State should never again come to the House and say that the national health service reforms are about patient choice. If they were, patients at
  1682
  the kidney unit—all of whom suffer from long-term and disabling diseases—would have been listened to and their unit would not have been tampered with.
  12.21 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I want to refer to the opposite side of the coin from the many hon. Members who have referred to the way in which local government spends money. I want to talk about how it raises money, with particular reference to the rating revaluation and the uniform business rate. I want to raise three particular issues, but first I shall put them in the context of a constituency which, in the summer of 1993—the year in which businesses were revalued—received assisted area status on the ground of endemic high unemployment, and whose country areas are already covered by the Rural Development Commission in recognition of rural poverty and deprivation.
  The first issue is tourism, which is important to my constituency, and caravan holiday parks. There has long been a debate about how we rate holiday homes. Agreement was reached in 1990, but this year the Valuation Office unilaterally threw out that agreement, with the net result of an increase in rateable value at some of the caravan parks of, for example, 130 per cent. for one farmer, of 120 per cent. and 110 per cent. for the two parks belonging to Cinque Ports Leisure, 165 per cent. for Oakley Leisure, and 200 per cent. for Shearburn.
  Notwithstanding the transitional grant, it does not take a genius to work out that even at the end of five years, those businesses will not even reach their uniform business rate level by the time that they have to be revalued again. I strongly recommend that the Valuation Office sits down with the industry and works out a long-term solution to the problem of valuing caravan parks, so that businesses do not face such crippling demands.
  My second point relates to the pub industry. Those of us who have followed the issue for some time know that beer orders have led directly to some very large rental increases by companies such as Inntrepreneur. I understand that, in the revaluation, the Valuation Office had to take the size of rentals into account. The only problem is that many of the pubs are now being let to holding managers—so that the companies can hang on to the licences—at rents of anything between nothing and £160 per week. It is hard when a local pub faces an average increase of 50 per cent., with some such as the Queen's Head at Icklesham and the Bridge Inn at Winchelsea facing double that. Again, I recommend that the Valuation Office takes into account the reality of pub rents in that sector and significantly reduces the valuations, taking a more realistic account of the rents being charged in Inntrepreneur pubs.
  Finally, I want to refer to the discrepancies between similar businesses in similar locations. Some of the discrepancies in Hastings have been very large. I was first alerted to the problem when one business woman told me that she had had an increase of 35 per cent. in an area where, over seven years, her takings had gone down from £3,000 to £700 a week. Since then, complaints have poured in from all sectors, including manufacturing and coastal amusements. Of course, in the latter case the problem has been eased because of the provision in the Finance Bill relating to amusement machine tax. Businesses feel very sore about the valuation increases.

  1683
  The differences between businesses have resulted in an average—calculated by Hastings borough council—increase of 30 per cent. for leisure businesses and 26 per cent. for commercial businesses.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) wish to be associated with my remarks about this problem. East Sussex has two district valuation offices—one in Brighton, where the average increase in rateable value has been 5 per cent. for Brighton, 5 per cent. for Hove and 6 per cent. for Lewes; and one in Eastbourne, where the average increase has been 24 per cent. for Wealden, 20 per cent. for Rother, 17 per cent. for Hastings and 22 per cent. for Eastbourne. Nobody understands why there should be such a difference. The Valuation Office must investigate that fully and at least run some test cases to find out where the discrepancies have arisen and why.
  In the meantime, valuation offices will be swamped with appeals, some of which started a few days ago. The problem will take years to sort out, so the effect on business cashflows will be drastic. Businesses need reassurance that the problems will be resolved, that the appeals will be heard quickly and that financial hardship will be minimised. Perhaps the increases should not be enforced until all that is sorted out.
  12.27 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Several hon. Members have raised the issue of education cuts. In Derbyshire, there is great anger and bewilderment about education cuts in that county, which are shared by teachers, parents and governors. I have previously explained the details of those cuts to the House.
  The bewilderment arises because people do not understand how the Government can act in the way that they have with standard spending assessments over a period of time, without taking into account the position in schools. If only, somehow, Members of Parliament and others could get the ear of the Secretary of State and explain the details, perhaps, as with taking icons to the tsar, the position would be understood and she would respond. However, that is not the case. The Government understand the position, but they are unwilling to change. That fact has created considerable anger.
  A number of teachers were among those at the demonstration, rally and lobby last Wednesday, when constituents presented massive numbers of petitions to hon. Members representing Derbyshire. If one had asked those teachers why they has come on that lobby, they would have said that they felt that it was their duty to be there. They never imagined that, in any circumstances, they would turn up at a lobby on educational matters, but the circumstances have forced them to do so.
  Councillors and, in particular, governors in Derbyshire have been placed in the most unenviable position. The problem for governors is whether to set deficit budgets or to resign from their positions. In Dronfield school in my constituency, a number of governors have taken the resignation route. That has occurred with the entire body at Newbold school in the Chesterfield constituency. Individuals have had to make almost impossible choices. No one should be placed in the position in which parents, teachers and governors have been placed in Derbyshire. That view must be clear to the Government before we go into recess.
  1684
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned disablement and the closure of the Remploy works at Alfreton, with the loss of 74 jobs. I associate myself entirely with his comments. It will be no surprise to the Leader of the House that I should like to use this opportunity to say something more about disablement and the treatment of disabled people.
  The measure that all organisations representing disabled people want to become law—the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill—has been shunted away, and has had to stand in a Committee queue. Its consideration by the House is being held up. A number of private Members' Bills have been introduced. Four have already been dealt with, and the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill is in Committee.
  The Government have had no dispute with any of those Bills. Two of them have been Government Bills and have been picked up by private Members. Despite the fact that the Second Reading of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was supported by 175 votes to nil, and despite overwhelming support across all parties for that measure, the Government have quietly pushed the thing away—we have not seen blood let on the Floor of the House, as happened in the previous year—so that it must stand in the queue in the Committee corridor. That wait must end.
  I hope that the Bill in Standing Committee C will get through this morning and that, after the Easter recess, we will be able to move forward with the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Much must be done in connection with that Bill, given that it fills the gaps in the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill. I hope that the Leader of the House will respond to ordinary hon. Members' concerns that the measure that they strongly supported has not been given the proper consideration that it should have received.
  12.33 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I say how grateful the House is to my right hon. Friend Leader of the House for being here for the debate? He sets a standard that will be difficult for his successor to follow, and he has covered most Government Departments.
  Having served both as a junior Minister and, while the Chief Whip allowed, as the parliamentary private secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), I am reminded of the two words used in memorial to his father—fairness and integrity. Those characteristics are common to his father, to him and to the Secretary of State for Health.
  There are two sides to the health issue. One involves the revelation in today's Daily Mail that the Labour party does not propose to spend new money, that it wants to use tricks, and that it thinks that the health service makes a minimal contribution to the health of the nation. That issue deserves a debate by itself.
  On the changes in London, for some time, I have been campaigning to persuade the Ministry for Defence to let go of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital in Woolwich, which it said that it would need until the end of the century. I said that it would change its mind. I also told the local health commissioning agency and the Greenwich Healthcare trust that they should try as hard as they can to bring most of Greenwich district hospital and Brook

  1685
  general hospital services across Shooters hill to the Queen Elizabeth military hospital site. I am glad that yesterday's announcement confirmed that.
  Although arguments persist about the neurosciences and neurosurgery—they have been going on since before I was a Member of Parliament and I first heard them in 1974—it is right to move in the cardio-thoracic services, although, over the decades, many campaigns have taken place to keep regional services outside the centre of London. I suspect that, in time, the commissioning agencies will allow neuroscience departments to be based further out from London, whether at Queen Mary's hospital, Sidcup, or further out on the line from Maidstone to Guildford.
  I have talked to doctors in Greenwich and those covering my constituency of Eltham. They want decisions to be made. When I ask them whether Guy's and St. Thomas's acute services are duplicated, they say no. I understand that the medical staff at Guy's and St. Thomas's agree that those services should not be duplicated and that, whichever site is chosen for the main acute hospital, people will benefit if they are brought together. The longer the delay, the more resources are sucked out of the region between inner and outer London—the location of my constituency—and the worse services become.
  Secondly, I wish that the media and Members of Parliament would say more about the development of primary and community services. In my constituency, the Feathers project, the Hilltop nursery at Memorial hospital and the developments in general practitioner services have made an immense difference to people's lives.
  I do not want to get into a vendetta with the Evening Standard. However, I was rung up by one of its journalists this morning who said that it was conducting a survey into whether Tory Back Benchers would vote against the Government or with the Labour party on a debate on London's health service. I asked what the question was. He said that it is all about Bart's, so I said that some concerns existed in relation to Bart's, but that that was not the issue that most people were getting excited about.
  The journalist then said that the question was not about Bart's but about something else. I said that I was not capable of commenting on such matters, but that I could tell him that yesterday's announcement in a written answer about developing community, primary and hospital services for people in my constituency was much to be welcomed, and that I would give my loyal support not only to the Government but to the practice of developing medicine, which had a continuity going back even to the last Labour Government.
  12.37 pm
  Mr. Jim Dowd: I shall be as brief as I can. I know that most people blanch when hon. Members say that, but I shall try to stick to that promise.
  On yesterday's announcement—if that is what it was—on changes to acute service provision, particularly in our part of south-east London, I endorse what other hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell), have said about the validity of the process. A distinct feeling exists in my part of Lewisham that yesterday's announcement was simply the latest stage
  1686
  in a conspiracy to reduce hospital provision in south-east London, and London generally, which was launched pre-Tomlinson, and which has been unaltered by anything that has happened.
  I served on an area health authority—the Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark area health authority—in 1976. I went on to serve on its successor—the Lewisham and North Southwark district health authority. In 1976, at least 16 hospitals existed in south-east London alone. Today, there are but four, so it is not the process of change that people in south-east London are worried about; it is the nature of that change.
  The old area health authority had to be suspended by the then Secretary of State, Patrick, now Lord, Jenkin, because of its refusal to support the closure of St. John's hospital in the early 1980s. That hospital has closed. Therefore, the process of change in health care acute provision in south-east London is nothing new.
  It is the third time in precious few years that a major consultation exercise has taken place in Lewisham and in my part of south-east London. The first was on the establishment of the then "flagship" Lewisham and Guy's trust. The second was after that was dismantled and Lewisham was set up as a separate trust and Guy's and St. Thomas' were put together for other reasons, and the third has been on the future of those plans since. On every occasion, there has been overwhelming opposition but it has counted for nothing at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) detailed the figures involved and the petition that was presented to the House.
  Most of the responses to the health authority's most recent consultation document came from people in my part of Lewisham, apart from those which came from people in the area immediately around Guy's hospital itself, which is understandable. That was largely because those people use Lewisham and King's predominantly for accident and emergency services and know that those hospitals cannot cope as they are, let alone if the accident and emergency department at Guy's were to close.
  Even if the money earmarked for improvements at Lewisham, for example, were spent, it would be enough only to bring that hospital up to an acceptable standard. At a recent meeting with the regional health authority, one of the officials admitted that the department was undersized. When I asked him what that meant, he said that it was too small and inadequate. I hope that there will be opportunities for the House to debate and vote on these matters, which is the least that the people of south-east London deserve.
  12.42 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: We have had a useful morning of speeches, which has proved the wisdom of moving this debate to Wednesday mornings. The fact that 20 Back Benchers have contributed is probably a record, and it is important that we maintain this sort of opportunity for hon. Members. I should like to comment on as many as possible of those speeches, but 20 is a lot so I may have to be brief. I congratulate the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) on setting us off to such a good start by proving that a very strong case can be made in a short and concise speech.
  The point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the way in which the death warrant for Bart's has been issued in an answer to a parliamentary written question is one

  1687
  that should concern the whole House. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House share his concern not only about the decision that was made yesterday but about the way in which that decision was announced to hon. Members. We should not underestimate the importance of abiding by the appropriate procedures in such cases.
  Several hon. Members raised the question of health care in London and the decision by the Secretary of State for Health yesterday. The points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) as well as by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will have to be taken on board. It is important that the House has a full opportunity to come back to the issue.
  As my hon. Friends have said, it is a question not just of the Secretary of State not consulting but of deceiving people and pretending that the Government are listening to patients when, in fact, they are depriving patients of choice and not creating the localised hospitals that the Secretary of State for Wales advocated just this week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West said, it is not the process of change that alarms people but the nature of the proposed changes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) made a very sensitive speech dealing with the difficult issue of her constituent Nicholas Ingram, who is awaiting execution in the United States. Every hon. Member should be worried about that case, and the silence in which my hon. Friend was heard demonstrates that we all understand the difficulties facing her constituent and his family. I hope that the Prime Minister will hear of her comments and take heed of her request.
  The right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) raised again the subject of construction contracts, which was raised in a similar debate before the previous recess. We share many of his concerns about the future of the construction industry. I hope that, as well as noting the points that he made, the Government will take on board the need to release the capital receipts of local authorities, which would do much more to boost the construction industry and quickly counter problems such as unemployment. I do not understand why the Government refuse to act upon that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) raised another problem which concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House—the dangers of joyriding and the tragic deaths that have occurred in his constituency and, I am afraid, in all too many of our constituencies. Many of us are extremely worried about that. It is a fact that, compared with 1979, we now have twice the chance of becoming victims of car crime and three times the chance of becoming victims of burglary or violent crime. Many people do not understand why crime has risen so dramatically under the Government or why the Government do not take those problems more seriously.
  The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) raised points about local government with which I do not want to deal in detail. However, with any local government reorganisation, there is always the problem of balancing decisions made on the basis of numbers with decisions about what constitutes a local community. I do not think it should be just a numbers game.
  1688
  The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry), who I am glad to see here, raised some very real problems associated with the travel industry and in particular those affecting our constituents who think that they have got a good deal and discount only to find that they have not got all that they expected because of the ties that go with the deal. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that, while I share his concerns, some of which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), it would have been wise, especially today, for the hon. Gentleman to have mentioned his interest in the travel industry, if only to say that his comments were not based on any self-interest.
  Sir Peter Fry: Would the hon. Lady like to specify what self-interest I am supposed to have? I have been in the House quite long enough to know that I must declare any interests. I have no interest in the travel industry. Would she substantiate that challenge or kindly withdraw it?
  Mrs. Taylor: I was simply referring to the fact that the Register of Members' Interests says that the hon. Gentleman is associated with the coach industry and with the Sally Line. I am not saying that he was speaking on their behalf but it would have been wise to declare that interest to show that he was not.
  Sir Peter Fry: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The interest, which relates to advice given to the Sally Line and to some coach operators, is nothing whatsoever to do with the advertising of air fares or holiday insurance. That surely is stretching the argument about interest far too far. If we are going to get that kind of jibe from members of the Opposition Front Bench, perhaps it is time that some of us got back at some Opposition Members who are taking money and not declaring it in the Register of Members' Interests.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I think that hon. Members are fully aware that it is up to the hon. Member concerned if he or she feels that an interest should be declared.
  Mrs. Taylor: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that if the hon. Gentleman has any such information he should contact the Registrar of Members' Interests.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned job losses at Remploy in his constituency. Many of us are concerned about the long-term future of Remploy and understand the difficulties that face many disabled people working in those situations. I know that travelling to appropriate places of work is particularly difficult for disabled people. I also share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) that the Government's unwillingness to consider his Bill further and give it time is causing difficulties for many people.
  I found incredible the comments of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) about education. I found his speech incredible. He made many attacks on teachers for taking Baker days which were, of course, introduced by a Conservative Government. More incredibly, he criticised pupils for not learning enough and tried to blame teachers. He made the strange suggestion that there were more teachers now than there had been. I have checked the figures. In 1979, there were 425,000 full-time equivalents in England and Wales. In 1993, the last year

  1689
  for which figures are available, there were 365,000—a drop of 60,000. That means that class sizes are increasing and that there are now more than 1 million children in primary classes of more than 30. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the quality of education, he should pay more attention to the need to reduce class sizes.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Taylor: No because I have no time.
  The issue of the water industry was raised this morning. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) have ably outlined the difficulties that will face us if the Government try to impose on the regulator an instruction to introduce compulsory water metering. During their time in the House, both my hon. Friends have highlighted the problems of the water industry, and are to be congratulated on that.
  If we have compulsory water metering or any forced extension of water metering, it will be hard on many people, including those who can least afford it, but who need the service. The water industry was developed as a public service because of public health considerations. If we go down the wrong track and if people are unable to afford this vital service—it is not a commodity—we shall create many problems for ourselves.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough has had much success in her campaign on water, not least getting Yorkshire Water to abandon its approach to compulsory water metering. I hope that other water companies will follow suit. Compulsory metering is not the answer to conservation problems or to the problem of pricing; my hon. Friends are right. I have learnt with interest that the water industry itself—both the Water Services Association of England and Wales and the Water Companies Association—has criticised the decision by the Secretary of State for the Environment. It says:
  "We hope this doesn't mean the thin end of the wedge towards universal compulsory metering for all domestic customers. We would certainly fight that on behalf of our customers very hard indeed."
  Even the industry does not agree with the Secretary of State for the Environment, whose announcement yesterday was worrying.
  This has been a useful debate despite the limited time. I congratulate right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part and I hope that we can use such occasions equally well in future.
  12.51 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for allowing me a few precious seconds from his time to enable me to record, as I am sure the House would like me to do, my thanks to not one, but three Secretaries of State for the Environment for the introduction, on behalf of all my constituents, of a unitary authority—the first in the United Kingdom—which met on Monday this week. Does that not show that Conservatives believe in a lighter touch on the tiller of government? At a stroke, the Isle of Wight has gone from being the most over-governed constituency in the United Kingdom to one of the least governed.
  12.52 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), for whose words I am grateful, has increased to 21 the number of people who have spoken from the Back Benches in this debate. That is a record, certainly during the three years in which I have wound up these debates, and amply justifies the combined efforts of myself, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) which succeeded in reinstating, in the new form of "matters to be considered", what used to be known as the recess Adjournment motion.
  Most hon. Members, recognising that I am likely to be under some time constraint by the end of the debate, have kindly acknowledged that what they are principally asking me to do is to ensure that their points are passed on in the appropriate quarters. I immediately give that undertaking. There is, however, one additional point to insert which enables me, I hope with absolute justification and courtesy, to avoid commenting on four or five speeches.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) by now will know, and as the world will know shortly through the annunciator, his private notice question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has been granted for this afternoon. There will, therefore, be opportunities for my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), for Dulwich (Ms Jowell), and for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) to raise further the matters they have sought to raise with me today. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is alerted to the points that they have raised with me.
  I shall briefly deal with as many of the speeches as I can comment on in the seven minutes remaining to me. Like everyone who has spoken in the debate, I understand and respect the reasons for the way in which the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) referred to the case of her former constituent, Mr. Ingram, and his situation in the United States. Hon Members also have every understanding of the efforts that Mrs. Ingram is making. The hon. Member for Cambridge referred to the letter the Prime Minister had written to Mrs. Ingram, of which I have a copy. My right hon. Friend concluded:
  "With the deepest regret, there are no proper grounds for the British Government to intervene with the state of Georgia."
  I cannot add to that from the Dispatch Box, but I will, of course, ensure that the hon. Lady's remarks this morning are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his return from Washington later today.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) spoke about the Latham report to which, as he knows, I have adopted a sympathetic approach. I can tell my right hon. Friend, as he probably already knows, that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is prepared, in principle, to consider legislation on contractual matters relating to the construction industry and that he intends to issue consultation papers shortly. In my capacity as the person responsible for the legislative programme, I can tell my right hon. Friend that I have taken careful note of his remarks.

  1691
  My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) referred to a number of aspects of education in Bedfordshire and made points about parents, teachers and the county council. He will not expect me to be able to cover all of them. However, I make the point that the updated parents charter launched in June 1994 makes a significant contribution to, and underpins, the efforts of parents in taking the interest in education that my hon. Friend is rightly anxious to see.
  The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) attracted sympathy from all hon. Members with his remarks about joyriding and about crime generally. I say, gently, that the hon. Gentleman might have referred, in calling for the Government to take action, to the fact that it is only three years since the Government took speedy action and introduced the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992. The Act significantly increased the penalties available for the kind of joyriding that the hon. Gentleman described. More recently, we ensured that secure training orders, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, would apply to persistent joyriders between 12 and 14. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party abstained from the vote on the proposition, and therefore did not support it.
  The Government have acted significantly to increase the penalties for causing death by dangerous driving. Fourteen to 17-year-olds can be detained under section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 for up to the adult maximum of 10 years. That Act was affected by more recent legislation concerning the adult maximum. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the problems have been, and will continue to be, taken seriously.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) made some points about local government in Devon which he wanted me to pass on. Some of the points
  1692
  were made directly to me only last weekend or the weekend before when I undertook engagements in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). I am getting representations about Devon from all directions; I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is aware of them.
  The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a number of points about Remploy. I hope that he will acknowledge that the Government give substantial support to Remploy—about £90 million a year out of a total support of employment programme of £140 million. The Government cannot, of course, entirely insulate Remploy, any more than any other company, from competition, although they are working with the company to tackle the current downturn in textiles and are helping it with diversification programmes. On Alfreton, the hon. Gentleman might have acknowledged that in the proposals currently under discussion—the merger date has been postponed until the discussions with the employees and the unions have been concluded—the company would intend to ensure that transport was available for those who needed it and would meet any additional transport costs. If the proposal were to be adopted, at least some of the hon. Gentleman's objections would be met.
  In the remaining minute, I clearly do not have time to cover the subjects of water charges, education and other matters in Kent and Essex, population growth in Somerset, county hall and the like. I have taken careful note of all those points and I shall ensure that they are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friends.
  Although we have a few more hours to go, I shall conclude by wishing the Chair and the House a happy Easter recess.

  Compulsory Purchase (Compensation)
  1 pm
  Mr. Michael Alison: I am glad to have this brief opportunity to raise the matter of statutory compensation for individuals whose land has been taken, used or damaged and whose entitlement to compensation arises from some provision in law. The scope of my concern includes the taking of land for highway works, the use of land for pipelines and cables, and damage to land caused by coalmining. A number of my constituents have concerns and interests in those categories, and there can be few Members of Parliament who do not have constituents affected by those matters.
  I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment in his place. Although I shall touch on matters that concern both the Department of Transport and the Department of Trade and Industry, the responsibility for administering the compulsory purchase procedure rests with the Department of the Environment.
  My concern is not on this occasion about the use of compulsory powers. I am focusing on the right of those affected to be paid proper compensation and, where there is any dispute, to secure a just and proper settlement. It is contrary to the intention of the law and to natural justice for claimants to be exposed to excessive delay and considerable costs in order to secure payment where they reasonably believe that the compensation offered is inadequate.
  Where a claim arises, the parties normally seek to settle the amount of compensation by negotiation; where they cannot reach agreement, there is a right to refer the matter to the Lands Tribunal. That tribunal is a division of the High Court, and it has the duty to resolve disputed valuations that arise in a wide range of circumstances.
  Appeals to the High Court can he made relatively easily by way of case stated by the tribunal. For many, that arrangement works perfectly well, but it takes a considerable time for a case to be brought before the Lands Tribunal, and the costs involved are invariably substantial. I make no criticisms of the Lands Tribunal, but its provision is not enough to secure justice for those who are entitled to, but lack, compensation.
  The tribunal is not a suitable remedy, because many of the sums in dispute amount to only a few thousand pounds. Not many people will assume the risk of instructing counsel, their solicitor, their chartered surveyor and, where necessary, other experts, to prepare a case for the Lands Tribunal to pursue a claim of perhaps only £5,000. The cost of those advisers will be considerable, and the fees will be payable as the case progresses—spanning perhaps two, and often more, years.
  Sustaining the case, evaluating the arguments and attending to all matters without knowing the outcome places considerable stress on all those involved. Farmers are usually naturally isolated in their business, and the stress involved can have a damaging effect on their health and viability. The risk of being faced with the costs of the other party to the dispute is a further major deterrent to going to the tribunal.
  The incidence of delay and risk, and the need for constant reappraisal, is a normal, necessary and unavoidable part of going to law. But it must be remembered that the claim that I am discussing arises because the claimant has had his land taken, used or
  1694
  abused by the other party, usually under the provision of statutory powers, for a particular purpose. The claimant sometimes has no choice but to go to law. But that approach can effectively deny him the right to his due compensation.
  I can illustrate my concern by reference to three scenarios. The first involves the taking of land by the Department of Transport—now the Highways Agency—for a new road scheme. Many property owners suffer loss during the construction period, for which they should be paid compensation. In a paper sent to the Department of Transport on 18 February 1994, the Country Landowners Association set out 23 cases of serious loss to landowners.
  The cases ranged from cows that had died after eating hay in a field into which noxious dust had blown, the loss of production in a factory after a drain became blocked by silt and the building was flooded, and the loss of water from a metered farm water supply pipe that had to be diverted, but was faultily reinstated. All those losses arose as a direct result of the construction works for which the claimants' land was acquired. The losses were undeniable, but liability for the claims was denied by the Department of Transport and, in the case of the dead cows, the contractor had gone out of business.
  Settlements are made on the basis of third-party claims, but they are made at a low level, without admission of liability. The claimants feel, rightly, that they are entitled to compensation for their true loss. They decide, however, that the difference between the offer that they may receive and their full loss—or their full loss when no offer is made—is too little to justify a reference to the Lands Tribunal. As a result, they feel—and are, in truth—let down and cheated by the system.
  Secondly, the right of water companies to serve notice on owners and occupiers, and subsequently to enter on to land to carry out work, can create difficulties. The claimant is left to make a claim on the water company after the works have started, and he will still be seeking payment for the whole or part of his claim for loss of value and disturbance when the works are finished, and sometimes long after. That allows the water companies, which are now in the private sector and aim to maximise profits for their shareholders, to use their powerful position to oblige the claimant to come chasing after them for compensation.
  I know that water companies claim that they do not abuse their powers and, from their perspective, they may be right in most cases. But for the landowner and occupier, the position is different. The right to use the land must, without demur, be made available to the water company, and it is then a matter of trying to settle the proper basis for compensation. That is akin to a stern chase—trying to catch up a departing body from behind.
  The problems for claimants include disputes over the basic value of the land, the cost to the business caused by the works themselves and the reinstatement costs of works to the surface, to land drains and to non-agricultural properties. Where the claim is not agreed—the negotiations are often difficult—the owner has the option of accepting the water company's offer, having already suffered the works, or of taking the matter to the Lands Tribunal.
  Few people have taken water companies to the tribunal, because the disputed sums are usually too small for it to be worth while. Water companies know better than

  1695
  anyone else that the cost and risk of a reference encourages, if not obliges, the claimant to accept their usually inadequate offer.
  The third scenario is the worst to come to my notice. It concerns one of my constituents, who is currently awaiting the outcome of arbitration with British Coal following subsidence damage to his property. My constituent could not settle the claims for compensation by agreement and was obliged, because of the severity of his problems, to take the matter further. Rather than refer his problems to the Lands Tribunal—a draconian step, for the reasons that I have already given—my constituent opted for the alternative of arbitration.
  The latest Government advisory leaflet applicable in such circumstances states:
  "you have the right to take the matter to the Lands Tribunal. However, in the majority of cases arbitration offers a cheaper, quicker and less formal way of resolving disputes. You have the right to choose arbitration as an alternative to the Lands Tribunal."
  In the event, however, recourse to arbitration for my constituent has proved to be something of a nightmare, and the very negation of cheapness or informality. In that context, I hasten to add that I make no comments on the merits of the case before the arbitrator, which is still under consideration. Nor do I make any criticism of the part played by British Coal in the unresolved claims subject to arbitration.
  My criticisms are directed at the official advice given to claimants who may hesitate to go to the Lands Tribunal. In the case of my constituent, which is now subject to arbitration, British Coal judged that the issues involved and the possible consequences in terms of wider compensation claims flowing from the outturn of the case, made it prudent for it to take steps—which naturally British Coal could afford—to protect itself.
  British Coal duly instructed counsel, and it was necessary and prudent for my constituent to do the same. Many issues were raised during the arbitration hearings which required the involvement of many advisers, who prepared expert evidence and attended the arbitration. I could not attend any of the 25 days of the arbitration hearing, which were spread over 12 months, but the costs in the matter for a private citizen have been unimaginable. My constituent will have committed more than £100,000 in pursuing his case by the time the arbitrator gives his decision.
  That is not low cost. It is not informal. Whatever the merits of the case—that, I repeat, is for the arbitrator alone to consider, and I make no comments on it—the route suggested by the official Government guidance is misleading. It has resulted in financial and emotional strain on my constituent, which cannot have been the objective of arbitration as propounded in the official guidance. It comes much closer to a Lands Tribunal hearing.
  I should therefore like to propose two changes to the existing procedures to provide for greater fairness and accessibility. First, the claimant should have a right to require a dispute to be referred to mediation. That is an established yet informal basis for settling matters between two parties. It involves an independent assessor who is trained in the discussion and resolution of disputes. He hears the case of each side, with each party normally attending in person with the assistance of an adviser such as a surveyor, lawyer or other expert.
  1696
  The mediator talks with the parties to try to ensure a shared and compatible understanding of the issues and arguments involved in the circumstances, and to facilitate the acceptance of a settlement which recognises the strengths and weaknesses, or rights and wrongs, of each side. That is an informal process with separate discussions at the outset and, often, a round table discussion as matters progress. That process has proved effective in other spheres, and it has been used extensively to good effect in other areas of dispute, particularly in the construction industry. It is cheap and quick.
  Mediation can do much to ensure the payment of proper compensation to claimants. If they are unhappy about a settlement, they can seek mediation and have their arguments heard and debated with the other side. Often that opportunity will be enough to resolve the claims on a basis acceptable to both sides. More than 80 per cent. of cases referred to mediation in other areas of dispute are resolved by agreement, such is the benefit of structured discussion between the parties.
  The party in the dispute which enjoys the benefit of rights given by Parliament should be obliged to agree to the process where the claimant seeks mediation. However, the process is not, and cannot be, binding, and the ultimate right to refer a matter to the Lands Tribunal should remain. The process should be monitored, and an independent person should be appointed to supervise the process and to make recommendations to fetter the power of any party where that party consistently fails to reach agreement or accept the outcome of the mediation process.
  My second proposal is aimed at those instances where a point of law or clarification arises. Mediation will not be appropriate where a matter of principle affecting the compensation code is involved. In such cases, a direct reference to the Lands Tribunal can be made, but again, the claimant may be deterred from pursuing what he considers to be a just entitlement to a higher payment than the offer he has received.
  In such circumstances, the party liable to pay the compensation under statute should pay the costs of the reference to the Lands Tribunal to establish the point of law. When that has been determined, the parties should negotiate again and, in the absence of agreement, should seek mediation or go to the Lands Tribunal. That choice should again be for the claimant to decide.
  In order to ensure that injustice is removed from the process of assessing compensation, which I have only illustrated, I hope that the House will support me, and that the Government will accept the need to make the resolution of disputes over proper compensation truly accessible, informal and low-cost.
  1.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) for bringing this important subject to the attention of the House. He has explained most eloquently the concerns of his constituents, and he will probably find that those concerns are shared by many constituents of other right hon. and hon. Members.
  As my right hon. Friend acknowledged, he has touched on several areas that are primarily the responsibility of other Ministers, particulary those in the Department of

  1697
  Transport, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Lord Chancellor's Department. I trust that he will forgive me, then, if I am a little cautious about trespassing into their territory and refrain from addressing directly the details of the cases to which he referred. I believe that my right hon Friend accepts my difficulties in that regard.
  My Department has overall responsibility for setting the legislative framework in which compulsory purchase orders are made and under which the compensation code for such orders is applied. My right hon. Friend may rest assured that there is no shortage of advice as to how we could improve the system, and the issues he has raised are among those to which our attention has often been drawn.
  I fully appreciate the distress that can be caused to people when confronted with a compulsory purchase order. The Government are keen to ensure that such distress is minimised for all concerned—ensuring prompt settlement of compensation claims is just one element in that process. I am sure everyone would agree that claimants should not be subject to excessive delay, and should not have to meet additional costs in order to secure the compensation which is rightly theirs.
  Equally, however, there will always be occasions when it is impossible to reach agreement on the level of compensation to be paid, or where there is a dispute about some point of law. What we seek is the most efficient means of settling such disputes. My right hon. Friend has suggested one way of dealing with them, and his ideas are interesting and extremely valuable.
  However, I think it may be worth while spending a few minutes explaining how the Lands Tribunal came into being. It was set up by Act of Parliament in 1949 to replace a system which provided for disputes to be decided by official arbitrators appointed from a panel. The president and members of the tribunal are appointed by the Lord Chancellor, who, in consultation with the Council on Tribunals, has a general responsibility for the statutory provisions that apply to tribunals and other forms of arbitration.
  It is clear to me that there are two principal reasons for going to the Lands Tribunal—and I note that my right hon. Friend acknowledged those reasons. The first reason is to reach agreement on the amount of compensation, and the second is to resolve some point of law. In the latter case, I think that there can be no argument that the role of the Lands Tribunal must be maintained. It has had the key role in interpreting the statutory framework of the compensation code and establishing how the provisions work in practice. It would be foolish to do away with that body of experience and knowledge, and I acknowledge that that is far from being what my right hon. Friend suggested.
  It has become almost proverbial wisdom to say that the delay and costs of Lands Tribunal hearings are a deterrent. However, I suspect that some of the criticisms levelled at the tribunal are, on closer inspection, a little harsh. The worries about delay are twofold; first, the time it takes to secure a hearing, and secondly, the procedures adopted during the hearing itself.
  However, the parties to the dispute can both help to ensure delays are minimised, and I believe that my right hon. Friend will accept that fact. The delay in securing a hearing date often arises from the conduct of the parties themselves, and when the case is heard, it proceeds at a pace largely determined by the parties.
  1698
  For example, the tribunal will normally permit adjournments where active negotiation is taking place, and will normally meet the wishes of counsel, solicitors and expert witnesses so far as is reasonable. It is also possible—at the discretion of the tribunal, and if all parties agree—to determine the case on the basis of written representations.
  Furthermore, there is much concern about costs. The general principle of the compensation code is that the costs of a claim are regarded as part of the consequential costs of the compulsory acquisition. As such, they will normally be reimbursed by the acquiring authority. In addition, it is possible to adopt a "sealed offer" procedure similar to a payment into court, which allows either party to ensure that costs do not go beyond what they can afford.
  Even so, there have been from time to time calls for a new system to replace or work alongside the Lands Tribunal. Various reports have suggested a more informal procedure for settling disputes—usually, something akin to the small claims court.
  My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Country Landowners Association has recently prepared a draft policy paper on "Compulsory Acquisition and Payment" which suggests, among other things, the introduction of a non-binding mediation process to resolve some cases without the need to go to the Lands Tribunal. We are still considering the many suggestions in the paper. We are also aware that the mediation proposal has support from other respected bodies, including the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and the National Farmers Union.
  I know that there is always a concern that such papers will be warmly welcomed by Ministers, and then studiously ignored. I hope that I can assure my right hon. Friend that, this time at least, that will not be the case. Indeed, senior officials from my Department are meeting representatives from the CLA next week to discuss the ideas in the policy paper. My right hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment in detail on the CLA's proposals at present, but we shall set out the Government's response to them in due course.
  Instead, I shall address some of the points that my right hon. Friend raised. He suggested that, where a compensation claim gives rise to consideration of a point of law, a direct reference to the Lands Tribunal should be made before returning to mediation, and that, in such circumstances, the acquiring authority should pay the costs of the reference to the Lands Tribunal.
  In fact, I understand that that may already be possible under the current statutory arrangements. Under the Lands Tribunal rules of 1975, the tribunal has the power to order any preliminary point of law to be disposed of at a preliminary hearing. That power is frequently invoked, and has the advantage that the parties need not incur the costs of compiling evidence on valuation until the preliminary issue, which may determine liability, has been decided. Where the preliminary issue is of general significance in other cases, it would, I agree, seem reasonable that the acquiring authority rather than the claimant should bear the costs.
  However, for straightforward matters of disagreement over compensation, I can see a case for seeking alternative methods of resolving disputes. Indeed, there are already other options available. It is open to the acquiring authority and the claimant to put their case to informal arbitration without the need to refer to the Lands Tribunal.

  1699
  I acknowledge that that does not address my right hon. Friend's argument that a statutory right for claimants should exist. However, although I do not entirely rule that out, I am sure that he will appreciate that such a scheme would need careful consideration, not least because we would need to be clear about its precise relationship with the Lands Tribunal. It must not be forgotten that, in most cases, compensation is settled by direct negotiation involving professionals and experts engaged by the parties, so the costs of such arrangements may not in practice be less than a reference to the Lands Tribunal.
  I freely admit that, in any assessment of the current arrangements for compulsory purchase and compensation, we are hampered by the lack of recent research and information to support the arguments one way or the other about how the system operates, and its impact on those affected. To fill that gap, my Department has signalled the intention to fund a research project to consider, among other things, how existing compulsory purchase order procedures could be improved, and how those at the sharp end feel about the system.
  My right hon. Friend and the CLA may rest assured that we shall use their valuable contributions to inform and direct that research. When the results are available, we shall be in a much better position to assess how the current system operates in practice, and to pinpoint exactly what room there is for improvement.
  I started by expressing my unwillingness to wander into areas for which my Department does not have direct responsibility. However, I do not wish to leave the subject without making some brief general observations on the points that my right hon. Friend raised about third-party claims, about British Coal and about water companies' rights of entry. He will appreciate that I cannot speak in detail on the cases he mentioned, but they raise some issues of general interest that I am sure that he would like me to address.
  My right hon. Friend spoke about the paper presented to the Highways Agency by the Country Landowners Association. That must be a matter for the two bodies to discuss between themselves, and I hope that it will be possible to make progress soon. However, I understand that the agency does not consider that the paper properly reflects the legal and contractual position.
  In most cases involving damage to property during construction, liability is clear, and the claims are dealt with by the contractor's insurers and loss adjusters, or by the district valuer acting on behalf of the agency. The burden of proof of the validity and the amount of claims is essentially the same. In only a handful of cases is liability in dispute, and it is those cases that cause real difficulty.
  The Highways Agency is currently discussing with construction industry representatives ways in which the delays in dealing with such claims might be overcome, but I am sure that there can be no disagreement with the principle that we must do what we can to avoid a situation in which genuine claimants are unduly penalised because of a dispute between other parties as to liability.
  My right hon. Friend raises a particular concern about the powers available to privatised water companies, but the broad issue is one that applies and has applied to all statutory undertakers, both before and after privatisation. Such bodies have a statutory responsibility to provide a public service, and Parliament has consistently recognised their need for powers to acquire land compulsorily and to enter on to land in order to discharge that responsibility.
  1700
  My right hon. Friend will be aware that the issue of compensation for the laying of sewers and water pipes was considered in the Water Industries Act 1991. That provides that, where pipe-laying work leads to depreciation in the value of land, the claimant may receive compensation for the loss in the value of his interest, and for any damage caused in the same way, as if there had been a compulsory acquisition. Resolution of disputes over compensation are dealt with by the Lands Tribunal, which applies the normal compensation rules.
  The issue, then, is the suitability of the Lands Tribunal to decide such cases—a point that I have already addressed. However, I must make it clear that there would be no question of utilities' using such powers to maximise profits; the compulsory powers remaining with nationalised industries after privatisation relate only to the statutory functions of those industries, and cannot be used to acquire or to enter on to land not needed for those functions.
  As for subsidence, my right hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to discuss the particular case here and now, as the arbitrator has yet to reach his conclusions. However, it is important to recognise that the statutory framework in relation to coal-mining subsidence is significantly different from that connected with the use of compulsory purchase powers or compulsory access rights.
  The primary obligation in the relevant legislation is to repair any damage attributable to coal-mining subsidence. Compensation arises only where repairs are not practicable or effective, and is paid in lieu of the primary obligation to repair. The basic obligation, then, is not to compensate but to repair.
  Of course disputes arise from time to time. As my right hon. Friend said, the subsidence legislation already provides a means of resolving them. For householders, there is a special low-cost arbitration scheme, which in the vast majority of cases provides a quick and inexpensive solution to disputes. The costs of the scheme are generally borne by the public purse and by the industry, so the claimant normally has to contribute only a modest fee. Apart from the costs of the scheme, each party bears its own costs.
  For more complex cases, a general arbitration scheme is available. That is based on the normal principles of arbitration—that each party bears its own costs during the proceedings, and that, in his findings, the arbitrator may ultimately rule that one party shall meet some or all of the costs of the other party. Similarly, where cases go to the Lands Tribunal, the tribunal has powers to award costs at its discretion.
  I reiterate that I have considerable sympathy with the concerns that my right hon. Friend has expressed and, like him, I wish to see a system in place that will enable swift and fair compensation for those affected by development undertaken for the general good of the community. I cannot offer any commitments about how the Government will tackle that, but I can assure my right hon. Friend and those whom he represents that the Government are actively considering the ideas that he and the Country Landowners Association have put forward. Clearly, however, we must avoid rushing to replace a tried and tested system with one that might prove less satisfactory in the longer term.

  Privatisation (Costs)
  1.30 pm
  Mrs. Helen Liddell: I sought this debate largely because of a constituency interest. My constituency in central Lanarkshire has been particularly devastated by the impact of the restructuring of the steel industry. My personal assistant, Mr. Frank Roy, is a former shop steward from Ravenscraig steel plant, which is no more. I am conscious that my constituents worry that privatisation has been not only in their worst interests but perhaps in the worst interests of the whole United Kingdom.
  I do not necessarily wish to make partisan points, and I do not intend to rehearse the arguments against privatisation. We know where the Government and the Opposition come from on the issue. We are anxious about the impact of privatisation on the utilities themselves and in a broader setting. I would like the Financial Secretary to outline the costs, both hidden and obvious, of privatisation over a period.
  We have teased information out of the Government about the costs of privatisation. That has led to some concern about what the accounts of the Exchequer reveal about how much privatisation has actually cost the taxpayers of this country. The Earl of Stockton in another place referred to privatisation as selling off the family silver. The Earl, who was an alumnus of my university, made a witty analogy between privatisation and the great homes of the nation. He referred to selling off the paintings, the furniture and the family silver. In reflecting upon his remarks this morning, I admit to some concern about the fate of his family company, given the speculation about the future of Macmillan. But that is an aside.
  It is obvious that the key beneficiaries of privatisation are institutions in the City. Those of us who have been involved in private sector flotations know the substantial fees that are totted up by City advisers. There is concern in the House and elsewhere that some advisers who have been involved in the privatisation process have acquired Tory grandees on their company boards shortly after the privatisations have taken place. The merchant banks, accountants, lawyers, public relations consultants, stockbrokers and technical consultants have an opportunity to put their noses in the privatisation trough.
  Only last week, the Financial Secretary admitted that the Government have spent some £136 million advertising privatisation share issues in the past 10 years. Since 1985, advertising costs for the flotations—there have been about 18—have ranged from £1.1 million for the sell-off of Northern Ireland Electricity to the £21.4 million which was spent on the 1986 "Tell Sid" campaign to persuade the public to buy shares in British Gas. I wonder whether Sid will tell us what will happen to the disabled when we address the issue of competition in the gas industry.
  The three-stage sell-off of British Telecom cost £35.6 million over eight years in advertising terms alone. That sum beggars belief. That money could have been better spent in the public sector, rather than lining the pockets of advertising agencies and their spin-off agencies.
  I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for referring to Scotland, but it is obviously at the forefront of my mind. Some £5.3 million was spent advertising the sale of the Scottish electricity companies. That amounts to more than £2 for every adult in the country.
  1702
  It is recognised that Opposition Members are very disturbed about the extent to which industries were undervalued in the first place. That undervaluation is also a cost of privatisation. The Government undervalued the assets, heavily hyped their sale through advertising the share issue, and in many cases wrote off debts of billions of pounds beforehand.
  To give another Scottish example, at the same time as many Scots were enduring the shameful humiliation of poindings and warrant sales because they had incurred debts as a result of the poll tax—I know that the Financial Secretary is concerned about that issue—the state was writing off £1.5 billion in debt for the Scottish electricity companies.
  A poinding or warrant sale is the most depressing, degrading and humiliating way of recovering small debts. A sheriff officer arrives at the house of an harassed family, who are usually in some distress because they cannot pay their debts. The sheriff officer, who is often assisted by the police, can enter that house and go through every item of the family's belongings—from the kitchen table and chairs to televisions and radios—and put an often derisory value on those items. That exercise is often undertaken for the recovery of debts of only £200 or £300. I have witnessed warrant sales—in fact, I spent much of this week trying to prevent one from being inflicted on one of my constituents.
  I feel quite bitter when I see that the Government are prepared to write off quite substantial debts in order to make companies that are about to be privatised more attractive for a general share issue. I remind the Financial Secretary of the words of his colleague John Maples, that the rich get richer on the backs of the rest of us.
  It is very difficult for me to explain to my constituents—indeed, I would not try to explain it to those who are enduring the humiliation of warrant sales—how that can happen. The only similarity between the way in which the Government write off the debts of companies which are about to be privatised and the sheriff officers is that they both have very flexible attitudes towards the true value of assets.
  I accept that many individuals made quick killings from initial share offers when they sold their shares to the institutions which are the current shareholders. The broad base of share ownership in this country has narrowed considerably. Water industry shares were sold at £6.5 billion in 1989, and they are now valued at £12 billion. There have been £2 billion in dividends since 1990. Shareholders get the money and the opportunity to laugh all the way to the bank, but the taxpayers are suffering, and the nation as a whole is impoverished as a consequence.
  Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Member said that the broad base of shareholding has narrowed. Does she accept that there are now more shareholders than trade unionists, and that, as a result of privatisation, the number of individual shareholders has more than doubled?
  Mrs. Liddell: That is a very quick political point to make. Yes, there are more shareholders than trade unionists, and undoubtedly some trade unionists hold shares. That is partly because the Government have been intent upon attacking trade unionists and reducing the number of people in employment in this country, thereby making them less eligible for membership of a trade union.

  1703
  There has been dramatic restructuring within the privatised industries, with a consequent reduction in employment. House of Commons Library figures reveal that about 127,000 jobs gross have been lost in the privatised sector. I accept that every company, whether private or public, has to go through periods of restructuring, but that restructuring is taking place at a time when the labour market is under considerable pressure. It is also a time of rising unemployment.
  What are the hidden costs of privatisation? Many companies restructure—often code for downstaffing—because it looks good in their annual reports. That makes it easier for a company chairman to laud a company's performance before his shareholders and to increase the share price. A number of privatised companies have employed senior executives as consultants. They are given a golden handshake, but return as consultants or redesign themselves as sole traders, sometimes in the form of consultancy companies.
  I do not shed any tears for them, but for employers at a lower level who find themselves out in the cold. If they redefine themselves as sole traders, they are re-employed on temporary contracts with their former employers as members of a casualised work force. They do not enjoy the minimum employment protection that exists even under a Conservative Government.
  There is an even less glamorous aspect of privatisation. Only last week, the Equal Opportunities Commission published its analysis of the impact of private contracting as a result of compulsory competitive tendering in the public sector, and the conclusions are horrifying in 1995.
  That research showed that women in particular, members of the ethnic minorities and disabled people have suffered dramatically from CCT. Eighteen months ago, there was public outrage when auxiliary and domestic staff and porters at Glasgow Royal infirmary were re-employed by private contractors at lower hourly rates and with fewer holidays. Only a public outcry from the highest to the lowest in the community stopped that happening.
  Less publicised cases arise daily. As a consequence, wages paid in the public sector—particularly to women—have fallen by as much as 25 per cent. Many women working in public sector cleaning and catering have to take on multiple jobs—often below the minimum part-time hourly rate, so they are not eligible for state benefits, including maternity allowance. They often have short-term contracts that make no provision for holidays or holiday pay. If they cannot work during school holidays, they have to claim social security benefits—which is a cost to them and to the nation.
  Tomorrow, local government elections will be held in Scotland. Seeing the Press Gallery almost empty, I reflect on the halcyon days when there were reporters in the Press Gallery. When I was a Press Gallery reporter, a distinguished BBC reporter who, sadly, died last week reminded reporters every time they left the Press Gallery that Scotland is different. If only someone had reminded the BBC and "Panorama" of that last week, there might have been a different outcome to events in the courts.
  If I may refer to the local government elections, there is a hare-brained race to reorganisation of Scotland local government, leading to more privatisations, particularly of essential services such as the education advisory service and catering in Strathclyde. That will produce further casualisation of the work force and additional concealed costs for the public and taxpayers.
  1704
  The Government continue their reckless pursuit of privatisation, having learnt nothing from the costs incurred by early privatisations. Last week, my party's transport team published "The Runaway Train: The cost of rail privatisation", showing that the cost of privatization—based on Government figures and figures published in Hansard, would be in excess of revenue.
  I seek a reassurance that the Government are not turning a blind eye to the costs of privatisation. Obtaining accurate information from them is like drawing teeth. We want to know the real costs in terms of unemployment and the cost to customers. Before the Financial Secretary reminds me that, under privatisation, some customers will have lower bills, I remind him that others will pay more. Fortunately, Labour managed to stop water privatisation in Scotland, but many people are paying increased water charges in England and Wales.
  Will the Financial Secretary acknowledge that not everyone gains under privatisation? May we know the true cost of privatisation to the Exchequer and to society? May I have a reassurance—although I doubt that the Financial Secretary can provide one—that my constituents, who have suffered from steel privatisation and other privatisations, can look forward to a better future? I believe that they can only do so under a Labour Government. I do not expect that the Financial Secretary agrees.
  1.45 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir George Young): The last sentence is about the only one with which I do agree.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) for choosing this important subject for debate. She focused on the costs of privatisation. I hope that she agrees that, if one is to have a balanced perspective, one must consider not just the costs but the benefits. I hope, in a short speech, to redress the imbalance in the hon. Lady's speech.
  A great deal of preparatory work must be done if one is to enjoy the receipts and other benefits of the Government's privatisation programme. Industries must be restructured and streamlined. Contracts must be put in place where none existed before. Potential shareholders must be informed by a prospectus of what they would be buying, and the general public must be kept informed. All that costs money and fees, but such preparatory work has produced massive benefits.
  I was slightly surprised at the hon. Lady's speech, because the Leader of the Opposition has spent months touring the country to reform clause IV and telling the public that the state no longer needs to own massive, formerly nationalised industries. In 15 minutes, the hon. Lady, in a revisionist speech, cast doubt on Labour party policy on privatisation and nationalisation.
  Mr. John Marshall: Can my hon. Friend say how much the taxpayer receives in revenue from the profits of privatised industries, compared with the amount of money that the taxpayer met in subsidies to British Steel, Rover, British Airways and British Coal when they were in the public sector?
  Sir George Young: When we entered office in 1979, the nationalised industries were costing the state £50 million a week. The industries that we subsequently

  1705
  privatised are now producing revenue of £50 million a week—a massive fiscal turnround, of real benefit to taxpayers.
  Mrs. Liddell: As the Financial Secretary is explaining the great worth of privatisation, perhaps he will explain why the Government decided not to privatise the Post Office.
  Sir George Young: A large part of the Post Office is already privatised. Most sub-post offices are already in private ownership. The hon. Lady may know that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is reflecting on how best to proceed with the Post Office.
  Privatisation works. The hon. Lady did not say that privatisation and public ownership did not work. Before I entered the House, and while the hon. Lady was working as a reporter in the Press Gallery, I was working in a nationalised industry. I can tell her that nationalisation jolly well did not work. There were enormous concealed costs in state ownership.
  Mrs. Liddell rose—
  Sir George Young: The hon. Lady had 15 minutes to make her case, and in courtesy to her, as well as to the House, I must answer her points.
  In the days of nationalisation, we had debates about losses, debts, high prices, poor investment decisions, shoddy service and the holder of the latest strike record. In other words, there were costs under nationalisation. There were costs for every householder and business in the land. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has reminded us, they were costs for taxpayers.
  The hon. Lady may like to recall what the Leader of the Opposition said about privatisation. He asserted
  "it is barely an issue that prices will rise because of privatisation."—[Official Report, 12 December 1988, Vol. 143, c. 684.]
  In fact, the cost of domestic electricity has fallen by 8 per cent., excluding value added tax, over the past two years. Under the Labour Government, electricity prices increased in cash terms by 2 per cent. every six weeks. There is a dramatic contrast between public and private ownership.
  I do not blame those who worked in the nationalised industries, especially as I was one of them. It was the nature of state ownership, with its excessive centralisation and inevitable short-termism, that was the root of the problem. Privatisation has shown that it can rescue businesses and services from what was a rather depressing scenario.
  The domestic consumer has seen dramatic improvements in standards. Privatisation has turned inward-looking businesses into successful ones often globally. I shall mention a few. The House will be interested to know that 45 countries throughout the world have benefited from the skills, knowledge and experience of British Gas since privatisation. Rover, which was once the basket case of the British car industry, is now exporting its Discovery model to Japan.
  The hon. Lady mentioned the employees of former nationalised industries. Does she believe that those who now work for British Airways want to be taken back into public ownership? British Airways is now the world's
  1706
  favourite airline. It carries more international passengers than any other carrier. It is a real success story. Back in 1979, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) described British Airways as "a potential pantomime horse" of capitalism. How wrong he was. The hon. Lady talked about British Steel. In 1979, it was making losses of £1.7 billion. It is now an industry in profit.
  The hon. Lady should reflect on the costs to the country's export position if the Government had adopted what I believe to be her rather short-term view of public ownership. We have heard something today about the wider cost of full public sector services. The hon. Lady mentioned local authorities. Compulsory competitive tendering and privatisation mean that homes and businesses can buy services at competitive prices instead of subsidising them through taxation. That has been of much greater importance to United Kingdom businesses and their customers that the hon. Lady realises.
  I shall illustrate my argument by talking about telecommunications and energy supply, which are two key services to virtually every home and business in the country. Telecommunications account for about 2 per cent. of gross domestic product. Electricity and gas together account for a further 2 per cent. The services that they provide are crucial to the competitiveness of each and every business. If telecommunications and energy providers perform badly, other industries feel the pinch. If they are free to charge too much for too little, millions of individual customers pay over the odds for a second-rate service. It is they who suffer.
  Privatisation has led to vastly improved investment levels and service standards. Before privatisation, it was the taxpayer who inevitably underwrote investment. After privatisation, companies facing competition and regulation had to shape up their act. The hon. Lady bandied a few figures about. Let us consider some more.
  British Telecom has invested a massive £22 billion since privatisation. Mercury has invested £2.7 billion. Mobile phone companies have invested a further £2.6 billion. Investment by British Gas has tripled in real terms in the seven years after sale. The water companies have invested over £12 billion in the five years since privatisation, 75 per cent. more in real terms than in their last five years in the public sector.
  Increased investment has clearly had an impact on quality. Everyone now has a real choice of telephone service. People no longer wait to be connected to a telephone service. British Gas now responds quickly to faults. In virtually all cases, supply is restored within 24 hours. No longer must busy customers wait in all day when they would rather be about their business. All utilities now offer timed appointments. Britain's water is now among the cleanest in Europe, despite being cheaper than water in most other European countries.
  Let us consider what investing for quality has cost the consumer, and perhaps pause over some of the telling interventions of Opposition Members in previous debates. For example, we were told that 16 million British Gas customers could expect only one result—increased gas prices, higher than the rate of inflation. That was not a startling new Government announcement. It was a forecast made by a Labour Member. It was just a little bit out: since privatisation, the average household gas bill has fallen by 20 per cent. even after inflation. We were told that a minimum estimate of the cost of privatisation to the

  1707
  consumer in terms of increases was 20 per cent. That was said by a Labour Member in the Opposition's haste to oppose electricity privatisation. Wrong again: privatisation has brought down the cost of electricity to the domestic consumer by 9 per cent. in the past two years, even after taking inflation into account.
  If hon. Members want to make a phone call when they leave the House to go on a well-earned recess, I am happy to tell them that the three-minute local peak rate call now costs less in cash terms than it did on privatisation. They will find a phone box much more readily, and when they do, it will be working.
  The House may recall the scaremongering of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). He said in 1983 that the public telephone box could be threatened by extinction. That was a far cry from reality. The number of BT call boxes has increased by over 50 per cent. to 127,000, and 96 per cent. of them work at any one time, compared with about 75 per cent. back in 1987.
  It is tempting to tease the hon. Lady about her party's record in getting figures right. The serious point is that her attack on privatisation is narrow and misinformed. At the beginning of her speech, she talked about costs. On average, each privatisation has cost only 2.8 per cent. of the proceeds that have been raised. Those narrow figures belie the knock-on benefits to consumers of which I have spoken. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South reminded me, privatised industries are contributing about £50 million a week to the Exchequer in taxes and dividends. That is surely relevant.
  The criticisms that we have heard about the privatisation programme have ignored improvements in quality, reductions in price and improved service. They ignore the new export potential that privatisation has brought to the country. They ignore also the fact that privatisation has underpinned London's position as the premier centre for financial services and privatisation expertise, which is now being exported throughout the world.
  Privatisation has brought solutions, ideas, innovation and investment. I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government will continue down that road. We shall proceed with privatisation—the hon. Lady mentioned British Rail—and take forward the private finance initiative. We shall bring the private sector into areas previously thought to be the preserve of the public sector. We shall continue to apply principles of quality and service in the heart of government and to local services.
  A great wave of reform has swept the public sector over the past 15 years. That has set the framework for UK excellence at home and abroad. The Government are proud of their record. We are not complacent, and the process will go forward.

  Estate Duty
  1.57 pm
  Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: I am most grateful to Madam Speaker for allowing me to raise this matter today. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for attending to respond on behalf of the Government. I make no apology for adding to his work, for I am about to talk about a glaring injustice in our tax system.
  The advantage of Adjournment debates is that a Minister can be asked to consider an injustice. Where it is correctible, as this one is, he can correct it. We all know that Ministers are so busy—I sympathise with every busy Minister—that it is hard for them to find time to examine difficult cases in detail. An Adjournment debate causes them to do just that. I feel sure that my right hon. Friend has carefully considered the matter and will agree that I am highlighting a glaring injustice in our tax provisions.
  Estate duty was abolished more than 20 years ago, but, amazingly, it lives on in a few areas. I shall not list them all. The only one with which I am concerned is the vexed question of taxation of reversionary interests. It is in that area that an appalling anomaly occurs, because of two facts: first, rates of estate duty in the past were very much higher than rates of inheritance tax today; and secondly, there has been appalling inflation over the past three or four decades. I am not in any way arguing that the law has been incorrectly applied in this case, because clearly it has not. The objection of my constituent, Mrs. Findlater, is not that the law has been incorrectly applied but that the law itself is completely without justice.
  Fortunately, the Government are contemplating making changes to the law affecting inheritance tax. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a speech on Saturday in which he said:
  "I also hold dear the belief that people should be able to hand on security to their children, cascading wealth down the generations. Over the last decade we've doubled the threshold at which inheritance tax becomes payable. It's been difficult to go further in the last two or three difficult years. But I'm committed to doing so as soon as we can afford it."
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said similar things on earlier occasions about wealth cascading down the generations. I very much agree with him.
  The timing of my debate is opportune. I hope that if my right hon. Friend changes the law and rates for inheritance tax, he will solve my constituent's problems as well. I shall now explain the problem. It really is very simple.
  In 1957, Mrs. Findlater's mother died. Mrs. Findlater inherited, under her mother's will, a reversionary interest in another estate, which was subject to a life interest but which did not expire until 1990, when the beneficiary who enjoyed the life interest died. In much simpler language, and putting it bluntly, although Mrs. Findlater inherited the money in 1957, she could not get her hands on it until 1990. Because she could not get the money when she inherited it, she sensibly opted—as any reasonable person would if they were allowed to under the law, and Mrs. Findlater was—to defer paying the tax that was due on it until she did get the money.
  That event—getting the money—occurred 33 years later. An innocent observer might think that, with all the inflation that we have had in those 33 years, what Mrs. Findlater

  1709
  would have paid, had she not exercised the option to defer, would not have been very much in today's money. So why is she so upset? Well, because the law is not like that. The law in this area is the proverbial ass. It operates in an outrageous, unjust and utterly perverse way. In 1957, the relevant part of the estate about which I am speaking was worth about £10,000. Because of other funds making up the whole estate, at that time the relevant part would have attracted duty of 12 per cent.—some £1,200. By 1990, that £10,000-odd estate had grown to £124,139. No one should think that that was because of skilful investment. It was because of inflation, and inflation is the responsibility of Government. Indeed, as we all know, it is caused by Government. That £124,139 has borne tax, not at 12 per cent. but at 50 per cent.—£62,069.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend and every other hon. Member in the House is wincing. I certainly am. Tax at 12 per cent. in 1957 had risen to 50 per cent. in 1990. Furthermore, the capital transfer tax office also made a demand for interest—all within the law—of £3,404. What a business! I must point out that, in its generosity, the capital transfer office has been good enough to make a remission of part of that charge. I suppose that we should be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the high table.
  There we see why such indignation has been caused to that family. The fund is valued on its present rather than its historic value, but tax is charged according to estate duty scales that were in force in 1957, under, I may add, a tax law that was abolished for normal purposes in 1975. The amount of tax taken, which would have been 12 per cent., was in fact 50 per cent. in 1990. As must be clear to any impartial observer, my constituent has been punitively taxed on an inflationary gain.
  As I have mentioned, there are clear signs that the Government are thinking of relaxing further the impact of inheritance tax. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is able to do so in his autumn Budget, I very much hope that he will address the problem of Mrs. Findlater and others in a similar position. There cannot be many people in such a position, and it should be of little cost to the Exchequer to rectify the problem.
  I must point out to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that, if the Government relax the impact of inheritance tax but fail to address the problems of Mrs. Findlater and people like her, the sense of injustice felt by such people will be deep and abiding. The equitable solution to the problem is to tax such a fund at its present value, by applying present rates as well, not at the historic rate, which leads to such manifest unfairness.
  I look forward to the next Budget, confident that the timing of this debate must be right, for my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary must, now that the Finance Bill is nearly law, be about to consider matters such as inheritance tax for our right hon. and learned Friend's next Budget. I wish my right hon. Friend well. I invite him to see that justice is done and I look forward to seeing the promises of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put into effect. Mrs. Findlater, too, wants to see wealth cascading down the generations.
  1.58 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir George Young): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for
  1710
  Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) on securing the debate. I know that he has taken a keen interest in Mrs. Findlater's case for some time. I pay tribute to the way in which he has pursued this case on behalf of one of his constituents; I read every letter in the file that was placed before me. I can understand the distress and indignation of Mrs. Findlater and her family, which my hon. Friend so eloquently conveyed to the House. In my reply, I shall deal with the general principles behind the liability to estate duty that Mrs. Findlater has had to face, and then touch on some of the other points that my hon. Friend made.
  Estate duty was one of the forerunners of the present inheritance tax regime. It lasted from 1894 until 1975. The last Labour Government abolished estate duty, replacing it with capital transfer tax, which combined an estate tax with an immediate tax charged on lifetime gifts.
  Since taking office in 1979, the Government have reformed the taxation of estates significantly, consistent with our stated objective of allowing individuals to pass on more of their wealth to the beneficiaries of their choice, free of the burden of taxation. We replaced capital transfer tax in 1986 with inheritance tax, abolishing the immediate charge on lifetime gifts in the process. Estate duty was a tax on property passing on death. It included the deceased's own assets, any trust property in which the deceased had an interest in possession—for example, a life interest—and gifts made shortly before death.
  In some respects, the estate duty and inheritance tax regimes are similar, but there are some important differences, one of which involves the treatment of interests in expectancy. It may help if I briefly explain what that is. Essentially, it is the right to receive property or an interest in that property at some future date. It is most commonly encountered in settlements and will trusts. For example, a husband could provide by will that a capital sum be settled on his wife, so that she may enjoy the income from the settled fund for the rest of her life, and on her death the capital would pass to their son. In this example, while the wife lived, the son has an expectant interest in the capital.
  Interests in expectancy are usually of some value, so they can be bought and sold in an open market like any other asset, and this does indeed occur. Under estate duty, it was considered appropriate that an interest in expectancy passing on a person's death should be taxable on the death.
  I have already mentioned that the treatment of inheritance tax differs. Nowadays, we no longer generally tax an interest in expectancy in this way. We will usually do so only if the interest was purchased by the deceased. Since 1975, the way in which we tax settled property generally has changed, and we now believe that trusts are adequately taxed without having to include most interests in expectancy.
  I will not detain the House by arguing the pros and cons of the estate duty regime. Suffice to say that at the time it was thought appropriate to levy tax on an interest in expectancy but, as I have said, that is generally not so now.
  Under estate duty law, the executors or administrators of an estate had a choice concerning payment of duty on an interest in expectancy. They could either pay it straight away, with the duty on the rest of the estate or, alternatively, they could elect to postpone payment until the interest fell into possession.

  1711
  If payment was postponed, for the purpose of determining the estate duty on the rest of the estate, a discounted or actuarial value of the interest at the date of death was adopted, and the estate duty on the interest itself was charged according to the value of the interest at the time when it fell into possession, taking into account the value of the rest of the estate as previously ascertained.
  The facility for deferment of duty on interests in expectancy essentially recognised the relatively illiquid nature of the asset, as in the example described by my hon. Friend. There were other cases where payment could be postponed for similar reasons. Deferment was also available for woodlands, recognising the long-term nature of forestry enterprises, and heritage quality chattels included in an estate were exempted from duty conditional on appropriate undertakings being given concerning the retention and preservation of the chattels. That recognised the importance of preserving our national heritage.
  Reverting to interests in expectancy, the executors had to elect, on delivery of their account of the estate to the Inland Revenue, whether to pay estate duty on the interest at once or, instead, when the interest fell into possession. If they elected to pay at once, duty was assessed on the market value at the date of death of the right to receive the capital sum at a future date.
  If they elected to defer payment until the estate receives the interest, estate duty is payable on the open market value at that time of the actual assets accruing to the estate. The rate of duty is ascertained, as my hon. Friend explained, by the aggregation of such value with the value of the rest of the estate as previously ascertained. If, as usually happens, the value of the accruing assets is greater than the value of the expectant interest at the date of death, it bears a higher rate of duty than the rest of the estate—again, as in the example given by my hon. Friend. That is because estate duty had progressive rates, dependent on the size of the estate, rather than a single rate as we now have under inheritance tax.
  The option on payment of duty on an interest in expectancy is not considered to have been exercised until the grant of representation has been obtained. Until then the election can be made even though the person with the prior interest may have died in the meantime. Moreover, in practice, the option is not treated as finally exercised until the accountable person pays what purports to be, and is accepted as, full duty in respect of the rest of the estate.
  Having explained the background to the claim to estate duty, I come to the particular case that my hon. Friend has raised today.
  Mrs. Findlater's uncle died in 1952 and by will left his residuary estate on trust to his widow for life, or until remarriage, and on her death the capital was to be divided between his two brothers absolutely. The father of Mrs. Findlater was one of the brothers. He also died in 1952 and left his entire estate, including the interest under the will trust, to his widow. She assigned that interest in 1953 to her daughter, Mrs. Findlater, and died in 1957. Since the gift of the interest in expectancy was made within five years of her death, it became liable to estate duty on her death.
  As the executrix of her mother's estate, and the person accountable for the estate duty on the interest in expectancy, it was Mrs. Findlater who had the option of either paying the duty on the interest in 1957, with the
  1712
  interest being valued at that time, or when the interest fell into possession, and valued at that later time. In the event, no duty was paid on the interest in expectancy in 1957, as the second option—to defer payment—was exercised. I understand that Mrs. Findlater was professionally advised.
  The life tenant lived on for another 23 years. As my hon. Friend said, she died in 1990, which event triggered the estate duty liability that had been deferred since 1957. The will trust fund created by Mrs. Findlater's uncle had, not surprisingly, increased in value significantly over those 23 years, so the value of the interest gifted to Mrs. Findlater was worth a lot more now than the expectant interest would have been in 1957.
  The enhanced value of the interest and the estate duty rate structure in force in 1957 meant, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that the deferred charge was much higher than the original charge on death would have been. That is, I think, the crux of the matter raised by my hon. Friend. Mrs. Findlater, and indeed my hon. Friend, are asking whether it is right that an asset which would have been charged at a relatively low rate—6 per cent—in expectancy, in fact ends up being charged at nearly eight times that rate—50 per cent—in possession. That is the nub of the dilemma that my hon. Friend has put before the House.
  I have to say to my hon. Friend that, whatever one now thinks of the rates of duty which existed in 1957, Mrs. Findlater exercised the option to defer the duty with the benefit of professional advice, and in the full knowledge that duty at the appropriate rate would have to be paid at a later date. That is, if I may say so, the chance that one takes by deferring a tax liability for an undetermined period free of interest.
  I believe that Mrs. Findlater does not dispute the legal basis of the claim for estate duty, and nor does my hon. Friend. But they believe that there is a moral basis for reducing the charge. I have to say that to do so would be unfair to the vast majority of taxpayers in identical circumstance whose interests have already fallen into possession. It must be right that all those who deferred their liability in the full knowledge of the consequences should be treated in the same way.
  My hon. Friend asks whether it was right that such a large amount of estate duty should now be levied. He put the proposition to the House that we should now extinguish those outstanding claims. Alternatively, he may have in mind some form of indexation relief, or a lower scale of rates of duty, to reflect the lower tax rates applying to deaths that occur today.
  My hon. Friend asked us to reflect on his proposition, but one must put one or two counter arguments. During the period that we are discussing, no account of inflation was taken for any direct taxes, but this was before the days of hyper-inflation under the 1970s Labour Government.
  Indexation for capital gains tax purposes was introduced by the Government in 1982, by which time estate duty had already been abolished for more than seven years. It was therefore unnecessary to consider indexation for estate duty purposes, and I think that the same applies now.
  Sir Lennox-Boyd: The portion of the estate fell into possession in 1990—there was inflation throughout.

  1713
  If there is to be indexation for capital gains tax from 1982, why cannot people in those situations be helped too? It is monstrously unjust.
  Sir George Young: My hon. Friend has to reflect on whether he would extend the same treatment for which he is asking on behalf of his constituent to everybody who in 1957 deferred payment, subsequently paid duty and is, in effect, in exactly the same position as his constituent. If he is to advance the case for his constituent, in fairness he must offer that same retrospective opportunity to everybody who, under estate duty, was offered the same decision that Mrs. Findlater was offered. There are severe consequences if one is to do that. If one does not do that it would be wholly unfair on those estates where a duty has already been paid with or without the deferment option. It would also be unusual if we were now to try to revise tax legislation which had been repealed decades ago.
  Abandoning the remaining deferred claims for estate duty on expectant interests, as advocated by my hon. Friend, would also lead to pressure for, and an expectation of, similar concessions in relation to the other deferred estate duty charges that I mentioned earlier, in particular those for heritage property.
  In any event, my hon. Friend is well aware of the well-established conventions regarding retrospective reliefs. Even if some form of concession applying solely to interest in expectancy were possible, it would not be possible to apply it equitably in accordance with the spirit of the taxpayers charter.
  I understand from my hon. Friend's body language that my remarks have not been wholly welcome, but I hope that they have helped him to understand the basis for the
  1714
  estate duty charge and persuaded him that, in the case of his constituent, the charge was consistent with both the relevant law and the treatment of other taxpayers.
  At the end of his speech, my hon. Friend mentioned inheritance tax. In recent years the Government's aim has indeed been to reduce the burden of taxation, thus allowing our citizens to pass more of their wealth to their chosen beneficiaries and simplifying the tax system. Since the introduction of inheritance tax in 1986 the Government have doubled the threshold in real terms: at £154,000 for 1995–96, it is more than twice the average price of a house in the United Kingdom. We have also abolished the immediate charge on lifetime gifts, and effectively exempted family trading businesses and farms from inheritance tax.
  I am pleased to say that, as a result of that and other improvements that we have made, fewer than one in 30 of all estates now pay any inheritance tax. The vast majority of people can leave their homes, savings and other possessions to their children, or other beneficiaries of their choice, without having to worry about those inheritances being taxed.
  We stand by our commitment—of which my hon. Friend reminded us—to reduce the burden of inheritance tax still further. We are, of course, mindful of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at the weekend, and we shall seek in future to make such improvements as are consistent with the prudent management of the economy.
  2.21 pm
  Sitting suspended.
  2.30 pm
  On resuming—
  It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Crown Post Offices
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many letters his Department has had, including those forwarded by hon. Members, in favour of transferring Crown post offices to agency status, and how many opposing this change; and if he will make a statement. [16434]
    The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): Since Post Office Counters Ltd. started its Crown post office conversion programme in 1989, my Department has received a wide range of correspondence commenting on the programme, most commonly on proposals for individual offices. However, summary records of the numbers of letters received and the views expressed in them are not maintained.
    Mrs. Roche: I am interested to hear the Minister's reply. I hope that he will listen to the more than 3,000 people in my constituency who have written to me protesting about the change in Muswell Hill post office from a Crown post office to an agency one. I hope that he will take into account that people in my constituency do not want their post office, which they very much value, located in a butcher's shop or a greengrocer's, which are currently among the proposals. I hope that he will take that into account and instruct the Post Office accordingly. If the Post Office proceeds with that proposal, in the words of one of my constituents who formerly voted for the Conservatives, it will lose the support of all those who voted Tory at the last election.
    Mr. Eggar: I know that the hon. Lady has had a chance to discuss the matter with the Post Office as part of the consultation. It is, of course, a matter for the Post Office. I can assure the hon. Lady that the Post Office is aware of her strong views. I understand that it has been in correspondence with her in addition to the meeting and that it is looking at possible sites for an agency office.
    Mr. Fabricant: Are not many of the people who are concerned that some of the best post offices may become non-Crown post offices in fact referring to sub-post offices which are not Crown post offices, and does not some of the best service come from the sub-post offices, which are already in the private sector?
    Mr. Eggar: The sub-post offices are extremely efficient and highly regarded by almost all their customers and are an absolutely critical part of the post office network. When surveys have been done after conversions to the private sector, a very high level of customer satisfaction has been revealed.

    Privatisation
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what countries have sought his Department's advice on the privatisation of nationalised industries. [16435]
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): My Department has had discussions on the
    1716
    privatisation of nationalised industries with a wide range of countries in Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia the middle east and the far east.
    Mr. Field: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. When he gives advice to those countries, does he point out that the privatised nationalised industries have increased productivity and share ownership on the shop floor as well as throughout our nation and have made a substantial contribution to the Exchequer with millions of pounds of corporation tax as well as to the balance of payments with the export of technology and expertise? With the abolition of clause IV, are not the Opposition yet again following where we have led for many years?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The world is interested in the programme that Britain has pioneered in privatising the nationalised industries. The nationalised industries were costing the taxpayer £50 million per week. They are now contributing £50 million a week in positive cash flow to the Exchequer from taxes on their profits. That is a remarkable achievement. It is therefore no surprise that so many countries around the world are looking at those examples and copying exactly what we have done.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the people from abroad who are making inquiries about the privatised industries in Britain that when he privatised British Coal he sacked 31,000 miners, closed 31 pits and then sold off the English part of the industry to Mr. R. J. Budge, whose financial base is very shaky? Mr. Budge put in a bid of £900 million; then somehow or other the right hon. Gentleman's Department reduced the tender by £100 million. If that was not a fiddle, I do not know what is.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman tell those people from abroad that in respect of all the other industries that have been privatised, the only beneficiaries have been the water board chiefs and the other utility chairmen who have made a small fortune while thousands of people have been chucked on the scrap heap?
    Mr. Heseltine: You might wonder, Madam Speaker, whether repealing clause IV has made any difference.
    Mr. Dover: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for many countries throughout the world the important thing is cash flow? Does not the sale of nationalised industries, together with the fact that there will be no further outgoings of taxpayers' money—plus the income referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field)—show that the cash flow of those countries will greatly benefit from the sale of nationalised bodies to the private sector?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why so many Governments are looking to the process of privatisation to strengthen their economic base. The fact is that industries and companies which 15 years ago were soggy, producer-dominated, trade-union-dominated monopolies are now world-class companies winning for Britain in the four corners of the world.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Has the right hon. Gentleman warned those inquirers about how many billions of pounds consumers of water and electricity have been charged as a result of privatisation? Has he warned them, for example, that if North West Water shared its profits

    1717
    50–50 between consumers and shareholders, it could reduce every consumer's bill by £50 a year? Has he warned them about the rip-offs on share options and salary increases to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) rightly drew attention?
    Has the right hon. Gentleman, as a golden shareholder in the National Grid Company, given any warning to National Grid about its tax avoidance schemes in Dublin and the Channel islands which are ripping off the taxpayer? Consumers and taxpayers are being ripped off by privatisation. How much has the taxpayer lost as a result of offshore tax dodges by National Grid, and does the right hon. Gentleman defend that?
    Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman has shown us exactly the sort of support that British privatised companies would get from a Labour Government. While my ministerial colleagues and I spend our time travelling the world helping to sell British expertise and products produced by the British privatised industries, all that the Opposition can do is find nit-picking complaints in the hope of discrediting one of the most successful changes in industrial ownership in this country's history.

    Takeover Bids
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's policy concerning possible takeover bids for the privatised utilities. [16436]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): Takeover bids for the privatised utilities are subject to normal merger control procedures. However, special arrangements apply to mergers between water companies.
    Mr. Williams: Now that the Government's golden shares have been lifted, the privatised utilities will become very juicy targets for a plethora of takeover bids. Why is the Government's regulatory framework so hopelessly weak as to allow massive profits and a host of boardroom excesses? What hope is there for effective regulation if a privatised utility is taken over by a large conglomerate?
    Mr. Evans: As I have said previously when dealing with questions about the Trafalgar House and Northern Electric issue, the powers of the regulator remain, whether or not there is a takeover. I note that there is some argument in the press to the effect that the whole business of the bid for Northern Electric was a factor which led the regulator to reopen the question of prices. I remind the hon. Gentleman that under the last Labour Government the price of electricity went up by 2 per cent. every six weeks. Under the present Government, the price of electricity has fallen. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that our water companies' average price is the lowest in Europe and that their investment is the highest in Europe? Surely what is important is the service to the customer, not who owns the individual company.
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right. The water companies' record not only in the matters to which he has drawn attention, but in terms of investment, has been spectacular and contrasts markedly with investment when they were in the public sector under the Labour
    1718
    Government. Some £12 billion has been invested in the water infrastructure. It would be helpful if Labour Members paid due credit to that.
    Mr. Wigley: What powers will the Government use to prevent a takeover in the event of an offer being made for a company such as Welsh Water? That company has a large retained profits level, which only this week has come under criticism from Ofwat in Wales. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will intervene to ensure that no such takeover took place?
    Mr. Evans: I should point out two factors to the hon. Gentleman. Not only has significant investment taken place in the water industry in Wales, but, as the hon. Gentleman in particular should be aware, Welsh Water is slightly distinct from other water companies in that the 15 per cent. share which applies in relation to the special shares of other water companies is retained by Welsh Water and can be changed only by a 75 per cent. vote of shareholders. In the circumstances, that should be of some solace to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. O'Neill: Can the Minister confirm the rumours that are circulating about a change of ownership Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear? Has the Government's policy on that matter changed? If so, will he ensure that, before any sales are made, an announcement is made to the House?
    Mr. Evans: I am not sure how that question fits in with the general line of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). As so many stories from so many different directions have been produced so often by Opposition Members, I do not propose to engage in rumour-mongering with Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen.

    Manufacturing Base
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he proposes to regenerate Britain's manufacturing base. [16437]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): The latest figures show manufacturing output up 4.3 per cent., productivity up 4.6 per cent. and exports up 14 per cent. on a year earlier, The Government's policies to help manufacturing and other businesses to win are set out in last year's "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win" White Paper. We will publish a second White Paper containing further initiatives soon.
    Mr. Mackinlay: We have all those "ups", but what are they up on? Is it not a fact that the country's manufacturing has not increased substantially for 20 years? How can the Government claim to take pride in the nation when they have presided over a haemorrhaging of our manufacturing base? Why are their friends—employer and industry representatives and the banks—pointing to the country's great skills shortage? Are not the Government selling the country short in all sectors, especially manufacturing?
    Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman shows all the dangers of coming to the House with a rigidly prepared supplementary question. Three years ago, in the middle of the recession, his comments might have had some validity, but I remind him of my answer—manufacturing

    1719
    up, exports up on last year, productivity up, investment up. The only thing that is down is unemployment. It is all good news.
    Mr. Knapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the export-led recovery is becoming apparent even to a few of the more thoughtful Opposition Members? Will not that awareness be assisted by the recent £1 billion export order won by Lucas Industries in my constituency?
    Mr. Page: I can but agree with my hon. Friend. The growth that we are seeing in the United Kingdom can only be regarded as miraculous. For the first time, we have stability in world trade and we have arrested a decline which has been going on for decades. The sort of order to which my hon. Friend referred is good news.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that, in terms of gross domestic product, our manufacturing base is well below that of France and Germany and is still not recovering at the right speed? Should not there be more co-ordination between the Exchequer and the Department of Employment? Is it not strange that, while the Department of Trade and Industry is trying to do one thing, the Department of Employment is cutting the enterprise allowance scheme and the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to believe that 35 per cent. of people in this country work for small and medium-sized firms which need finance and help?
    Mr. Page: There is a philosophical divide between our two parties. We do not believe in such centralised plans. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the success of the National Enterprise Board set up by Labour to try to help British industry: it cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds. I must also point out that the White Paper entitled "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win" is the most positive way to help British industry take forward a wide range of best practice benchmarks and develop its export potential.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that the British silverware industry is rightly renowned throughout the world for the quality of its work and that that quality is synonymous with the British hallmark? May I congratulate him and his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry on their robust and successful defence of the British hallmark last week in Brussels against determined attempts by the Germans and Italians to consign it to the dustbin of history?
    Mr. Page: My hon. Friend's position has always been very clear and I thank him on behalf of the Department for his robust support in producing such a successful result.

    Balance of Trade
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current deficit in the balance of trade for manufactured goods. [16438]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): In 1994, United Kingdom exports rose to all-time highs, reducing the trade deficit in manufactures by £500 million to £7.5 billion.
    Mr. Grocott: I am not sure whether the Minister is proud of that answer, but will he take this opportunity to remind the House of some salutary economic statistics? In the second quarter of 1979, under Labour, there was a
    1720
    surplus in manufacturing trade of £1 billion, whereas in the fourth quarter of 1994, under the Conservatives, there was a deficit of £2 billion. Are not those figures a reflection of the vandalism perpetrated on our manufacturing base, especially in my region, the west midlands? Will the Minister in a spirit of humility initiate urgent talks with those who were Ministers in the Labour Government to discover how Labour succeeded with manufacturing trade where the Tories have failed?
    Mr. Needham: May I, in all humility, spell out to the hon. Gentleman the record of his party? I refer not to the second quarter of 1979 but to the fact that between 1974 and 1979 manufacturing output went down by 3 per cent. Between 1979 and 1994, manufacturing output went up by 9.5 per cent. Between 1974 and 1979, manufacturing exports went up by 11 per cent., and between 1979 and 1994 they went up by 80 per cent. Between 1974 and 1979, manufacturing productivity went up by 5.5 per cent. whereas between 1979 and 1994 it went up by 73.5 per cent. I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking such a helpful planted question.
    Mr. Brooke: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the shift from the third world to the first world in the direction of exports between 1979 and today? Does not that expansion into high-tech exports bode extremely well for the future?
    Mr. Needham: In 1979, it appeared that British industry was in long-term, irreversible decline, helped by the Labour party. Since 1985, the share of Britain's trade has stabilised and is now, if anything, going up. That is an enormous credit to our private sector, which has been set free by the Conservative Government and is now competing throughout the length and breadth of the world at the most competitive edges of technology.
    Mr. Hardy: After 15 years of failure, we need not merely a temporary miracle, but a sustained one. Is there any prospect of that being maintained by a Government who, in the case of the steel industry, have deliberately allowed unfair competition to go unchallenged and have created a situation in which unfair competitors in Europe will take much more advantage of their protection when the going gets a bit more difficult, as it is bound to do if this Government stay in office much longer?
    Mr. Needham: We need no lectures from the Opposition about looking after our industries in Europe. We need no lectures from a party which knows little about industry and would succumb to the first blow that it received from Europe. The hon. Gentleman referred to British Steel. In 1979, nationalised industries cost the taxpayer £50 million per week. Those now privatised industries currently contribute £50 million per week to the Exchequer. That is a miracle which even the Opposition could not reverse.

    European Navigation Satellite System
    Mrs. Gillan: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport about ensuring United Kingdom industrial involvement in any future European global navigation satellite system; and if he will make a statement. [16439]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): My noble Friend Viscount Goschen, Minister for Aviation and Shipping, and I have agreed a common approach to the European global navigation satellite system programme. Our Departments are together contributing some £5.2 million which, added to contributions from UK industry, will provide an effective basis for UK involvement in the programme.
    Mrs. Gillan: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his welcome announcement of that £5.2 million funding, which will support our UK industry in the new area of navigation by satellite? I do not want to sound ungrateful when the new funding has just been announced and I know that the plans from the European Space Agency have only just been forthcoming, but could my hon. Friend give me and the UK industry an assurance that there will be funding in the medium term to build on this excellent up-front funding?
    Mr. Taylor: It is always a pleasure to be chivvied by my hon. Friend, especially in space—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which space?"] We seem to be getting into holiday mood, for which I blame myself. The importance of the global navigation system and the ARTES 9 programme is that they are likely to lead in the long term to controlling the movements of all civil aircraft, the movement of ships and, ultimately, the monitoring of road transport. It is therefore essential that British industry should play a full part. We have put up money which British industry is more than matching. I am in negotiations with the European Space Agency to ensure that we can accept the whole of the amount that British industry is putting up. It is difficult for me at the moment to forecast future public expenditure survey rounds, but my noble Friend Viscount Goschen and I are looking closely to see what more we might do in this programme.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Does the Minister agree that with this navigation system and all other areas of space involvement, if we do not actively involve ourselves European-wide, give the encouragement that is necessary to the industry and assist in restructuring the industry so that it can face the challenges from the United States, we shall be pushed out of this area altogether? Does the Minister raise these issues when he is talking about trade with people from the United States who are constantly telling us about their record on free trade when indirect subsidies from the American Government are being poured into their space and aerospace industries, to our detriment?
    Mr. Taylor: I am well aware of the pricing policy which can occur in some American companies and I have alerted my European colleagues to it. We are busily restructuring the industry. One of our largest companies in the space sector, Matra Marconi Space, is now a 50–50 joint venture with the French. There is a new arrangement between Matra Marconi Space and Alcatel for a new series of the Eutel satellite programmes. We are well placed to win competitive bids. My big problem at the moment is to persuade the European Space Agency to let contracts competitively rather than on the basis of Buggin's turn or juste retour. I will raise that point at the ESA ministerial conference later this year.

    Cable Communications
    Mr. Butler: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent meetings he has had with the Cable Communications Association to discuss projects in schools, hospitals or other community-based institutions. [16440]
    Mr. Ian Taylor: I often meet and correspond with the Cable Communications Association. I have also had positive discussions with individual cable companies about connections to community-based institutions within their franchises.
    Mr. Butler: Is my hon. Friend aware that ever since the first modern computer, the Colossus, was constructed at Bletchley Park, which is now part of Milton Keynes, Milton Keynes has led the way in information technology of all sorts? Is he also aware that the excellent schools and colleges and both universities make great use of the present facilities? Can my hon. Friend confirm that schools—not just those in Milton Keynes, but those elsewhere so that they can catch up with us—will be able to connect into the cable systems and take full advantage of them so that our children are well equipped for the future?
    Mr. Taylor: I had the great pleasure of being in my hon. Friend's constituency in Milton Keynes not long ago during Science, Engineering and Technology Week. I pay tribute to all that is being done within that hive of activity, particularly in high technology. The Cable Communications Association has undertaken to ensure that all schools in the areas for which it has franchises will be connected. It is going much further by developing a series of classrooms without walls programmes to ensure that multimedia techniques are available for children in this country. British Telecom is also doing an enormous amount for schools with its campus series. We are making rapid progress. Last week, the Department and industry announced the schools on-line project.

    Shipbuilding Industry
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about future prospects for the shipbuilding industry. [16441]
    Mr. Eggar: I welcome the steps that the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry has been taking to improve its competitiveness in the face of very challenging market conditions.
    Mr. Hutton: Is not the arrival into the United Kingdom this week of the new P and O cruise liner Oriana yet another example of the decline of Britain's historic shipbuilding industry? Is the Minister aware that that will be felt particularly strongly in my constituency, where the previous Oriana vessel was constructed in the late 1950s? Why have the British Government not shown the same level of patriotism and support for our shipbuilding industry as other foreign Governments in the European Union have shown for theirs? Is that not a further example of the decline in the British industrial base caused by the Government's negligence?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman seems unaware that P and O asked all three British yards to bid for the building of the vessel and all three declined to do so for their own

    1723
    commercial reasons. A significant number of firms supplied equipment for the Oriana and much of the outfitting work was done by United Kingdom firms.
    Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister endorse the efforts being made by Harland and Wolff to diversify its product range and to develop further its international competitive position by seeking to establish co-operative agreements with overseas yards such as Kawasaki and Daewoo? Does he agree that that is one of the ways in which all British yards can help to secure their future?
    Mr. Eggar: As I believe the hon. Gentleman is aware, I paid a visit to Harland and Wolff and I shall shortly meet again its chief executive, Mr. Per Nielson. The yard is making strenuous efforts to diversify. I have set up a group among the oil companies to look at the possibility of producing floating production vessels at the Harland and Wolff yard and other yards in the United Kingdom. The initial results of that study are encouraging. Ultimately, Harland and Wolff must be able to compete effectively with other yards, both in Europe and elsewhere.

    Export Promotion
    Mr. Spring: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export promoters have been seconded to his Department from the private sector; and if he will make a statement. [16442]
    Mr. Needham: Last July, the Department achieved its aim of recruiting 100 export promoters—high-calibre senior managers with export expertise, on secondment from the private sector, who have become a major success in helping Britain to win business overseas.
    Mr. Spring: I salute the Department of Trade and Industry's initiative. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that excellent marriage between the public and private sectors is contributing greatly to the staggering success of British exports, notably to Latin America, the Indian sub-continent and the Pacific Rim, with all the job creation opportunities which flow from that to Britain?
    Mr. Needham: In agreeing with my hon. Friend, and without wanting to be invidious with regard to naming names, because all the export promoters have done a remarkable job, may I say that one promoter, Linda Boize, is working on an order for Thailand worth £360 million. The Thai Government have told us that that project could not be carried out anywhere but in Britain. It is being carried out as a result of the work of Linda Boize and her colleagues.
    Mr. Harvey: Can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that there have been no exports or arrangements for the sale of electro-shock equipment involving any British companies since 1984?
    Mr. Needham: The answer is no. That has nothing whatsoever to do with export promoters. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know how export promoters can help companies in his constituency, he might like to ask questions about the subject in hand.
    Mr. Enright: Despite the admitted success of the people we have sent out, will the Minister explain why, in the 12 years after 1979, this country lagged behind all the G7 countries and all the European Union countries,
    1724
    apart from Denmark, our beloved Greece and even Spain, with regard to the rise in exports? That was the case despite North sea oil and the gift that it provided.
    Mr. Needham: I have bandied statistics with the hon. Gentleman and I was grateful for his recent work in Austria. However, we are lagging behind no one. Since 1981, our exports have increased faster than those in Germany, Japan and the United States. That is not a bad record. As I told the hon. Gentleman—he clearly did not hear this last time—our share of world trade has stabilised since the mid-1980s and, if anything, it is increasing. Under the Labour Government and previous Governments, it had suffered 100 years of inexorable decline. The change has come because of the policies followed by this Government.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the very considerable increase in our exports to Latin America which coincided with the appointment of the new export promoters, notably covering Colombia and Brazil? Can we hope for a further increase in the number of those excellent people, combining private sector skills with those of the outstanding diplomats in our embassies and commercial missions over there to increase British exports yet further?
    Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend has a great knowledge of that part of the world and he has helped us as a result of that knowledge. He is perfectly right to say that we have eight export promoters for Latin America who are working as a team and doing an enormous amount through the links to Latin America campaign, which I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House will make use of in their constituencies, to show the opportunities that exist in Latin America for British business. I am convinced that the export promoter initiative will be a crucial ingredient in restoring the level of trade which this country used to enjoy in Latin America and which, since the 1920s, unfortunately has been declining, although it now seems to be on the way up again.

    Manufacturing Investment
    Mr. Berry: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the change between 1979 and 1993 in the proportion of gross domestic product invested in manufacturing industry in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany and (c) Japan. [16444]
    Mr. Needham: The latest figures show that the United Kingdom invested 2.2 per cent. of gross domestic product in manufacturing industry in 1992 and 3.1 per cent. in 1979. Comparable figures, for which the hon. Gentleman asked, for Japan and Germany are not available, not least because Germany did not exist in 1979.
    Mr. Berry: Does the Minister consider that the decline in the share of GDP invested in manufacturing industry over that period might explain why, under this Conservative Government, Britain has had the worst growth record and the highest levels of unemployment since the war? Does the Minister consider that it might also explain why Britain has had the worst economic performance of any of our major industrial competitors? Does he not also consider that it suggests that quoting statistics on economic performance over the past 12 months might be seriously misleading?
    Mr. Needham: It is always a privilege to have another lecture from a lecturer among Opposition Members, who, as usual, know nothing about industry. As the hon. Gentleman asked about Germany, I can respond only about western Germany. Since 1979, manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom has risen nearly two and a half times as much as in western Germany. Since 1979, our exports have risen faster than in Germany.
    It is nonsense to claim that this country's economy is not competing effectively with the rest of the world. When the hon. Gentleman is not lecturing, why does he think that we have managed to attract 40 per cent. of Japanese investment in Europe while Germany has managed to attract only 17 per cent? Why does he think that the same applies to investment from the United States, in respect of which Germany has attracted investment of only 9 per cent? The facts speak for themselves. The hon. Gentleman should be proud of the fact that, in Bristol, he represents a city which, under this Government, is increasing its share of world trade faster and faster.
    Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that often it is not so much the quantity as the quality of manufacturing investment that is important? Is it not also important to remember that manufacturing investment statistics do not include items such as research and development in pharmaceuticals? Do not British pharmaceutical companies, whether owned by overseas companies or by United Kingdom companies, lead those of Japan and Germany?
    Mr. Needham: Of course my hon. Friend is right, and he is also right to stress the importance of the quality of manufacturing investment. In the last days of the Labour Government, when billions of pounds were used to subsidise nationalised industries, much of that money appeared in the figures as if it were manufacturing investment, although it did nothing for exports, for productivity or for competitiveness. Most of what it was subsidising had to be closed down, because it had been invested in the wrong products.
    Mr. Bell: Everyone, both in the House and in the country, knows that last year when the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), now Secretary of State for National Heritage, talked about high dividends and low investment, he was promptly denounced by Lord Hanson, who contributed £120,000 to the Conservative party and then sent a letter to the Prime Minister denouncing the right hon. Gentleman. When it comes to high dividends and low investment, we know full well where the heart of the Tory party is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question?"] The question is: in heaven's name, who runs the Department of Trade and Industry when it comes to investment? Is it the President of the Board of Trade or is it Lord Hanson?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman talks about investment regardless of the quality of that investment, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) referred—
    Mr. Bell: I asked about Lord Hanson.
    Mr. Needham: I am talking not about Lord Hanson but about the question, which concerned investment. The hon. Gentleman, who is more sensible than most
    1726
    Opposition Members about such matters, will know that if manufacturing productivity has increased two and a half times faster in the United Kingdom than in Germany, that has to reflect the quality and importance of British investment over that period. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] That is the answer.
    Mr. Sykes: As everybody who works in the private sector relies on the competitiveness of his company not only in Europe but elsewhere abroad, will my hon. Friend tell Opposition Members and the rest of the world what effect the social chapter and the minimum wage would have on manufacturing investment in this country?
    Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend knows a great deal about that subject and has been involved in business all his life, so he knows perfectly well that the social chapter would impose a massive additional burden on industry, because it would reduce support through arrangements such as family credit. The consequences for British competitiveness and profitability would be dire indeed. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) knows that perfectly well, but he does not know what to do about it.

    Post Office
    Ms Hoey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent meetings he has had with the Post Office to discuss its future. [16445]
    Mr. Heseltine: I most recently met the chairman and chief executive of the Post Office on 2 March.
    Ms Hoey: As the Secretary of State has met the representatives of the Post Office, and does so regularly, when will he give the House and the country some idea of his vision for its future? Is he not aware that the Post Office desperately wants to be given commercial freedom within the public sector? There is almost united support for that idea in the country, and there would be support in the House, too, if legislation were introduced. Why will the right hon. Gentleman not make the simple decision to give the Post Office the opportunity to operate commercially within the public sector?
    Mr. Heseltine: Because it is not possible to have commercial disciplines in the public sector.
    Mr. Jenkin: May I inform my right hon. Friend that when I ironically congratulated the leader of one of the Post Office unions in my constituency on the success of the anti-privatisation campaign, he confessed to me that he rather regretted having won that victory? Can we cease to tie our hands behind our backs in expounding the virtues of a privatised Royal Mail, and may we have an assurance that when we win the general election, at the top of our agenda will be a plan to set the Royal Mail free so that it can expand its markets throughout the world?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes an important point. No one would be happier than I to see Royal Mail join the large number of other privatised industries that are winning battles for Britain across the world.

    Business Links
    Mr. Mudie: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the business links scheme is on target operationally and financially; and if he will make a statement. [16446]
    Mr. Heseltine: I have stated on a number of occasions that the programme is well on course to reach its target for a national network in England of around 200 business links by the end of 1995. In addition to receiving a contribution to start-up costs, business links have been assured of on-going funding from my Department for the delivery of counselling and business support services. They are also financed by partner contributions and charges for services.
    Mr. Mudie: The House will have noted the President's answer on the financial side, but will he concede that the success of that well-intentioned venture has been jeopardised by a series of blunders which have been extensively catalogued in an internal audit report? I see that the President smiles at that remark. As the internal audit report shows that taxpayers' money will go in at greater levels and for longer periods, does he not think that the report should be published, or is it a case of spending taxpayers' money without explanation or apology?
    Mr. Heseltine: No, I think that the hon. Gentleman should respect the rights of Ministers to conduct internal investigations into projects which they are establishing. That is exactly what we have done. I do not think that it adds to the confidence in the regimes that we are establishing if reports are leaked before time and if misjudgments are then paraded in newspaper headlines.
    The programme enjoyed all-party support, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to this important innovation. The business links machine is capable of delivering the most sophisticated range of support for small and medium companies that this country has ever seen. That machine—which will amount to some 200 outlets—will be in place by the end of the year.
    Mr. Garnier: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 27 January I opened the business links office in Market Harborough? The taxpayer is already getting good value for money because many of the small and medium businesses that trade around Market Harborough have made good use of that office for their benefit and for that of their employees and the British economy.
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will be glad to hear that we raised a glass of champagne to him on the day that he opened the business links office.
    Dr. John Cunningham: The President should be a bit more candid about his internal audit document which comments on the progress of the business links programme. The document—a copy of which I have here from his Department—does not confirm what the right hon. Gentleman has said. In the document, his own civil servants say:
    "The medium and long term viability of established business links is uncertain".
    It also says:
    "We found that the financial appraisal of BL business plans has in general not been sufficiently rigorous".
    It goes on to say:
    "The Department was exposed to financial risk and potential embarrassment".
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), but I am sure that he realises that we do not allow quotes at Question Time. I think that he has forgotten that fact.
    Dr. Cunningham: Will the President confirm that the document says that payments made under the scheme before September 1994 were ultra vires? We believe that that is the case. Why, in his rush to proceed, has the President taken what was a very good Labour party idea—for which, as he said, there was all-party support—and put it in such jeopardy?
    Mr. Heseltine: I shall try to explain to the House what the issue that has given rise to such interest is about. It is very simple. When we established business links, we had to decide whether we would provide a 100 per cent. subsidy from the centre for a period without question.
    It was clearly put to me by the partners in the business links venture—the training and enterprise councils, chambers of commerce, local enterprise agencies, local authorities and the Confederation of British Industry—that they did not want a 100 per cent. subsidy from Government because it would then become a central Government organisation and they wanted local initiative, local discretion and local flexibility. I totally support that view.
    One of the ways in which that can be assured is by those partners contributing to the funding, both by subvention from the partner organisations and by way of charges raised from individual companies which take advantage of the service. As, by definition, the need for charges will not come on stream for two to three years on the scale envisaged, one cannot guarantee at the outset the precise level of charges that will be raised. It is perfectly possible for someone to produce a report and say, "You can't be sure that you'll get the money." There will inevitably be questions.
    I believe—there is perfectly good evidence for doing so—in the charges that we have made for consultancy schemes and in hard charging for export advice. I believe also that small companies will find those services worth paying for, but I cannot prove that in advance. The only way would be to do exactly that which the partners do not want—underwrite the whole lot from the beginning, at the taxpayer's expense. I refuse to do that.
    The scheme which we put in place is imaginative and constructive. It was designed with the local element much to the forefront. As my hon. Friend the Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and other right hon and hon. Members said, the important thing is to make the scheme work and to give it every support. It is not controversial. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) rightly said that it featured in the Labour party's manifesto. I do not know how it got in that manifesto, but it did. Before the right hon. Gentleman gets carried away, I shall point out that it was featured in the Liberal manifesto. If there is one thing that creates anxiety in my mind, it is that I introduced an idea to which both main Opposition parties subscribe.

    Telecommunications Companies
    Mr. French: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to assist British telecommunications companies to develop commercial involvements in European and other markets. [16447]
    Mr. Ian Taylor: The Government are continuing to press for rapid liberalisation of telecoms services and infrastructures in the European Union and world wide. The Overseas Project Board and Overseas Trade Services help operators and suppliers win a greater share of overseas business.
    Mr. French: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason that British telecoms companies are so successful in Europe is that this country and the Government set the worldwide agenda for privatisation, liberalisation and a sound regulatory framework? Does he agree also that another manifestation of the same success factor is the level of inward investment by cable companies?
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes an important point. This country is a test-bed for the development of the information infrastructure. We welcome inward investment, which has created jobs and helped to advance our technological base more rapidly. Most companies that have invested in this country are now also exporting to its benefit. There are also several joint ventures such as GPT, between GEC and Siemens, which has a massive telecoms contract in Moscow. The competitive instincts of the British market are leading us to succeed in other markets. I look forward to further developments in all aspects of the infrastructure—fixed link, mobile, supplies and services—around the world, as other countries follow our lead and liberalise their infrastructures and services.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to expand manufacturing industries; and if he will make a statement. [16449]
    Mr. Page: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that a substantial part of British manufacturing is accounted for by small firms? What are the Government doing to assist the vital part of the economy that they represent?
    Mr. Page: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the important contribution made by small and medium enterprises—the proverbial acorns from which we hope oaks will grow, which contribute 25 per cent. to our gross domestic product. As my right hon. Friend the President just said, 200 business links have been created, which will give business men a single coherent signpost to advice, market research and other necessary services to help them expand. That will prevent them from being pushed from pillar to post. Most important of all is a proper, stable economic climate with low inflation and low interest rates, which gives the best basis for British business.
    Mr. Purchase: Is it not pathetic that Conservative Members ask questions about expanding British manufacturing, given that a Conservative Government wiped out one third of Britain's manufacturing base in the 1980s? As things hot up as the consequence of an undervalued pound, capacity is insufficient to meet export demand. The Government preach their record, and it gives us no pleasure to make the other argument. The
    1730
    Government are wholly responsible for wiping out one third of this country's manufacturing capacity, particularly in the west midlands.
    Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear my answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock, in which I said that investment, exports, productivity and manufacturing were up. The hon. Gentleman seems to be ignoring the huge success of the Invest in Britain Bureau, which has brought into the country more than 300 companies in the manufacturing sector and created about 84,000 jobs. It is certainly helping to fulfil and expand Britain's manufacturing base.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend recall the frequent references of Labour Members to reports made by the Engineering Employer Federation a year or two ago, when those reports contained fairly depressing news? Has he noted the silence on the Opposition Benches since the Engineering Employers Federation began to report that orders, investment and manufacturing output were up? Is there not something wrong when Opposition Members talk only about bad news for Britain?
    Mr. Page: I can only agree with my hon. Friend. The Labour party seems to ignore the forecast that is being produced by the CBI, which suggests that in its view manufacturing investment will be up by about 8 per cent. this year. The London business school is saying that it will be up by about 15 per cent. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research is forecasting 9 per cent. Not all of them will be right, but they are all pointing in the right way. That shows that success is with us. It is all good news.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister not realise the offence that it causes to the public when they hear the self-congratulatory nonsense to which we have been listening and compare it with their experience of life? The people of Scotland have witnessed under this Government a reduction in the number of manufacturing units from more than 4,500 to 3,000. Manufacturing employment has been reduced from 563,000 jobs to 300,000. Does the Minister not realise that it is that sort of experience that will contribute tomorrow to the slaughter of the Tories in the Scottish local government elections, and next month in the English and Welsh local government elections? Even if his colleague, the President of the Board of Trade, succeeds to the position that he covets, such statistics will be hung round the neck of the Government for many years to come.
    Mr. Page: If the BBC were here, it would be banning that broadcast. It would be against the rules. Investment in Scotland has been at record levels. In the manufacturing sector, there has been an increase of about 25,000 jobs throughout the country. We can see the results overall. Every day, 1,000 jobs are being created. Unemployment has been decreasing by 1,000 a day over the past two years. These are enormous successes that should not be left on one side.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is evidence of a growing success of manufacturing industry, and not merely through the Engineering Employers Federation, where even small firms are starting to recruit? There is news from the Machine Tool Technologies Association to the effect that the machine tool industry is operating on a considerable

    1731
    balance of trade surplus, and has been for some time. Is that not a knock in the eye for Opposition Members, who seem always to see their duty to write down and write off British industry as much as possible purely for party political reasons?
    Mr. Page: My hon. Friend produces the Machine Tool Technologies Association as a classic example. I can only agree with him. I hope to be travelling with a delegation to Milan to try to increase export potential in the next few months.

    Manufacturing Investment
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has had with representatives of manufacturing industry about the availability of long-term finance; and if he will make a statement. [16451]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has frequent discussions with representatives of manufacturing industry. Many of these cover long-term finance. The Government can best encourage investment in manufacturing industry by providing a stable macro-economic environment based on low inflation and sound public finances.
    Mr. Mullin: Is the Minister aware that I was talking the other day to a member of the northern branch of the Engineering Employers Federation? He said that the greatest obstacles to the expansion of his business were the greed, myopia and excessive short-termism of British banks. Does the Minister's Department have plans to do anything about that, or is his party too deeply in hock to the bankers?
    Mr. Evans: There is no more ludicrous a spectacle of new Labour than the hon. Gentleman presenting himself as the champion of manufacturing industry. May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, during the 1980s, business investment in this country grew faster than in any other Group of Seven countries except Japan? Opposition Members may shout about it, but that is a fact.
    Mrs. Peacock: Does my hon. Friend agree that many manufacturing industries, particularly in west Yorkshire—and in my own constituency since 1984—have been investing money since the early 1980s? Does he further agree that a slightly more sympathetic venture and help from banks would now be a great advantage to all those industries?
    Mr. Evans: I think that my hon. Friend will be aware of the loan guarantee scheme, which is run through the Department of Trade and Industry. Changes were introduced in the Budget, to do with capital gains tax reinvestment, single company personal equity plan schemes and employee share schemes. A number of measures were taken to help investment, but I very much take on board the point that my hon. Friend makes. We are looking to the banks to make their contribution as well.

    Business Links
    Mr. Miller: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on business links in the North West. [16452]
    Mr. Heseltine: Twelve business link outlets are currently open in the north-west. Approval has been granted for a further nine. Assessment panels will consider further proposals in April, June and September. When the regional network is complete, there will be more than 30 outlets.
    Mr. Miller: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the statement that there was greater scope for direction at the earlier stages of the scheme, by his Department? If so, what assessment has he made of the damage that that has done to the potential of the scheme in the north-west? More important, what steps has he taken to correct that weakness?
    Mr. Heseltine: I explained to the House a few minutes ago that we have tried to preserve a balance between ensuring that quality is consistent across the whole network and ensuring the flexibility that the local partners quite understandably want. I believe that, from all the evidence available to me, we are making good progress in that direction. Recently, I spent a day at a major conference of business link chief executives, and the mood of optimism was extremely encouraging.

    Post Office
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he intends to take to allow commercial freedom for the Post Office; and if he will make a statement. [16453]
    Mr. Heseltine: The Post Office operates several businesses. We are actively engaged in widening the opportunity for Post Office Counters Ltd. and are helping to automate its services. We will announce any plans to change the present arrangements governing the remainder of the Post Office in due course.
    Mr. Barnes: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey), in connection with Post Office commercial practices, the President said that it was impossible to have commercial freedom operating in the public sector. Would he like to explain the blinkered economic thinking behind that set of ideas?
    Mr. Heseltine: Absolutely. I do not understand how, if a taxpayers' guarantee stands behind a business, it can operate in total commercial freedom.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we were to give the Post Office within the public sector greater commercial freedom it would mean greater borrowing, which would be added to the public sector borrowing requirement and would eventually lead to higher taxes?
    Mr. Heseltine: All those things would, of course, come within the Treasury rules, and that is something that no Government have ever been able to avoid. The House would have to answer basic questions about what it would expect me to do about Parcel Force, which is losing a significant amount of money travelling up and down the roads, in competition with private sector companies that could not survive with a financial regime of that sort.

    Privatised Utilities (Executive Pay)
    Mr. Pike: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures have been taken to prevent very

    1733
    large pay and share option increases being provided for executives of privatised utilities. [16455]
    Mr. Eggar: Pay increases for executives in the privatised utilities are a matter for the companies and their shareholders, not the Government.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that the public are increasingly concerned that the Government seem so loth to take any action to stop the obscene payments that have made to some of the chief executives and other officials of the privatised utilities? May I suggest that, as far as North West Water is concerned, where a large part of our bills is for long-term capital investment, the consumers should be given shares in respect of that investment and thereby given a say in what Sir Desmond Pitcher and others should be paid.
    Mr. Eggar: The Labour party simply does not understand the benefits of privatisation—the improvements in the quality of service, the reductions in price and the benefits to consumers overall. The hon. Gentleman and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are completely captured by the politics of envy.

    Exports
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the level of exports over the past year. [16456]
    Mr. Needham: During the past year, British exports have broken all records, resulting in the lowest visible trade deficit since 1991. Exports are predicted to grow by a further 10 per cent. this year. In 1994, visible exports earned £135 billion, with volume and value up by 11 per cent. over 1993.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this is the first time that economic recovery in Britain has been export led? Does that not underline the fact that Britain's economic recovery is soundly based and we can look forward to another two and a half years of rapid growth?
    Mr. Needham: I hope that I can say to my hon. Friend that we can look forward to many years of export-led recovery, and that is a triumph for British industry and the British Government.

Health Services (London)
3.30 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the health service in London.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The decisions that I announced yesterday follow four separate statutory consultation exercises about hospital changes in south and east London and around Barnet and Edgware. In each case, the decisions measure up against the Government's key objectives for improving the health service in London—to strengthen specialist services by concentrating them in centres of excellence; to preserve and enhance medical teaching and research in the capital; to provide more modern acute hospital services closer to the major centres of population; and to release money to increase investment in family doctor and community health services which are badly needed in parts of the capital.
Those key elements of the Government's strategy will be familiar to the House. I set them out in a statement at the time of the publication of the Tomlinson report, and again when I announced my response. They have been frequently debated. I said on those occasions and I say again: the objectives of this strategy enjoy widespread support within the clinical and academic worlds and from independent commentators such as the King's Fund. The need for change in London is widely recognised, and widely recognised as long overdue.
I hear and understand the concerns that have been expressed, not least by right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). We considered very carefully the points made during the consultations, including those made by right hon. and hon. Members in their meetings with the Minister for Health and me. In particular, I was struck by the points made about the pace of change and the extended time scale of some of the announcements yesterday respond to those points.
Let me make it absolutely clear that no accident and emergency facility, or indeed any other, will close until Ministers are satisfied that the alternative facilities are not only available but capable of providing an improved service for patients.
My right hon. Friend asks specifically about the financial implications. The changes announced yesterday will be backed by £400 million of capital investment. That is on top of the £210 million that we are already spending on improved primary care. That is a substantial investment in a modern health service.
That money will buy, among other things, a new NHS hospital for Greenwich, an upgraded hospital in Barnet, complete with a state-of-the-art accident and emergency department and a world-beating centre for neurosciences and neurosurgery at King's. It will support the changes at the Royal Hospitals trust and Guy's and St. Thomas's, which will develop them as centres of supreme excellence in treatment, teaching and research. In addition, we are investing substantially in other hospitals such as the Homerton, Lewisham, King's and the Royal Free.
1736
Aside from the direct clinical benefits, we expect those changes to lead to substantial revenue savings which we estimate will be of the order of £75 million each year once the changes are complete. That is money which can and will be invested elsewhere in the health service, both in community health services in London's areas of greatest need and outside the capital.
I say to the House that, at the moment, rather than getting £75 million out, we are putting in £28 million each year, supporting the duplication and fragmentation of services around the four areas covered by my announcement. That must be a good exchange by anyone's standards.
For St Bartholomew's and the Royal London, capital investment will total nearly £240 million. It is expected to deliver revenue savings of £30 million a year; the current subsidy for the trust is about £8 million a year.
Let me say to my right hon. Friend that the changes that I announced yesterday, which take our strategy forward, are not primarily about finance. [Interruption.] These changes are about improving the quality of care. They are about better specialist services, where medical expertise is enhanced by bringing clinicians together to benefit from each other's ideas; they are about better teaching and better research, and about linking world-class hospitals to multi-faculty colleges; they are about equipping modern hospitals to respond more flexibly to the pressures that they face, and harness the awesome advances in medical technology; and they are about providing more health care where Londoners need it most badly—in their communities, their doctors' surgeries and the streets where they live. It is on that basis that I made my decisions.
Change is never easy, but to fail to deal with the need for change in London would be to fail to deal with the needs of Londoners. I am determined that, as a result of these changes, we shall have a health service in London that is fit for the 21st century, in which we can all take great pride.
Mr. Brooke: I thank my right hon. Friend for answering my question. Her policy of rationalisation and the concentration of specialties in London enjoys considerable support among Conservative Members; against that background, will she answer a number of specific questions about Bart's?
First, can my right hon. Friend tell us anything about the current state of negotiations with the City corporation about a continued health service on the Bart's site? Does she recognise that Bart's is a national—and, indeed, international—asset, and that, in a post-industrial society, such assets are of great importance in communicating British medical excellence to the world?
Secondly, can my right hon. Friend outline as far as possible—I recognise the difficulties—her plans to ensure that the national asset to which I have referred is protected and enhanced in the merger at Whitechapel? What will be the future deployment of the historic site at Smithfield? I use the word "historic" in a living rather than a heritage sense.
Mrs. Bottomley: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's recognition of the need to rationalise and concentrate services. That message has been repeated time and again over the past 80 years, but with increasing intensity in recent years.

1737
My right hon. Friend asked what stage had been reached in discussions with the City corporation. I am glad to say that a memorandum of understanding is likely to be agreed between the corporation and the local health authorities next week. Their ideas have been based very much on the Newchurch report, in the hope of a practical response to the present-day needs of the local community.
My right hon. Friend referred to the national and international significance of the hospital's ethos and work. I said explicitly in my statement yesterday that I wanted that ethos and culture to be preserved and enhanced during the move—albeit a move to the Royal London. That tradition is important, and, as my right hon. Friend knows, I fully appreciate the long history of St Bartholomew's; but other hospitals have been able to move successfully.
For example, St George's moved to Tooting, although that took 21 years. I do not think that 21 years of indecision would benefit my right hon. Friend's constituents, or the eminent professionals who work at this distinguished hospital.
As for the site, I announced yesterday that a project team would look for practical options fitting to the site on which there has been such a history of excellent medicine over many hundreds of years. I can inform the House that Sir Ronald Grierson has agreed to chair that committee. I hope that Lord Rees-Mogg will also be a member of the committee as well as a number of other distinguished academics and clinicians.
Mr. Peter Shore: The right hon. Lady should know that her announcement of the closure of Bart's and the London Chest will be greeted with dismay and anger in east London. We do not expect our services to improve; we are fearful that they are deteriorating.
When the right hon. Lady says that there is widespread acceptance for the plans, is she not aware that, apart from what the first King's Fund report said and Tomlinson backed up, a succession of reports since then have revealed that, far from being over-bedded, London is short of beds in a major way?
When the right hon. Lady speaks of having gone through a consultative process, is she not aware that, at every stage in the consultation, her proposals have been resisted by the people directly concerned and by the community health councils? Is it not becoming a farce to speak of consultations which have no effect whatever on the area authorities, the regional authorities or the Secretary of State herself?
Mrs. Bottomley: It is my task to make sure that decisions are taken only when, after careful discussion, I am satisfied that they will lead to improvements in health care. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I know his part of London extremely well. I know the dearth of primary and community services and the benefit to his constituents of the £210 million being invested in primary care in London.
As for beds, all reports have reinforced the dilemma of excessive duplication of specialty beds. The difficulty is that the specialty beds are in units below the size necessary to gain the full benefits of research teams and managing a modern health service.
1738
When the right hon. Gentleman considers the specialty reviews chaired by eminent clinicians, many of them leading members of the royal colleges, he will see time and again the message repeated—as it was in the King's Fund report and the Tomlinson report—that the duplication and fragmentation of the specialty units mean that we do not get the maximum benefit from the substantial professional and financial commitment that we are putting into health care in London. To achieve precisely that excellence and quality of care, it is necessary to take those decisions.
Sir John Gorst: Does my right hon. Friend accept that democratic politics is about delivering to people what the majority want, and not about telling the majority of people what they should have? Does my right hon. Friend not accept now that she is doing the wrong thing, in the wrong way, at the wrong time and in the wrong place? Finally, now that my right hon. Friend has had time to reflect on her precipitate decision, which she clearly took after seeing my colleagues and myself with a weekend intervening, will she recognise that perhaps the decision was the wrong one? Will she now reconsider it?
Mrs. Bottomley: I well understand my hon. Friend's strong commitment on behalf of his local hospital and the service it has provided to his constituents. I also heard my hon. Friend saying that he has had 25 meetings on the issue.
The need for modernising the health service and bringing together state-of-the-art accident and emergency departments is repeated time and again by clinical standards advisory groups and the teams of professionals, who time and again argue about the better clinical outcome of a consultant-led service. I know that my hon. Friend felt strongly about questions of timing, transport, the ambulance service and the improvement in primary care. I hope that he will feel that, in my announcement yesterday, I have indeed considered all those elements of his requests. He knows that the health authority will be consulting about what further uses could be developed at the Edgware hospital, to fit the needs of the community not only for today, but for the next century.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that she made a grave mistake by not coming to the House to make her announcement? It is the national health service, not the Secretary of State's health service, so should not serious weight be given to the public's views about the proposals on which she consulted? If, for example, in relation to Bart's, Guy's or any other hospital, 1 million-plus people take one view, and, as in the case of Guy's, 23 people take a different view, and if the right hon. Lady then takes the view of the 23, would it not be wrong to say that she has listened to the public consultation?
The right hon. Lady said that accident and emergency units would close in five years' time, on the assumption that the remainder of the health service in London could provide an alternative. What guarantee can she give that there will not be just as much need then for the units that are in place now?
How much of the money that the right hon. Lady has announced is new money? Is it not the case that none of the capital money is new money? In view of her letter to the chairman of the South Thames regional health authority, it appears that the local commission's bid for another £29 million as the minimum needed to make the

1739
changes viable will have to be met from the regional budget, not by any additional Government money being provided as a result of her announcement yesterday.
Mrs. Bottomley: In the hon. Gentleman's lengthy contribution to the debate in the House a week ago, to which my hon. Friend the Minister for Health responded, he praised the consultation process in his area. The reconfigured proposals and the change of timing have arisen very much out of the consultation process, listening to the concerns of local people. However, the argument remains about the need, over time, to concentrate essential in-patient acute services on one site and to develop at the Guy's end a state-of-the-art centre for diagnostic day-care treatment and services.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman will see that development increasingly being regarded with great respect, not only in this country but internationally. He knows that there are proposals for Guy's to accommodate some elective work and some mental health services, over time. However, above all it is the commitment to integrating clinical services with research and education—having the research campus at the Thameside site—which is spoken of with great respect and excitement by many people in the clinical field.
On the question of accident and emergency departments, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments of Sir Norman Browse, the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, and Howard Baderman, a doctor and an adviser to the chief medical officer, who time and again talk about the great number of A and E departments in London, far above need—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am quoting Sir Norman Browse and Howard Baderman. They also talk about the importance of quality, and of having a consultant-led service.
The hon. Gentleman is aware that there will be no change in his A and E department until we are satisfied that proper alternative arrangements are in place to provide the service that his constituents need.
On the question of money, over time there is certainly no justification for London having a subsidy in transitional relief. London needs to come into better balance. The capital money is new money, to be developed over time to ensure that we can actually deliver world-class hospitals. It is new money.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot allow these long exchanges to continue with so many Members seeking and deserving to put questions to the Secretary of State. I ask for brisk questions to the Secretary of State. I hope that she will also co-operate by giving brisk replies.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have not yet met one individual in my constituency who agrees with the changes? Secondly, years ago I fought to retain grammar schools because of their long traditions. Hon. Members on this side of the House are destroying the same traditions in the hospitals, which is a form of vandalism. Is she aware that many people do not believe—and figures support their view—that we have too many hospital beds in London?
My constituents want little hospitals that they can get to and walk to, and where they can visit their people in the evening. That is the factor involved in the attack on Edgware hospital. From there, my constituents must drive
1740
six and a half miles to Northwick Park hospital. It will take anything up to one and a quarter hours. One could be dead by the time one arrives.
Mrs. Bottomley: I accept my right hon. Friend's comments about his constituents' attachment—which I share—to the existing pattern of services, but I can refer only to the comments of Professor Nick Bosanquet, who said:
"London health services may have had a glorious past but their quality in the future depends on our willingness to face up to the difficult choices now."
Mounting evidence exists about the clinical outcomes of different styles of treatment and patterns of care. It would be negligent of the holder of my office not to take seriously mounting and pressing evidence from leading clinicians.
My right hon. Friend will know not only that, in his region, he has access to Northwick Park, the Royal Free and the brand new Barnet general hospitals, but that the service at Edgware hospital will continue to provide for the vast majority of patients who use it. It has an out-patients department and a minor injuries clinic, and it will look to see what other services it can provide in relation to the needs of an increasingly aging population. Those are the health needs of today and tomorrow.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: Is the Secretary of State aware of both the anger and incomprehension among staff at the Brook hospital, particularly those in the neurosurgical team? Why have neither she nor officers of her Department held any discussions with that team, and why have they ignored all its advice to her Department, especially in relation to its concerns about the separation of neurosurgery from other acute and trauma work?
When she says that she wishes to place services nearer to the patient, is she aware that regional specialties at Brook hospital serve south-east London and Kent? Does it make any sense to move them closer to central London, so that no neurosurgery unit exists from Dover to Lambeth?
Mrs. Bottomley: I am particularly pleased to respond to the hon. Gentleman's point. The neurosciences were the one area where we did not accept the specialty review proposals that I described. That was because the recommendation of Sir Michael Thompson, the vice-chancellor and principal of the university of Birmingham, who led the London research review, identified the institute of psychiatry at Denmark Hill as a unique opportunity to build a centre of excellence.
I have received a letter from Sir Michael Thompson, in which he says—
Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State will have seen the number of hon. Members who wish to question her on the statement. I have already asked her to give brisk answers, and I hope that she will paraphrase the letter.
Mrs. Bottomley: Very quickly. Sir Michael merely said that the chairman of the expert group on neurosciences, Professor Ingrid Allan, stressed the eminence of the institute and the special health authority, and, in particular, its high reputation from an international point of view. He said:

1741
"You are to be congratulated on your action, which will create a unique centre where the results of a leading research group will more readily benefit the patients of the NHS."
Mr. Roger Sims: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when she made a statement 13 months ago, I complimented her on grasping the nettle of London hospital reorganisation? I continue to admire her courage in tackling the issue, but may I plead with her, in doing so, to show rather more sensitivity than she has in the past couple of days? She has made several references to consultation, but does she agree that consultation implies listening to what people have to say and taking account of their views?
My right hon. Friend must be aware of the volume of opposition—much of it well informed and well argued—to the proposals made by Guy's and St. Thomas's hospital trust as to the reallocation of services between the two sites. Will she take that into account? May I invite her, as I suspect that she may not have done so, to read the report of last week's debate, in which I and a number of other hon. Members raised several pertinent concerns about Guy's and St. Thomas's, to which we have received no response whatsoever? Will she consider them, and my alternative suggestions as to the way forward? May I urge her, even at this late stage, to think again?
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend, certainly for his comments to the effect that the nettle has to be grasped. There is little doubt that delay and uncertainty will not serve London's health professionals or patients. Change has to be addressed. It is always possible to look for further options. These decisions are finely balanced, and the one that he describes is one of the most finely balanced, as I think he will remember I said explicitly in my previous statement. I can assure him that I have read the debate of a week ago, which was answered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
We have taken the view that the issues raised have been thoroughly and properly addressed in what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) identified as a particularly thorough consultation process. It is now for the trust, in association with the local health authority, to start specifying in a more detailed manner the way forward, but what I am clear about is that Guy's will remain an outstanding name associated with research and education.
The opportunity, for example, to bring the school of nursing to join the medical school is one of great importance, and, as King's joins the medical school, the advantage for medical schools outside London of associating medicine with biomedical sciences will lead to even better standards.
Ms Tessa Jowell: May I return to the Secretary of State's rather evasive answer about money? So that no one is in any doubt, will she confirm that she will make £29 million available as requested by the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority—extra, new money that has not been raided from any other budget? Will she give the House that unequivocal assurance?
Mrs. Bottomley: What I have made clear is that the money will be available to invest in the capital programmes necessary for the changes envisaged. After
1742
all, this is the Government who have put £1.3 billion into the health service this year, and that is new money. We would not have made our announcement until confident that, year on year, the money—the taxpayer's money—would indeed be available. In the case of the Guy's and St. Thomas's project, that amounts to a new capital programme of £90 million.
Mr. John Marshall: My right hon. Friend will know of my concern about Edgware hospital. This afternoon she has stressed the need for greater primary health care, so will she say how much additional money she intends to put into additional primary health care in Barnet?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will have heard me say that the total amount now going into primary health care is about £210 million, funding about 1,000 new initiatives. The range of family doctor services and hospital-at-home schemes throughout London is phenomenal. I believe that the figure for my hon. Friend's constituency is £15 million, but I am somewhat hesitant to say so dogmatically, and I will confirm the figure to my hon. Friend.
Ms Diane Abbott: Is the Secretary of State aware that nothing has made this Government more unpopular in London than her complete unwillingness to listen on the matter of hospital closures? Is she aware that ordinary people in Hackney are very angry about the closure of Bart's, because promises of money for the Homerton and promises of money for primary care are just promises? We know that, in losing Bart's, we are losing access to a world-class facility.
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady has had a phenomenal investment programme at the Homerton hospital, in the area where people live. With the Homerton hospital, she is in the same position as her right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). Lewisham hospital and King's College hospital have multi-million pound programmes, because health care must be delivered where people live.
It is outrageous for the hon. Lady to say that her constituents should be destined to travel needlessly for routine health care. I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Health have visited Homerton hospital, so we are well aware of the enormous investment programme and the changes under way there.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) spoke about the regional specialties that are presently at the Brook. May I turn to the local needs, and thank the Minister of State and his predecessor for helping to get the co-operation in buying the Queen Elizabeth Military hospital so that it can succeed the Brook on the other side of Shooters hill, and bring much of the acute work from Greenwich district hospital?
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend. There will he a significant improvement. As he well knows, the present buildings are quite unsuited to the delivery of modern health care. His constituents and people in Greenwich will undoubtedly benefit.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Would the Secretary of State like to know that the people of east

1743
London will be outraged by her remarks about casualty and emergency? Is she aware that she is closing casualty in central London, while in Newham, where people do live, we have an eight-hour wait for casualty and emergency?
In respect of concentration on one site at Whitechapel, is the Secretary of State aware that she and her Department have consistently made wrong calculations about demand for the ambulance service? If she can make wrong calculations on a relatively simple matter, should she not retain the buildings at Bart's and the London chest hospital until the demand is shown? Would it not be irresponsible for her to do anything else?
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly and rightly referred to the problems faced by the London ambulance service. There has been significant improvement in the standards being delivered by the service, and we hope to see more. He will also know that the outcome for individuals in an accident depends largely on a paramedic arriving swiftly at their side.
Thereafter, having a high-quality accident and emergency department with all the specialty services around it is important. The hon. Gentleman will know that London is very much better provided with accident and emergency services, even after any number of changes being debated today, than other parts of the country.
Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend well knows that primary care in London has, for far too many years, been worse than it is anywhere else in the country. The quid pro quo for Londoners of all these changes is that primary care should be brought up to the standard of the rest of the country. Will she now accelerate the movement of resources even more quickly into the provision of primary care services all over the capital—in outer London as well as in inner London?
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend. The work undertaken by the London initiative zone and the primary care support force, which is always slower to start with, will now accelerate. One thousand projects funded to the tune of £210 million have been an excellent start. With the new regions, we want to ensure that the changes are spread, as my hon. Friend says, not only in inner London, but in outer London and through into the home counties. Londoners must have the standard of primary care that others have.
Ms Glenda Jackson: As the Royal Free Hampstead trust in my constituency will, according to newspaper reports—which are increasingly becoming the only way of obtaining information from the Department of Health—be expected to take up the slack occasioned by the closure of Guy's and Bart's, certainly for accidents and emergencies, will there be new money for the Royal Free hospital for the undoubted expansion of the capital scheme and the undoubted increase in staff and nurses? Will the Secretary of State therefore cancel the proposal to reduce the ambulance service in Cressy road in my constituency from its present six ambulances to two?
Mrs. Bottomley: I always find it ironic when Labour Members preach to us about resources. I happened to work with the health service when the Labour party was in power and cut nurses' pay and money for the health service. The Conservative party puts much more money into the health service.
1744
As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, her health authority is currently deciding that it wishes to send more patients to the Royal Free and take them away from some of the hospitals that they used to use. We have equitable funding, in which money is allocated to the London health authorities, taking account of their need. It is a national health service, and it is only right to have a national approach to the allocation of resources and for that money to be spent fairly and effectively.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: My right hon. Friend has some arguments in her favour on central London hospitals. She has not succeeded as a senior member of the Cabinet, because, having listened to hard-faced accountants and bureaucrats in her Department and elsewhere, she has not then taken her own essential, human, social, clinical, medical and political judgments.
That is why I am glad that you, Madam Speaker, have given me permission to raise on the Adjournment tonight the future existence of Edgware general hospital. The proposal to close the accident and emergency unit is outrageous. Consultations with the local public were dismissed out of hand by Sir William Staveley in his regional health authority final consultation meetings. My right hon. Friend must think again about the proposal—it is different from central London; we do not have enough medical facilities, and the other hospitals are too far away.
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will clearly have time to develop his arguments at even greater length this evening. Decisions are made on the basis of improving the quality of clinical care. He will know that the development of a massive £29 million new hospital in Barnet will have an impact on the provision of services locally.
But Edgware hospital will continue to provide for at least half the accident cases who can be treated without a specialist service, and about 80 per cent. of those who use the hospital for out-patient appointments. We believe that it will be able to develop even greater services in response to the needs of an aging population in the light of the consultation that I know the health authority intends to begin shortly.
Mr. Nick Raynsford: The Secretary of State in her statement stressed the fact that a new hospital would be opened in Greenwich. She conveniently forgot to mention that the price paid would be the closure of two existing hospitals, as well as the loss of the two regional specialty units.
Does she not recognise that the overwhelming weight of local opinion argued that two hospitals were necessary in Greenwich, and that two into one would not go? Does she not recognise that her decision flies in the face of local opinion in Greenwich as well as everywhere else in London? The people of London are sick to death of seeing their health service being cut, cut and cut again by a Minister who puts finance ahead of every other consideration.
Mrs. Bottomley: In recent years, the people of London have seen record levels of immunisation, cancer screening, treatment and care. It is no good the hon. Gentleman dismissing that as though he disregards the evidence.
Mr. Raynsford: Record waiting lists.
Mrs. Bottomley: Last year, there was a 25 per cent. fall in one-year waiters. The hon. Gentleman is right—

1745
there is more to do. The health service needs rationalising, just as health services in similar capital cities around the world need rationalising. It is clear that the Labour party will never be a party of government, because it can only be a party of protest. Facing the issues fairly and making difficult decisions is part of government. The Opposition have the luxury of constant populist protest.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Has not the population of London fallen over several decades, with many people migrating to counties like Essex? Is it not equally true that local health authorities in Essex and the other home counties have had to make difficult decisions on rationalisation and the improvement of their health services, and they have had to do so without the benefit of full and fair capitation, because money is also being tied up in London in a system which, as yet, is unreformed?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. I have the responsibility for a national health service. The problems in London have occurred because the population has declined overall over the decades. People in the home counties would rather go to excellent hospitals closer to home. Medical advances mean that lengths of stay have fallen dramatically. New technology and diagnostic and day techniques mean that the need for beds and buildings is not the prime criterion. We want appropriate modern facilities for a top-quality health service as close as possible to where people live.
Mr. Jim Dowd: Apart from asking the Secretary of State why, if this is such good news, she had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the House to make this statement, is she aware that Lewisham accident and emergency cannot cope as it is today, and that the regional health authority admits, in its own curious words, that it is "undersized"? The investment planned to cope with the additional burden as a result of the closure of Guy's could be used today to make it serve the purpose and needs it faces at the moment, let alone what will happen when Guy's closes.
What can the Secretary of State say to the people of Lewisham, who have been involved, for the third time in five years, in a major consultation exercise involving acute service provision in London, only to see their views completely and utterly disregarded?
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will know that there has been formidable investment at Lewisham hospital. Similarly, King's hospital—which some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents may use—has experienced £8 million-worth of investment. There has been a £3 million investment at Lewisham. That is a hospital in which we are investing close to where people live.
At the same time, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that a significant number of people still use A and E departments in London because the primary care services are not yet good enough. He represents an area which has a formidable programme of investment in GP and primary care services. I believe that that is the way to a better balanced and a better-quality health service for his constituents.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Since the main arguments for these controversial changes rest
1746
on academic and clinical considerations, would my right hon. Friend consider asking the senior academics and clinicians to go out and campaign for the changes? If they are prepared to advise her in private and in reports that this makes sense from a medical and clinical point of view, should they not speak in the same vein?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has made a point of great importance. He will be aware that Lord Annan, Lord Flowers and Sir Stuart Sutherland have spent a great deal of time trying to deliver precisely that objective. Four multi-faculty colleges with the hospital clusters around them is the way to provide world-class centres for research and education. The report from the leading members of the royal colleges in respect of delivering the change has been extremely important and significant. However, I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend: the louder they speak, the greater confidence that will carry.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: As someone who has been, and remains, a long-standing patient at Bart's, and as someone who spent several weeks being treated on its wards; as someone who has spoken to nurses, doctors, administrators, and patients and visitors on the wards and the general public downstairs in the A and E section of Bart's, can I tell the Secretary of State that the overwhelming opinion in Bart's is that the hospital should stay open? Why does she insist on taking on public opinion in that part of London where people say, "Let us keep our hospital"? That is what the people are saying and that is what they want. Why can they not have it?
Mrs. Bottomley: I totally accept the deep loyalty felt by people who work in hospitals, particularly those who work in Bart's, as my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) spelled out so forcefully. However, if we are to have a comprehensive service, free at the point of use and able to pioneer new treatments, such as gene therapy for cystic fibrosis, artificial livers at King's and the new breakthroughs identified by the Medical Research Council, we must address the need for change. That is why the Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Council and many others have commended the commitment to address those underlying issues.
The hon. Gentleman is right, in that there is a tension between the wishes of local people and the need to deliver clinical excellence. I believe that I must be guided by the need to provide the best possible clinical and health care service for the people of this country, but that we should do all we can to ensure that we take people with us, and that there is a warm welcome for them as they come together on another site.
Mr. Tim Yeo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, outside London, it will be regarded as good news that she has taken the decisions, which have been made more difficult by the fact that so many of her predecessors ducked them? Does she agree that, even after all those changes have been made, London will enjoy a network of hospitals that will be the envy of the rest of the United Kingdom? Does she further agree that, for the average Londoner, the urgent need is to improve the primary health care system, exactly as she has proposed?
Mrs. Bottomley: Yes.
Ms Joan Ruddock: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what precise arrangements

1747
she believes would have to be put in place before the accident and emergency unit at Guy's could be closed? What would be the cost of converting Philip Harris house for the new arrangements that she proposes, and how much money from charitable funds would have to be repaid?
Mrs. Bottomley: I made it very clear that, before it will be possible to close the A and E unit at Guy's, there must be significant improvements in the ambulance service, together with a judgment, connected with the improvement in primary care, as to the likely use and capacity of the St. Thomas's A and E department. Of course, that is one of the largest units in London, taking about twice as many ambulance cases a day as the unit at Guy's. The hon. Lady will remember that, when I made my statement a year ago, that was one of the key factors in deciding which should be the primary site for the acute in-patient hospital—a strategy supported by people on both sites.
Philip Harris house will be used for about 75 per cent. of its original purposes, and I am pleased to say that the special trustees have said that they will support the plan, and are discussing the possibility of contributing to the intended modifications. Other special trustees will consider their position.
Ms Ruddock: What will it cost?
Mrs. Bottomley: The modification may cost about £10 million, although that could be a high estimate.
Sir Edward Heath: Much as I should like to deal with some of the more general aspects of the statement, especially the political implications for those who represent London seats, I shall restrict myself to one particular aspect—the closure of the Brook hospital, and the specialist neurosurgery required, which, according to the programme, will now be supplied by King's. All the specialists to whom I have spoken—and several have been on the telephone to me today—are extremely worried about that prospect, because of the distance to be travelled by what are usually acute cases.
As my right hon. Friend knows, over the past two weeks there have been two incidents in which patients have had to be taken long distances. One patient in Maidstone had to be taken to Southampton for treatment, and the other, from Sidcup, had to be taken to Leeds. I shall not go into detail about those cases, because some of the events are the subject of legal activity. However, the thought that in future all such cases will have to be taken to King's frightens the specialists.
In London, we are short of suitable beds for specialist neurosurgery. Although King's has specialist services, do we not now have the opportunity to concentrate in the long term on the services required to meet the need in a place that people in south London, Kent and the adjacent areas can use more easily, without having to travel long distances?
Mrs. Bottomley: I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear with me, but I must quote to him something that the chairman of the neurosciences review said—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Forgive me, Madam Speaker, but the decisions are too important to be taken without independent, authoritative clinical advice, as I hope my right hon. Friend will agree. He said:
1748
"The historical fragmentation of neurosciences in London and the south east has limited the development of large tertiary centres of excellence, which is the accepted pattern in the rest of the UK. Whilst much good work is being done in the smaller units, in some fields it is tending to fall behind the rest of the country."
It is that unique opportunity to move the service to a research and teaching centre that gives London its prime position not just nationally but internationally. I sought to reinforce the point from the vice-chancellor of Birmingham university, that it was a unique opportunity to have a unique service on Denmark Hill. I believe that that is the proper justification for taking a decision that I well understand that local people might have wished had gone a different way.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister explain to the people of my borough who love, admire and respect Bart's hospital, but who also recognise it as a valuable institution and as their local hospital, what will happen to the land and the site when that hospital is closed altogether? Who will make money from that sale?
Is the Minister aware that there is already enormous pressure on the casualty units at the Whittington, Royal Free and Homerton hospitals and at University College hospital as a result of the closure of Bart's? Is she prepared to close more casualty units and create even longer waiting lists, with more people waiting on trolleys for operations or emergency treatment, as currently occurs throughout north London?
Mrs. Bottomley: The difficulty in London has been created because we have so many small hospitals, and it is much harder to manage the peaks and flows of patient care. At times, there is a great rush to use a hospital, and at other times it is under less pressure. The recent report about neurosciences again made the point that larger units can manage their beds better. That message was reinforced by the inner-London chief executives' report about trying to strike the right balance as we change and move forward.
We measure the outcomes of the service; we now have clear targets in terms of the patients charter. The current service is quite different from that provided in the past, and health authorities must deliver results.
As far as the Bart's site is concerned, I think that I made it clear to my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) that we have set up a project team to consider options in light of the history of a place which has been associated with state-of-the-art medicine and research. Similarly, I hope that the City of London initiative will show results shortly, with a memorandum of understanding to provide a service for local people.
Mr. David Congdon: I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to respond to the consultation document in relation to Guy's and St Thomas's hospitals by extending the time that the accident and emergency service at Guy's will remain open until the end of 1998.
As to Bart's and the Royal London hospital trust, as an outer London Member I am concerned at the enormous capital investment that is involved. My right hon. Friend cited the figure of £240 million. However, my recollection is that the consultation document referred to a revenue saving in that trust of just over £22 million. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that that represents good value for

1749
money? Will she consider whether some of the other options, which might involve a rationalisation against both sites, merit further deliberation?
Mrs. Bottomley: I can give my hon. Friend a very clear assurance on that front. He will know that the hospitals involved have a considerable backlog of maintenance, amounting to about £87 million. We estimate that the gross capital spend would be about £239 million, and that land sales would realise a considerable sum. The revenue savings would be about £30 million per year, and that investment is very justified.
I must make it clear that the guiding principle is not efficiency or streamlining costs, important though those issues are: it is to concentrate centres of expertise so that they can compete into the next century.
Mrs. Barbara Roche: Does not the Secretary of State realise that everything that she has said this afternoon is completely at variance with the everyday experience of Londoners? Why has she failed completely to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who asked what the knock-on effect would be for hospitals such as the Whittington, which serves my constituents? Its services are already overloaded, and it is currently cancelling acute operations because it has run out of money. How will the Secretary of State address the needs of people such as my 78-year-old constituent whose prostate operation was cancelled for that reason?
Mrs. Bottomley: There are problems with the health service in London, which is why it is so necessary to address change. The other day, the King's Fund said that there are real problems in developing primary care and concentrating specialty services. To stand still, or allow the service to fossilise, will not address the real needs of the hon. Lady's constituents or those of my hon. Friends in developing a health service fit for the 21st century.
As for the hon. Lady's constituents, there has been a fall in the number of people waiting for treatment a long time. There has already been considerable investment in primary care. I hope that that will result in even better standards and quality for the hon. Lady's constituents in the months and years ahead.
Mr. John Whittingdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents must currently travel up to 60 miles to receive treatment at more expensive specialty units in London? Will she confirm that rationalisation of hospital provision in London is a necessary first step to establishing new specialty centres outside London and closer to where large numbers of people live?
Mrs. Bottomley: It is increasingly true that people would rather be treated closer to home. Rapid investment in the health service throughout the country, and certainly in the home counties, means that care for which previous generations travelled to London can be provided locally. That is precisely the dilemma. Provided that we ensure that London centres maintain a prime position in research both nationally and internationally, some of my hon. Friend's constituents will want still to receive treatment in London for state-of-the-art, pioneering or perhaps experimental care—but they will want routine health care close to home.
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: After all the comments, I hope that the Secretary of State realises that her case is as dubious as her excuses for not putting her case to the House. Will she acknowledge that even the proposals that stem from the Tomlinson review have been widely attacked as wrong and damaging? For example, plans for Edgware hospital were never even part of that review, but result—as do the near-closure of University College hospital and the threat to Bart's and Guy's—from the internal market introduced by the right hon. Lady's disastrous so-called reforms?
Why has the Secretary of State ignored the anger of local people? She is aware that past cuts already mean fewer acute beds left in London than in any other major British city. How many more beds will be lost as a result of the proposals that the right hon. Lady announced today?
Does the right hon. Lady accept that her obstinate refusal to call a halt to closures and to make a fresh assessment of health needs in London is leading directly to the closure of renowned centres of excellence such as the London chest hospital, Bart's, and even Guy's? All known conversions of accident and emergency units to minor injury units have always been a precursor to the hospital becoming a major casualty.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the East London health authority, whose detailed business case has not yet been put before the right hon. Lady, agreed to proposals to close the London chest hospital and Bart's only if £238 million for redevelopment was absolutely assured? The Secretary of State's letter refers only to that funding being a high priority, which she also said about the funding needed for Guy's and St. Thomas's. Will the right hon. Lady give a categorical assurance that the demands made of her by the East London health authority will be fulfilled?
Does the Secretary of State realise that the proposals for Guy's will leave 17 floors empty, and that the facilities now provided will have to be recreated? Philip Harris house, which has a purpose-built, state-of-the-art cancer unit and renal facilities, will be used for only three years, and 18 desperately needed intensive care units with state-of-the-art facilities that are being fitted even as we speak, will be ripped out as soon as that house is handed over. Does not the Secretary of State realise that that is clinical and financial vandalism?
Will the right hon. Lady find Government time—for the first time in her history as Secretary of State for Health—for a debate on the Floor of the House, once we have an opportunity properly to assess the implications of the proposals?
Mrs. Bottomley: The right hon. Lady is a real example of turning the clock back. Her predecessors in her job recognised the need for change in London. Alongside the right hon. Lady's approach to every other health issue, she is out for consultation or a moratorium. She never faces a difficult decision.
We understand that the Leader of the Opposition is now saying, "No more money." How will the right hon. Lady cope with no more money, no difficult decisions to be faced, support for every protest and the inflaming of every pay claim? Goodness knows what would happen to the health care of Londoners. Those of us, unlike the right hon. Lady, who were working in Brixton and Peckham when there was a Labour Government, were aware of the

1751
misfortune of the entire process. I know exactly who would be the first to suffer if ever there were a party such as the right hon. Lady's in government.
We have comprehensively discussed the issue facing London, except that I have not properly informed the right hon. Lady and others of the extremely encouraging progress at University College hospital, which is now under way. It is part of the picture of four multi-faculty colleges with a cluster of hospitals round them.
The issue is not primarily about hospital beds. It is a matter of having the right services in the right place. We need beds. We need low-tech beds, as Professor Jarman has said time and again. That is why it is so important that there are about 1,800 low-tech beds in the pipeline. It is very important that that programme should go forward.
I have given a clear commitment that the money is available. Of course there must be detailed plans before final approval is given. London needs clear progress. We do not need further hesitation. We need to build for the future, for the 21st century. The right hon. Lady and the Labour party offer dither, delay and, once again, interminable review.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: We have just heard locally that we shall have to take another 10,600 houses in the part of Kent which I represent as part of the continuing expansion of the population, which is moving out of London. To hear London Members complaining about a six-mile journey to hospital makes some of us laugh. We are grateful to my right hon. Friend for having set up the necessary changes to ensure that we in Kent are beginning to secure the sort of resources that will make it possible for us to treat ex-Londoners and native inhabitants of Kent to the highest standards, which would be impossible if the changes were not made.
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend warmly for his remarks, which are precisely to the point. In London, hospital care has been excessively identified with buildings and institutions. In the home counties, there is a much higher standard of primary and community care. We need a better balance. As my hon. Friend has said, when the population moves to the home counties, people are reluctant to travel. As I have said time and again, I am passionately committed to our prime position internationally. This country is the place where breakthroughs take place.
Mr. Hartley Booth: Will my right hon. Friend address the serious transport issue in Barnet, which is the borough in my constituency? There is a physical block in the middle of the borough—the A1. Endless cars and lorries use the road during daytime hours, and that block is life-threatening. Will my right hon. Friend consult the Department of Transport? Will she assure the House that the new accident and emergency department at Barnet general hospital will not open until she is entirely satisfied that lives will not be put at risk because it is not possible to cross a physical barrier?
Mrs. Bottomley: I undertake to my hon. Friend to have precisely those discussions. I have made it clear in my announcement that the decision is subject to completion of the new phase at Barnet, to improvement in primary care, to necessary changes in the London ambulance service, and to being satisfied on transport issues.
My hon. Friend will be aware of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). He said that people from London are often unaware of the much greater distances that people travel to an accident and emergency department outside London. It is getting a paramedic to the scene in the swiftest possible time that appears to be the crucial factor in preserving life.

Ferry Safety
4.34 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on ferry safety.
The tragic loss of the Estonia raised again the question of safety of roll on/roll off ferries. Work has taken place in the United Kingdom, Scandinavia and, notably, within the International Maritime Organisation's panel of experts on possible ways of enhancing their safety. This work includes computer-modelling research, which I instructed the Marine Safety Agency to undertake. The research investigated the effect that bulkheads might have on survivability in the event of water invading the car deck.
The preliminary findings provide new insight into how ships can be designed or redesigned to avoid future losses such as the Herald of Free Enterprise and the Estonia. They show that the fitting of transverse bulkheads can further enhance the survivability of a ship with water on its car deck. The degree of enhancement will depend on the initial survivability standard of the ship. The higher the survivability standard, the greater the effect of fitting transverse bulkheads.
In the light of that research, I believe that it is incumbent on the Government, with operators and the international maritime community, to seek to agree further improvements to survivability standards and to introduce transverse bulkheads to roll on/roll off ferries as appropriate. As always, consideration of these measures must include evaluation of the potential safety benefits and costs involved.
The preliminary results of the research were made available to the IMO's panel of experts, whose interim report to the Maritime Safety Committee has just been issued. The panel recommends enhancing both the damage and the intact survivability of roll on/roll off ferries by requiring them to be able to survive with levels of water on the car deck. These recommendations point to the fitting of transverse bulkheads. The panel's conclusions and recommendations on enhanced survivability and other aspects of ferry safety will be considered by the Maritime Safety Committee in May, with a diplomatic conference to adopt amendments to the Safety of Lives at Sea convention likely in November. I will ensure that the United Kingdom will be closely involved in those discussions. Although the panel's many detailed recommendations will require full and careful analysis, I wish to place on record both our appreciation for the work that they have undertaken to date, and our support for the general thrust of its recommendations.
With regard to existing survivability standards, I am publishing today lists of the roll on/roll off ferries currently serving United Kingdom ports. These show whether they meet the survivability standards introduced by the IMO in 1990—referred to as SOLAS 90—or when they need to be modified in accordance with the north-west European ferry stability agreement, which applies SOLAS 90 to roll on/roll off ferries built before 1990. A copy of the lists and an explanatory note have been placed in the Library of the House.
Mr. Michael Meacher: We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement on damage stability standards for ferries operating in UK waters, and what he
1754
said on transverse bulkheads, which is important, but is he aware that the concerns of the British public about ferry safety go much wider than the narrow range of issues that he has touched on today, in particular, public access to information in a readily understood form on ships, safety standards, crew competence on board ship, the proper enforcement of safety standards, and assurances on evacuation arrangements? Will he now ensure that the travelling public are able to use that information and to make informed choices regarding the ship on which they wish to travel? Will he now urge the ferry operators to link individual ferries to timetables, so that the public have some control over the safety of the ferries on which they travel?
Regarding the list that the Secretary of State is publishing today—we welcome it—of passenger ferries not meeting SOLAS 90 standards, will he confirm that 27 of those vessels will still not have to comply for another nine years and that a further 18 will not have to comply for another 12 years? What action is he taking to secure international agreement or, if necessary, to act unilaterally to reduce the still unacceptably long delays in implementation?
Is not it clear anyway that the SOLAS standards, even under the revised 1993 agreement, are inadequate when they are concerned only to ensure stability against waves of up to 1.5 m in height? Is not that much too low and does not it mean that SOLAS standards will be ineffective in the rougher seas when they are most needed?
How can the public have confidence in the Government's commitment to safety on ferries when the right hon. Gentleman, in a letter of 21 December 1994, a copy of which I have here, said that he was postponing delegating to classification societies the responsibility for hull and machinery surveys on ro-ro ferries and other passenger ships because of
"the widespread perception in the marine insurance industry and elsewhere that safety standards would deteriorate",
yet he still proposes to go ahead with that later this year?
Is not it deeply cynical to put off the privatisation exercise temporarily because of the Estonia, yet still proceed with it now when it is widely regarded as dangerous, and even the Minister of State on 7 December last year has roundly condemned many classification societies as incompetent or worse?
How, equally, can the right hon. Gentleman say that he has an overriding commitment to ferry safety when at the same time he has cut the staffing of his Department's Marine Safety Agency by 15 per cent. in the past year?
The right hon. Gentleman omitted today the human factors which are known to be instrumental in some 85 per cent. of all marine casualties. Will he accept that his announcement today will be of limited use unless skilled and experienced British officers are available to maintain high operational standards in the ro-ro ferry sector?
Will the right hon. Gentleman further accept that that is now severely threatened by the catastrophic decline in United Kingdom seafarer training levels? Is he aware that while in 1981 some 5,200 cadets began training, the number today has dropped by no less than 90 per cent? What further action will he now take to restore training to the much higher levels that are still needed?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that, with the growing use of low-cost non-EU crews on UK-registered ships, it is vital that communication with

1755
crew and passengers in an emergency is immediately understood? Will he now withdraw his proposal to end the requirement that UK-registered ships must have British officers?
Increased competition and the growing presence of flag-of-convenience services present a real threat to the future of cross-channel safety. The right hon. Gentleman's commitment to safety will be judged not merely by his statement today, but by whether he is prepared to override his and his party's instincts for deregulation and privatisation which are so inimical to ferry safety.
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he gave to my statement—I think—and the joint view that we have taken in welcoming the result of the research that I commissioned, the fact that it has been forwarded to the panel of experts and that it is now being taken seriously along with others as the industry operators and Governments together turn to considering whether further steps can appropriately be taken to enhance even further the already high standards of ferry safety. I am glad that we agree on that.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about concerns on safety. They are understandable concerns. It is part of the responsibility of the House not unnecessarily to stoke up inappropriate or ill-founded concerns about safety and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman that he fell some way short of doing that. I agree with him that it is important for the public to have easy access to information. I note his suggestion that ferries should be linked to timetables, and I will convey it to the operators.
As I have said at the Dispatch Box before, we should have liked agreements on SOLAS 90 to be implemented earlier than was possible. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the International Maritime Organisation wanted a SOLAS 92; we rejected that, and consequently became involved in the north-west European ferry stability agreement. We are seeking to build on that. We shall continue to press for implementation of the highest possible safety standards, as quickly as possible.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned classification societies. He does not appear to understand that 80 per cent. of the inspection work to which he refers has already been done by classification societies; we are talking about adding another 5 per cent. of the total work. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind: he must decide whether he considers the continuing debate about ro-ro ferry safety to be a legitimate part of our overall aim of establishing the greatest possible ferry safety. I believe that it is, and until I am satisfied that the discussion has been concluded we shall retain it as part of our general goal.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the Marine Safety Agency. He has been told before—as have his hon. Friends—that the number of inspections will not be reduced, and that there has been no reduction in the work done by front-line inspectors. I am seeking to establish as much common ground as possible, however. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the importance of crew communication, and on that we are as one.
I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is important to stress that 50 million passenger journeys a year are made safely in and out of British ports on roll-on/roll-off ferries. That is a remarkable record, and a
1756
tribute to the current safety standards. It is, however, no cause for complacency—which is why I asked for the research to be done, and why we shall apply it vigorously.
Mr. Paul Channon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on Transport has just begun an inquiry into cross-channel safety? I endorse what my right hon. Friend has said about the large number of journeys taken each year in conditions that show that ferries must be very safe; but is it not welcome that the possibility of greater chances of survival has resulted from the research?
What will my right hon. Friend do in the IMO about the new research? It would obviously be better for him to work within the IMO if that is possible, but if it proves impossible—as happened with SOLAS 90—will he arrange something along the lines of the north-west European ferry stability agreement, so that we can have higher standards in the United Kingdom even if we cannot secure them through international organisations?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said; I agree with all of it. I was aware of the Select Committee inquiry, and look forward to giving evidence in due course.
I thank my right hon. Friend for what he said about the new research, and for the compliment that he paid it in bringing it to the House's attention as soon as possible. That was, I think, the right thing to do. I assure him that we shall try to apply the lessons of the research and other information through the IMO: I agree that that would be the best way in which to proceed. I hope that we shall succeed, but I do not rule out taking the alternative steps that he mentioned should that prove necessary—which I hope that it will not.
Mr. Paul Tyler: This is a timely statement, given that great many of our fellow citizens will be using ro-ro ferries during the Easter holidays. I am glad that the Secretary of State has come to the House now. There are obviously some important questions. Given that there was a seven-year delay between the tragedy of the Herald of Free Enterprise at Zeebrugge and that of the Estonia, can the Secretary of State assure us that the lessons that were learnt from the previous incident were available by the time of the Estonia? Why does it seem that no modifications had been made to prevent a second tragedy?
More importantly, and along the lines of the right hon. Gentleman's statement this afternoon, can the people using the ferries over the next few weeks be assured that the lessons that have been learnt from both episodes are sufficient to ensure that design and operation in future, when the modifications have been made, or the withdrawal of ferries to which the modification cannot be applied, will provide reassurance of complete safety? Survivability is extremely important and the schedules that the Secretary of State has made available to us show that it will be a long time before some ferries meet those standards.
Finally, how many ferries have changed their flags since SOLAS 90 was introduced? The right hon. Gentleman refers to a number in his explanatory notes, but no numbers are given. Clearly, it is a matter of great concern not just to people in the industry, but to people who use ferries generally.
Dr. Mawhinney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and his welcome, which I appreciate. All the

1757
recommendations that arose out of the inquiry into the Herald of Free Enterprise seven years ago were implemented and that has been a major source of reassurance in the intervening seven years. There is no final report yet on what happened to the Estonia. It would appear that the bow doors were torn off and there was damage to the internal bulkhead, but at the moment there is no definitive report, and we await that.
The hon. Gentleman and I share a common concern to reassure people, while not being complacent, that the Marine Safety Agency has responsibility for the safe passage of marine traffic in and out of our ports. It is satisfied with the standards and advises me that it has no concerns. I reinforce the point that the hon. Gentleman was seeking to support. The number of journeys in and out of British ports every year is a reflection of the high standards that we enjoy. That is no reason to seek to prevent those standards being enhanced, particularly if it can be done on an international basis, and that is what we shall seek to do.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend secretly share my disappointment at the somewhat grudging response to his statement this afternoon? It must be right to ensure that matters relating to the basic structure of roll on/roll off ferries are attended to ahead of almost anything else, however important, when further research and discussion takes place.
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support and encouragement. I shall resist the temptation other than to say that I am grateful for the support that has been forthcoming across the Chamber.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Since the Secretary of State is doing such a good job of throwing out all the politically difficult questions from his Department before the next general election, will he go even further than he has gone today and announce firmly that the Marine Safety Agency, which has responsibility for bow inspection and the maintenance of a high level of safety on all the ferries going in and out of the country will not have its staff cut and might even consider moving its office from that well-known seaside resort of Orpington to somewhere slightly nearer the coast? Will he ensure that in future not only will there be tight controls over any operating ferry that comes into the country, but that if the timetable for the implementation of the changes that he has mentioned this afternoon becomes too elongated, he will take direct action and not wait for other people?
Dr. Mawhinney: I thank the hon. Lady and I interpret at least the first half of her question as a welcome for my announcement. She has maintained a consistent interest in these matters, although I am having difficulty persuading her of the consistency and truthfulness of the answers that I regularly and similarly give her. I assure here that the number of inspections will be maintained and the front-line staff involved in surveys and inspections will be retained. I hope that that will encourage her along the road towards accepting what I am telling her.
On the hon. Lady's last point, I reiterate what I said in my statement—that it was as a consequence of work that I asked the Marine Safety Agency to do, which culminated last November in my inspecting bow doors, that I asked the
1758
agency to do further work. It has reported on the improvements that transverse bulkheads can bring to survivability in certain circumstances. I took that seriously enough to bring it to the House, so the hon. Lady should not underestimate my determination to move forward.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend take account of the Scandinavian ferry disaster, where insufficiently clear instructions were given to the passengers when there was a fire on board? Will the transverse bulkheads hinder exit procedures? Will he ensure that the advice given by the Consumers Association about checking that passengers actually understand the safety announcements is acted upon?
Dr. Mawhinney: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have welcomed and accepted the recommendations of the panel of experts, some of which dealt with evacuation procedures. We are happy to accept them.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that current regulations do not include maximum hours for officers and crew on duty for normal purposes? Why is that? Will he also confirm that, as a result of his announcement, at some stage in the future no ship operating on a British ro-ro service will be without transverse bulkheads on its main car deck? If so, will he tell us in what year he expects that to be in operation?
Dr. Mawhinney: As I made clear in my statement, I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's last question. I made it abundantly clear that we need to have a series of discussions and investigations and that further work needs to be done.
What I have brought to the House today is, in effect, a statement of principle. Work has been done that has shown that enhanced survivability can result from the putting in place of transverse bulkheads. We now need to work with other Governments, with operators and with agencies—in particular, the International Maritime Organisation—to give effect to the added safety that the bulkheads or equivalent measures would achieve. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that I will push forward in that direction with vigour, as will my officials in discussions within the IMO and within the panel of experts. We will not allow others to deflect us from putting in place standards that will even further enhance public confidence in the safety of ro-ro ferries.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I commend my right hon. Friend on his measured response to recent tragedies, especially in the light of the many safe ferry journeys from British ports every year. What is the Government's attitude likely to be if, in due course, the IMO fails to recommend the fitting of transverse bulkheads?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) said earlier, it would be far better to reach agreement within the IMO. He then put to me the possibility that that might not happen and asked whether we would then consider something equivalent to a north-west European agreement—and I will. If that offers the sort of reassurance that the House seeks, I am happy to give it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman said that there were 50,000 safe journeys. What

1759
does that mean? Fifty thousand people walk the streets of Chesterfield every day and get home safely. It does not mean anything. It needs only one ferry to go down and 200 or 300 people will lose their lives.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one fellow, for certain, will be clapping his hands at what the right hon. Gentleman has said today—Jeffrey Sterling, the head of P and O? He could have been required to insert transverse bulkheads in all his ferries, had this Minister had the guts to do that to achieve proper safety measures. The reason why this Minister has done nothing today but waffle is that Jeffrey Sterling puts money into the Tory party.
Dr. Mawhinney: I am sure that the House is grateful for the hon. Gentleman's typically generous and kind-hearted welcome to what is an important statement on ferry safety. With a little more attention, he would have heard that there are 50 million—not 50,000—safe passenger journeys a year in and out of UK ports. He will be interested to know that it was, as he contemptuously puts it, this Minister who commissioned the research, and who brought its results for the first time to the House, which his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and other hon. Members welcomed. The House will draw its own conclusion, but it should not be surprised that, yet again, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is marching in the opposite direction from everyone else.
Mr. David Shaw: Nineteen million people passed through Dover port last year using Dover's ferries, and they had good and safe journeys. May I declare my interest as someone who went on our ferries last week? We have the latest television monitoring system, early warning lights on bow doors, and better-designed bow doors than any other ferry system and service in the world. Our ferry systems include bow doors that have been designed very differently from those on the Estonia.
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks with great authority on these matters. As I said to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), the measures that he mentioned and that are in place were precisely those included in the recommendations of the Herald of Free Enterprise inquiry. All were accepted and put in place. That is the sort of reassurance that the travelling public have a right to expect. I hope that they will feel that today's statement will add to that sense of reassurance.
Mr. Nick Ainger: May I add my grudging welcome to the Secretary of State's announcement? I say "grudging" because, after all, the European Gateway sank because of the free surface effect, which could be combatted only by transverse bulkheads. The Herald of Free Enterprise sank because of that effect, which could have been combatted only by such bulkheads.
The survivors and families of the people who died on the Herald of Free Enterprise will be asking why it has taken until now for the announcement to be made. May I ask a further question, in which the hon Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) might be interested? SOLAS 90 gives survivability of only 30 minutes in 1.5 m waves and search and rescue helicopters require one hour to get into the Dover straits from the British mainland. Will the Secretary of State reconsider that issue in particular,
1760
because it is obvious that, if a major problem arose in the Dover straits, insufficient search and rescue cover exists? The Secretary of State's Department agreed about that.
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome—I shall leave out the word "grudging". He asks a reasonable question. I am advised that, during the Herald of Free Enterprise inquiry, transverse bulkheads were examined, but the conclusion was reached that they would not be of additional safety value. I challenged that by asking for further research to be undertaken and I have brought that research to the House. I attach importance to it—I hope that that is clear from my statement and from the way in which I have answered questions.
Because I attach importance to that research, I intend to ensure that it is progressed in such a way that, in due course, the hon. Gentleman will be less grudging in his welcome. He is right to say that the Dover straits are the busiest waterway in the world. He is not right, however, to say that helicopter cover from both sides of the straits is inadequate.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the Secretary of State recognise that the Dover straits, which he has just said are the busiest crossing point, are heavy with other traffic using that part of the English channel? Does he accept that obviously inherent dangers exist there? There is increased pressure because of competition from the channel tunnel. Will he make it clear that the Government intend to ensure that passenger safety comes before quick turnround times and other factors in that competitive industry, that safety will be the No. 1 priority, and that ships are made absolutely safe?
Dr. Mawhinney: Yes.
Mr. Roy Beggs: We in Larne have run second to Dover. Last year, 2 million people travelled through the port from the Scottish ports of Stranraer and Cairnryan. To give confidence to the growing number of people who travel as tourists into Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State give a further assurance that the highest standards are being maintained on cross-channel ferries, and that the inspection level will not be diminished? I commend him on the action that he has taken to date, and ask him robustly to persuade the people who should be persuaded on early implementation of the research's conclusions.
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall continue to be as robust as he would wish and, perhaps, even expect me to be in the circumstances. I pay tribute to the ferry safety levels around the coast, including ferries that sail in and out of Larne. As he will know, because he generously accompanied me, I had the pleasure of visiting Larne port just a few weeks ago.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Has the Secretary of State read the reports by the Consumers Association, the Royal Institution of Naval Architects and the Institute of Marine Engineers, which all say that the SOLAS 90 standards are not the highest but the bare minimum standards agreed as a compromise at the International Maritime Organisation? Out of its 150 members, only 15 have competent marine architects. Most of those run under flags of convenience, where the interest is in profit, not safety.

1761
My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) is right. SOLAS 90 would have applied to the Estonia, but that sank like a stone. Although engineering differences exist between many ferries, the same principles apply to them all. All the disasters have occurred through a combination of human error and fundamentally unsafe and unstable design. As long as 20 years ago, the Government and the industry were told that that design would cause disasters. We have had disaster management.
Terrible events have occurred and solutions have come years after. After reading those reports, I assure you, Madam Speaker, that my family will not be travelling on any roll on/roll off ferry. The Secretary of State talks of people being alarmist, but does he think that the relatives of the people who died in the Scandinavian Star, the Estonia and the Herald of Free Enterprise would have appreciated a little alarm from parliamentarians before those terrible tragedies took place?
Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will speak for himself. He has done so and he does not take many hon. Members with him. He is certainly not taking any Conservative Member with him as he indefensibly tries to whip up scare stories that are designed to put people off a ferry service that is among the safest in the world. I say, I think for the fourth time, that there is no basis for complacency. That is why I asked for the work to be done, why I brought the results to the House for the first time, and why we will, as I said to the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), continue to pursue that robustly. I remind the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) that, if it had not been for the UK Government, there would not have been a SOLAS 90.

Points of order
5.8 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This morning on the radio and on television, it was widely reported that a statement would be made to the House on the future of dental services. We now find that a statement has been made by way of written answer. It refers to the reduction in dental treatment available on the national health service, to a system for charging to be renegotiated locally, and to a system of charges for community dental services to be introduced. Is not it appalling that, on a matter as important as that, and about which we have been waiting to hear for many months, no statement has been made in the House? Could you clarify whether anything in the House's rules prevents a Minister who has answered a private notice question from coming back here to make a statement on such a matter?
Madam Speaker: Certainly, if any Secretary of State sought to return to the House to make a statement, I would be here to hear it but I have not been informed that such a statement is to be made today. As the House knows, it is up to the Secretary of State when making such a statement to determine whether it is to be done by means of written answer or orally at the Dispatch Box. I have no influence or authority over that.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall making a statement to the House prior to the Second Reading debate on the Disability Discrimination Bill in which you said in effect that there were no procedural problems in progress on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. However, some procedural peculiarities seem to have developed in Committees dealing with the Bills that are being debated before that Bill. I am thinking especially of Standing Committee C which is debating the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill and where debates are being strung out by 50 amendments having been tabled on a measure about which there is no dispute. In any event, it was initially a Government Bill although promoted by a private Member. In the circumstances, would it be possible for you to call for reports from the Chairman and Clerks of the appropriate Committees in order to discover what is happening?
Madam Speaker: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to tedious and lengthy or filibustering remarks in particular Committees, although I am sure that he is not making such allegations. However, if that is the case, I am sure that the Chairmen of the appropriate Committees will report to me. It is not for me to ask them to do so; they will report to me anything untoward takes place.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I regret having to return for the third time in as many weeks to a matter that I understand has also been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and others. The problem is that we are not getting answers to questions that we table to Ministers; Ministers are denying us information, refusing to make statements in the House and giving only written answers. The Government are becoming less and less accountable to Parliament and the

1763
public. Democracy is approaching crisis. What are we going to do? I know that in your rulings you say that it is not within your power to do anything about these matters, but who is listening?
Madam Speaker: I am listening. The hon. Gentleman can sit down. He is making a great many wide allegations, but I take the matter seriously. I have already examined one example provided by a Back Bencher but there was no substance in it whatsoever. If the hon. Gentleman will give me examples of his not receiving information when that information was available, I shall certainly look into the matter as thoroughly as I have done in other cases.

Discrimination (Genetic Information)
5.12 pm
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent discrimination against people who have had genetic tests or have a genetic predisposition to disease, and to guarantee the privacy of such persons.
I bring this issue to the attention of the House to highlight some of the problems faced by people who have a genetic predisposition to disease although they have not as yet developed any symptoms of the disease.
Last week, we had a useful discussion on an amendment to the Disability Discrimination Bill, which was moved by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). I supported the amendment, which would have given people with genetic predisposition to disease the same protection as those who are already disabled. I am sorry that the House did not support that amendment, but I understand that some right hon. and hon. Members took a contrary view because they felt that the issue was a great deal more complex than suggested by the amendment. However, I was encouraged by the Minister's comment to the effect that the Government's door would be open for further discussions. That was one of the most encouraging remarks made during that debate.
I am sure that the Minister and others will be looking carefully at the recommendations of the report by the Select Committee on Science and Technology into human genetics, which will be published in the summer. That inquiry will encompass much wider issues than those covered in the Bill. However, I hope that the Bill will encourage dialogue between the Association of British Insurers and the Genetics Interest Group so that some sensible proposals can be agreed to deal with the difficult ethical, legal and social issues relating to the rapid advances taking place in human genetics.
The Genetics Interest Group has brought to my attention a number of cases involving people with genetic disease who have been discriminated against by employers, building societies and insurance companies. This sometimes happens because of ignorance, as the following case shows.
A senior town planning officer with a London borough developed sickle cell disease. It is a hereditary blood condition that can cause painful crises which result in hospitalisation. The crises are exacerbated by cold, damp and stress so it is important that those affected have adequate housing and secure financial arrangements.
In his first post, the officer was able to join the local government superannuation scheme without any difficulties. Three years later, he was offered promotion with another London borough. Getting the job was not a problem, but continuing his membership of the superannuation scheme caused major problems, despite the fact that he was already a member and had been for three years. Continuing his membership required several additional medical examinations and took six months to resolve. That is inexcusable for someone who is already part of a superannuation scheme and shows that the medical officer did not really understand the problem.
Another man was employed as a project manager in the oil and gas industry. One of the benefits that came with this employment was a free subscription to a private medical insurance scheme. He became ill and had to take

1765
a significant amount of time off work. He was referred to a Harley street specialist who determined that he had haemochromatosis.
The specialist, the tests and the week in hospital were all paid for by the private medical insurance scheme. However, following a further medical examination, the private medical insurer wrote to say that, as the man now had a medical condition that required continuing treatment, the company would not continue the insurance. From responses to various letters that he has written to private medical insurers, the man understands that he can obtain medical insurance but that such insurance will exclude cover for haemochromatosis and related conditions. When he asked what the related conditions were, he could not obtain an answer.
Like me, that man finds it unacceptable that insurers can throw someone out of a scheme and says that he hopes that it will one day be illegal to exclude people who become ill after joining a scheme. He also believes that insurers should be forced to give their definition of related conditions because what worries him is that whenever he tries to claim on his health insurance the insurers will claim that the condition is related to haemochromatosis.
At the moment, no insurance company in the United Kingdom requires people to take a genetic test before they can be insured, but I am worried that market pressures will lead to such a requirement as more tests become available. For example, if a rogue insurance company wanted to offer low insurance premiums for health cover, it could do so by requiring people to take a genetic test and then refusing cover for those who were found to be predisposed to genetic disease. The pressure on other companies to follow suit would be great, and it is of the utmost importance that it should be illegal for insurers to require people to take a test, even if they have a strong family link with a particular disease.
In many cases, there is at present no advantage to an individual in knowing that he is predisposed to some diseases as they are diseases for which there is no cure, although that may change in the future. As medical research advances, it is possible that genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis will be fully treatable by gene therapy, but, at present, I would not want to know if I were likely to contract Alzheimer's disease as there would be absolutely nothing I could do about it. However, I would like to know whether I have an inherited trait to hyper-cholesterolaemia which may cause me to have a heart attack or stroke. If this is the case, with a low-fat diet and plenty of exercise, I can drastically reduce the risk of contracting this disease.
It is beneficial for individuals to know about their predisposition for reasons other than the one I have just mentioned. A case has been quoted to me of a family whose child has tuberous sclerosis. This disease can affect any part of the body with small tumours which can appear from birth. In some cases, the symptoms are so mild that people do not realise that they have the disease until it affects them in mid-life. If a child is found to have the disease, it is certainly advantageous for the parents to be screened because they can then make an informed decision about whether to have any further children should one of them be found to carry the gene.
1766
In some cases, it is beneficial for people to have genetic tests, but it can be disadvantageous to have a genetic test for insurance purposes. Even if the insurance company does not require a person to have a test, it is commonplace for companies to ask applicants to disclose the results of any medical test that they have had. If people feel that they will be discriminated against if they have had a positive test, they will probably make the decision not to have a test or at least to defer it. This can be harmful to them if they do not make the necessary changes to life style which would reduce the risk of becoming ill and it might be harmful to their future children if they are carriers of unsuspected diseases.
It would, therefore, be helpful to require insurance companies to allow people to keep the results of any medical tests completely private. However, the insurance companies have made an important point, which is that if someone has a test which confirms that they are virtually certain to become ill, it will be beneficial for them to take out millions of pounds' worth of insurance as they cannot lose by it. This would be unfair as it would mean that individuals would benefit from prior knowledge. It is rather like betting on a horse race when the result is fully known. I believe, however, that it is appropriate that those people should be able to get at least some protection against risks that they acquire through no fault of their own. There is a strong case, therefore, for limiting the total amount of insurance money paid out to a single individual in the case of a genetic disease and for ensuring that those costs do not fall too heavily on a single insurance company.
There are many possible ways in which to deal with the problem. The one I propose is as follows. I suggest that the costs should be borne collectively by the policyholders of all insurance companies. In this case, a levy would be imposed on all companies that cover a particular disease and the proceeds of the levy would be used to pay out to those who ultimately contracted the disease. That would protect individuals and individual companies which might, by chance, find that they had insured a disproportionately large number of high-risk individuals. There is a direct analogy with car insurance. Car insurers maintain a financial pool which they use to compensate any of their members who are involved in car accidents with people who are, illegally, not insured.
Under the arrangement I propose, people with a predisposition, as a group, would receive a subsidy from those with no such predisposition. A strong case can be made for imposing a ceiling—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Anne Campbell, Ms Janet Anderson, Dr. Jeremy Bray, Ms Judith Church, Mr. Alan Howarth, Sir John Hannam, Mr. Andrew Miller, Mr. Alan Williams, Ms Margaret Hodge and Ms Tessa Jowell.

Discrimination (Genetic Information)
  DISCRIMINATION (GENETIC INFORMATION)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell accordingly presented a Bill to prevent discrimination against people who have had genetic tests or have a genetic predisposition to disease, and to guarantee the privacy of such persons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 April, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]
Orders of the Day
  Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill
    New clause 1

      EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION
      '. Schedule (Schedule to be inserted in the Licensing Act 1964 after Schedule 14) shall have effect in relation to the rights of bar workers in relation to work during the previously restricted hours on Sundays.'.—[Mr. George Howarth.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.24 pm
      Mr. George Howarth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 1, a new schedule:—'Schedule—

    SCHEDULE TO BE INSERTED IN THE LICENSING ACT 1964 AFTER SCHEDULE 14
      SCHEDULE 15
        RIGHTS OF BAR WORKERS AS RESPECTS SUNDAY WORKING

          General Interpretation
          1.—(1) In this Schedule, except where a contrary intention appears—
          "the 1978 Act" means the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978;
          "bar work" means work in licensed premises or clubs licensed to sell intoxicating liquor mainly or wholly involving the serving of drinks to customers or the performance of ancillary tasks;
          "bar worker" means a person employed to do bar work, and includes a person employed as a manager of licensed premises or the tenant of licensed premises;
          "club" has the same meaning as in Part II of this Act;
          "the commencement date" means the day on which this Schedule comes into force;
          "dismissal" has the same meaning as in Part V of the 1978 Act;
          "licensed premises" has the same meaning as in section 60 of this Act;
          "notice period", in relation to an opting-out notice, has the meaning given by paragraph 6 below;
          "opted-out", in relation to a bar worker, shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 5 below;
          "opting-in notice" has the meaning given by paragraph 3(2) below;
          "opting-out notice" has the meaning given by paragraph 4(3) below;
          "the previously restricted hours" means the hours from 3pm to 7pm on Sundays;
          "protected", in relation to a bar worker, shall be construed in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 below.
          (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, the following provisions of the 1978 Act—
          section 151(1) and (2) (computation of period of continuous employment), and
          section 153 (general interpretation),
          shall have effect for the purposes of this Schedule as they have effect for the purposes of that Act.
          (3) For the purposes of this Schedule, section 151(2) of the 1978 Act shall have effect with the omission of the words from "but" onwards and Schedule 13 to that Act shall have effect with the following modifications—

          (a) in paragraph 1 for the words "paragraphs 3 to 12" there shall be substituted "paragraph 4 or paragraphs 9 to 12",

          (b) paragraph 3 and paragraphs 5 to 8 shall be omitted, and

          (c) in paragraph 4 the words "which normally involves employment for sixteen hours or more weekly" shall be omitted.

          (4) Where section 56 of the 1978 Act (failure to permit women to return to work after childbirth treated as dismissal) applies to an employee who was employed as a bar worker under her contract of employment on the last day of her maternity leave period, she shall be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as if she had been employed as a bar worker on the day with effect from which she is treated as dismissed under that section.

        Meaning of "protected bar worker"
        2.—(1) Subject to paragraph 3 below, a bar worker is to be regarded for the purposes of this Schedule as "protected" if, and only if, sub-paragraph (2) or (3) below applies to him.
        (2) This sub-paragraph applies to any bar worker if—

        (a) on the day before the commencement date, he was employed as a bar worker,

        (b) he has been continuously employed during the period beginning with that day and ending with the appropriate date, and

        (c) throughout that period, or throughout every part of it during which his relations with his employer were governed by a contract of employment, he was a bar worker.

        (3) This sub-paragraph applies to any bar worker whose contract of employment is such that under it he—

        (a) is not, and may not be required to work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours, and

        (b) could not be so required even if the provisions of this Schedule were disregarded.

        (4) In sub-paragraph (2)(c) above "the appropriate date" means—

        (a) in relation to paragraphs 7 and 8 below, the effective date of termination,

        (b) in relation to paragraph 10 below, the date of the act or failure to act,

        (c) in relation to sub-paragraph (2) or (3) of paragraph 12 below, the day on which the agreement is entered into,

        (d) in relation to sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph, the day on which the employee returns to work,

        (e) in relation to paragraph 14 below, any time in relation to which the contract is to be enforced, and

        (f) in relation to paragraph 15 below, the end of the period in respect of which the remuneration is paid or the benefit accrues.

        (5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(a) above, "the effective date of termination", in any case falling within paragraph 1(4) above, means the day with effect from which the employee is treated by section 56 of the 1978 Act as being dismissed.
        (6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(b) above—

        (a) where an act extends over a period, the "date of the act" means the first day of the period, and

        (b) a deliberate failure to act shall be treated as done when it was decided on,

        and in the absence of evidence establishing the contrary, an employer shall be taken to decide on a failure to act when he does an act inconsistent with doing the failed act or, if he has done no such inconsistent act, when the period expires within which he might reasonably have been expected to do the failed act if it was to be done.
        (7) Where on the day before the commencement date an employee's relations with his employer have ceased to be governed by a contract of employment, he shall be regarded as satisfying the conditions in sub-paragraph (2)(a) and (b) above if—

        1769

        (a) that day falls in a week which counts as a period of employment with that employer under paragraph 9 or 10 of Schedule 13 to the 1978 Act (absence from work because of sickness, pregnancy etc.) or under regulations made under paragraph 20 of that Schedule (reinstatement or re-engagement of dismissed employee), and

        (b) on the last day before the commencement date on which his relations with his employer were governed by a contract of employment, the employee was a bar worker and was not employed to work only on Sunday during the previously restricted hours.

        3.—(1) A bar worker is not a protected bar worker if—

        (a) on or after the commencement date, he has given his employer an opting-in notice, and

        (b) after giving that notice, he has expressly agreed with his employer to do bar work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday during the previously restricted hours.

        (2) In this Schedule "opting-in notice" means a written notice, signed and dated by the bar worker, in which the bar worker expressly states that he wishes to work on Sunday or that he does not object to Sunday working during the previously restricted hours.

        Notice of objection to Sunday working
        4.—(1) This paragraph applies to any bar worker who, under his contract of employment—

        (a) is or may be required to work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours (whether or not as a result of previously giving an opting-in notice), but

        (b) is not employed to work only on Sunday during the previously restricted hours.

        (2) A bar worker to whom this paragraph applies may at any time give his employer written notice, signed and dated by the bar worker, to the effect that the bar worker objects to Sunday working during the previously restricted hours.
        (3) In this Schedule "opting-out notice" means a notice given under sub-paragraph (2) above by a bar worker to whom this paragraph applies.

        Meaning of "opted-out bar worker"
        5.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, a bar worker is to be regarded for the purposes of this Schedule as "opted-out" if, and only if—

        (a) he has given his employer an opting-out notice,

        (b) he has been continuously employed during the period beginning with the day on which the notice was given and ending with the appropriate date, and

        (c) throughout that period, or throughout every part of its during which his relations with his employer were governed by a contract of employment, he was a bar worker.

        (2) In sub-paragraph (1) above "the appropriate date" means—

        (a) in relation to paragraphs 7 and 8 below, the effective date of termination,

        (b) in relation to paragraph 10 below, the date of the act or failure to act,

        (c) in relation to sub-paragraph (2) or (3) of paragraph 13 below, the day on which the agreement is entered into, and

        (d) in relation to sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph, the day on which the employee returns to work.

        (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a) above, "the effective date of termination", in any case falling within paragraph 1(4) above, means the day with effect from which the employee is treated by section 56 of the 1978 Act as being dismissed.
        (4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b) above—

        (a) where an act extends over a period, the "date of the act" means the first day of the period, and

        (b) a deliberate failure to act shall be treated as done when it was decided on,

        and in the absence of evidence establishing the contrary, an employer shall be taken to decide on a failure to act when he does an act inconsistent with doing the failed act or, if he has done no
        1770
        such inconsistent act, when the period expires within which he might reasonably have been expected to do the failed act if it was to be done.
        (5) A bar worker is not an opted-out bar worker if—

        (a) after giving the opting-out notice concerned, he has given his employer an opting-in notice, and

        (b) after giving that opting-in notice, he has expressly agreed with his employer to do bar work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday during the previously restricted hours.

        Meaning of "notice period"
        6. In this Schedule "notice period", in relation to an opted-out bar worker, means, subject to paragraph 11(2) below, the period of three months beginning with the day on which the opting-out notice concerned was given.

        Right not to be dismissed for refusing Sunday work during the previously restricted hours
        7.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the dismissal of a protected or opted-out bar worker by his employer shall be regarded for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act as unfair if the reason for it (or, if more than one, the principal reason) was the the bar worker refused, or proposed to refuse, to do bar work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday during the previously restricted hours.
        (2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply in relation to an opted-out bar worker where the reason (or principal reason) for the dismissal was that he refused, or proposed to refuse, to do bar work on any Sunday or Sundays during the previously restricted hours falling before the end of the notice period.
        (3) The dismissal of a bar worker by his employer shall be regarded for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act as unfair if the reason for it (or, if more than one, the principal reason) was that the bar worker gave, or proposed to give, an opting-out notice to the employer.
        (4) Section 142 of the 1978 Act (contracts for a fixed term) shall not exclude the application of section 54 of that Act (right of employee not to be unfairly dismissed) in relation to any dismissal which is unfair by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (3) above.
        8.—(1) Where the reason or principal reason for the dismissal of a protected or opted-out bar worker was that he was redundant, but it is shown—

        (a) that the circumstances constituting the redundancy applied equally to one or more other employees in the same undertaking who held positions similar to that held by him and who have not been dismissed by the employer, and

        (b) that the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which he was selected for dismissal was that specified in paragraph 7(1) above,

        then, for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act, the dismissal shall be regarded as unfair.
        (2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply in relation to an opted-out bar worker where the reason (or principal reason) for which he was selected for dismissal was that specified in paragraph 7(2) above.
        (3) Where the reason or principal reason for the dismissal of a bar worker was that he was redundant, but it is shown—

        (a) that the circumstances constituting the redundancy applied equally to one or more other employees in the same undertaking who held positions similar to that held by him and who have not been dismissed by the employer, and

        (b) that the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which he was selected for dismissal was that specified in paragraph 7(3) above,

        then, for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act, the dismissal shall be regarded as unfair.

        Exclusion of secion 64(1) of Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978
        9. Section 54 of the 1978 Act (right of employee not to be unfairly dismissed) shall apply to a dismissal regarded as unfair by virtue of paragraph 7 or 8 above regardless of the period for which

        1771
        the employee has been employed and of his age; and accordingly section 64(1) of that Act (which provides a qualifying period and an upper age limit) shall not apply to such a dismissal.

        Right not to suffer detriment for refusing Sunday work during the previous restricted hours
        10.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) and (4) below, a protected or opted-out bar worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that the bar worker refused, or proposed to refuse, to do bar work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday during the previously restricted hours.
        (2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply to anything done in relation to an opted-out bar worker on the ground that he refused, or proposed to refuse, to do bar work on any Sunday or Sundays during the previously restricted hours falling before the end of the notice period.
        (3) Subject to sub-paragaph (4) below, a bar worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that he gave, or proposed to give, an opting-out notice to his employer.
        (4) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (3) above do not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal.
        (5) For the purposes of this paragraph a bar worker who does not work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday during the previously restricted hours is not to be regarded as having been subjected to any detriment by—

        (a) any failure to pay remuneration in respect of bar work on a Sunday which he has not done,

        (b) any failure to provide him with any other benefit, where that failure results from the application, in relation to a Sunday on which the employee has not done bar work, of a contractual term under which the extent of that benefit varies according to the number of hours worked by the employee or the remuneration of the employee, or

        (c) any failure to provide him with any work, remuneration or other benefit which by virtue of paragraph 14 or 15 below the employer is not obliged to provide.

        (6) Where an employer offers to pay a sum specified in the offer to any one or more employees who are protected or opted-out bar workers or who, under their contracts of employment, are not obliged to do bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours, if they agree to do bar work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday during the previously restricted hours—

        (a) an employee to whom the offer is not made is not to be regarded for the purposes of this paragraph as having been subjected to any detriment by any failure to make the offer to him or to pay him that sum, and

        (b) an employee who does not accept the offer is not to be regarded for those purposes as having been subjected to any detriment by any failure to pay him that sum.

        Employer's duty to give explanatory statement
        11.—(1) Where a person becomes a bar worker to whom paragraph 4 above applies, his employer shall, before the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which that person becomes such a bar worker, give him a written statement in the prescribed form.
        (2) If—

        (a) an employer fails to comply with sub-paragraph (1) above in relation to any bar worker, and

        (b) the bar worker, on giving the employer an opting-out notice, becomes an opted-out bar worker,

        paragraph 6 above shall have effect, in relation to the bar worker, with the substitution for "three months" of "one month".
        (3) An employer shall not be regarded as failing to comply with sub-paragraph (1) above in any case where, before the end of the period referred to in that sub-paragraph, a bar worker has given him an opting-out notice.
        (4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, the prescribed form is as follows—

        STATUTORY RIGHTS IN RELATION TO SUNDAY BAR WORK
        You have become employed under a contract of employment under which you are or can be required to do Sunday bar work during previously restricted hours, that is to say, work serving drinks on a Sunday between the hours of 3 p.m. and 7 p.m.
        However, if you wish, you can give a notice, as described in the next paragraph, to your employer and you will then have the right not to do Sunday work during previously restricted hours once three months have passed from the date on which you gave the notice.
        Your notice must—
        be in writing;
        be signed and dated by you;
        say you object to doing Sunday bar work during previously restricted hours.
        For three months after you give the notice, your employer can still require you to do all the Sunday bar work your contract provides for. After the three month period has ended, you have the right to complain to an industrial tribunal if, because of your refusal to do Sunday bar work during the previously restricted hours, your employer—
        dismisses you, or
        does something else detrimental to you, for example, failing to promote you.
        Once you have the rights described, you can surrender them only by giving your employer a further notice, signed and dated by you, saying that you wish to do Sunday bar work during the previously restricted hours or that you do not object to doing such work and then agreeing with your employer to do such work on Sundays or on a particular Sunday."
        (5) The Secretary of State may by order amend the prescribed form set out in sub-paragraph (4) above.
        (6) An order under sub-paragraph (5) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

        Effect of rights on contracts of employment
        12.—(1) Any contract of employment under which a bar worker who satisfies the conditions in paragraph 2(2)(a) and (b) above was employed on the day before the commencement date is unenforceable to the extent that it—

        (a) requires the bar worker to do bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours on or after the commencement date, or

        (b) requires the employer to provide the bar worker with bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours on or after that date.

        (2) Except as provided by sub-paragraph (3) below, any agreement entered into after the commencement date between a protected bar worker and his employer is unenforceable to the extent that it

        (a) requires the bar worker to do bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours, or

        (b) requires the employer to provide the bar worker with bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours.

        (3) Where, after giving an opting-in notice, a protected bar worker expressly agrees as mentioned in paragraph 3(1)(b) above (and so ceases to be protected), his contract of employment shall be taken to be varied to the extent necessary to give effect to the terms of the agreement.
        (4) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) above to a protected bar worker includes a reference to an employee who, although not a protected bar worker for the purpose of that sub-paragraph at the time when the agreement is entered into, is a protected bar worker on the day on which she returns to work as mentioned in paragraph 10 of Schedule 13 to the 1978 Act (maternity).
        13.—(1) Where a bar worker gives his employer an opting-out notice, the contract of employment under which he was employed immediately before he gave that notice becomes unenforceable to the extent that it—

        (a) requires the bar worker to do bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours after the end of the notice period, or

        (b) requires the employer to provide the bar worker with bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours after the end of that period.

        (2) Except as provided by sub-paragraph (3) below, any agreement entered into between an opted-out bar worker and his employer is unenforceable to the extent that it—

        (a) requires the bar worker to do bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours after the end of the notice period, or

        (b) requires the employer to provide the bar worker with bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours after the end of that period.

        (3) Where, after giving an opting-in notice, an opted-out bar worker expressly agrees as mentioned in paragraph 5(5)(b) above (and so ceases to be opted-out), his contract of employment shall be taken to be varied to the extent necessary to give effect to the terms of the agreement.
        (4) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) above to an opted-out bar worker includes a reference to an employee who, although not an opted-out bar worker for the purposes of that sub-paragraph at the time when the agreement is entered into, had given her employer an opting-out notice before that time and is an opted-out bar worker on the day on which she returns to work as mentioned in paragraph 10 of Schedule 13 to the 1978 Act (maternity).
        14. If—

        (a) under the contract of employment under which a bar worker who satisfies the conditions in paragraph 2(2)(a) and (b) above was employed on the day before the commencement date, the employer is, or may be, required to provide him with bar work for a specified number of hours each week,

        (b) under that contract, the bar worker was or might have been required to work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours before the commencement date, and

        (c) the bar worker has done bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours in that employment (whether or not before the commencement date) but has, on or after the commencement date, ceased to do so,

        then, so long as the bar worker remains a protected bar worker, that contract shall not be regarded as requiring the employer to provide him with bar work on weekdays in excess of the hours normally worked by the bar worker on weekdays before he ceased to do bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours.
        15.—(1) If—

        (a) under the contract of employment under which a bar worker who satisfies the conditions in paragraph 2(2)(a) and (b) above was employed on the day before the commencement date, the bar worker was or might have been required to work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours before that date,

        (b) the bar worker has done bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours in that employment (whether or not before the commencement date) but has, on or after the commencement date, ceased to do so, and

        (c) it is not apparent from the contract what part of the remuneration payable, or of any other benefit accruing, to the bar worker was intended to be attributable to such work,

        then, so long as the bar worker remains a protected bar worker, that contract shall be regarded as enabling the employer to reduce the amount of remuneration paid, or the extent of the other benefit provided, to the bar worker in respect of any period by the proportion which the hours of bar work which (apart from this Schedule) the bar worker could have been required to do on Sunday during the previously restricted hours in the period (in this paragraph
        1774
        referred to as "the contractual Sunday hours") bears to the aggregate of those hours and the hours of work actually done by the bar worker in the period.
        (2) Where, under the contract of employment, the hours of work actually done on weekdays in any period would be taken into account in determining the contractual Sunday hours, they shall be taken into account in determining the contractual Sunday hours for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above.

        Proceedings for contravention of paragraph 10
        16. Sections 22B and 22C of the 1978 Act (which relate to proceedings brought by an employee on the ground that he has been subjected to a detriment in contravention of section 22A of that Act) shall have effect as if the reference in section 22B(1) to section 22A included a reference to paragraph 10 above.

        Restrictions on contracting out of Schedule
        17.—(1) Any provision in an agreement (whether a contract of employment or not) shall be void in so far as it purports—

        (a) to exclude or limit the operation of any provision of this Schedule, or

        (b) to preclude any person from presenting a complaint to an industrial tribunal by virtue of any provision of this Schedule.

        (2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply to an agreement to refrain from presenting or continuing with a complaint where—

        (a) a conciliation officer has taken action under section 133(2) or (3) of the 1978 Act (general provisions as to conciliation) or under section 134(1), (2) or (3) (conciliation in case of unfair dismissal) of that Act, or

        (b) the conditions regulating comprise agreements under the 1978 Act (as set out in action 140(3) of that Act) are satisfied in relation to the agreement.

        Transitional modifications relating to maternity cases
        18.—(1) Where—

        (a) an employee exercises a right to return to work under Part III of the 1978 Act (maternity), and

        (b) because amendments of that Part made by the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 (in this paragraph referred to as "the 1993 Act") do not have effect in her case, her right is a right to return to work in the job in which she was employed under the original contract of employment,

        the preceding provisions of this Schedule shall have effect subject to the modifications in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below.
        (2) In paragraph 1(4), for "her contract of employment on the last day of her maternity leave period" there shall be substituted "her original contract of employment".
        (3) In paragraph 2(7), for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—
        "(b) under her original contract of employment, she was a bar worker and was not employed to work only on Sunday during the previously restricted hours."
        (4) In this paragraph and in paragraphs 1 and 2 above as modified by sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) above, "original contract of employment" has the meaning given by section 153(1) of the 1978 Act as originally enacted.

        Dismissal on grounds of assertion of statutory right
        19. In section 60A of the 1978 Act (dismissal on grounds of assertion of statutory right) in subsection (4)(a), after "or" at the end of paragraph (i) there shall be inserted—
        "(ia) Schedule 15 to the Licensing Act 1964, or"

        Dismissal procedures agreements
        20. In section 65 of the 1978 Act (exclusion in respect of dismissal procedures agreement) in subsection (4), after "section 60A(1)" there shall be inserted "or the right conferred by paragraph 7 or 8 of Schedule 15 to the Licensing Act 1964".

        Conciliation
        21. In section 133 of the 1978 Act (general provisions as to conciliation officers) after "or" at the end of paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
        "(aa) arising out of a contravention or alleged contravention, of paragraph 10 of Schedule 15 to the Licensing Act 1964; or""

        Application of certain other provisions of 1978 Act
        22. In the following provisions of the 1978 Act—
        section 129 (remedy for infringement of certain rights),
        section 141(2) (employee ordinarily working outside Great Britain, and
        section 150 and Schedule 12 (death of employee or employer), any reference to Part II of the 1978 Act includes a reference to paragraph 10 of this Schedule."
        Mr. Howarth: We debated this issue on Second Reading and in Committee, although not in connection with the new clause. The new clause would introduce a new schedule to the Licensing Act 1964, which would be inserted between schedules 14 and 15, which refer to the rights of bar workers in respect of Sunday working. The purpose behind the new clause is a matter of conviction for my hon. Friends and me—the belief that workers who are expected to work on a Sunday and who will be covered by the changed arrangements implicit in the Bill should be protected from being forced to work on a Sunday by the Bill, or, more importantly, by their employers.
        The new clause defines a protected bar worker, so that such workers can be included, or in some cases excluded, from our proposed new schedule. We also provide an objection procedure whereby those who are covered by the new arrangements have the opportunity to give notice in writing to their employer that they object to working additional hours on Sundays, and a procedure whereby employers can state their position.
        Proposed paragraphs (6) and (7) provide protection for workers who object, so that they cannot be dismissed or have punitive action taken against them by their employers because they have lodged an objection to working on Sundays under the conditions implicit in the Bill. The proposed new schedule also provides for statutory rights for those workers, and a framework in which those statutory rights can be operated. It also provides for transitional arrangements, especially for maternity cases. Many people will agree that there should be some limit, and that pregnant women should be treated slightly differently.
        I will not detain the House long, because I realise that everyone is desperately eager to be about business other than discussing the Bill; we have had plenty of opportunity to discuss it elsewhere. There is, however, an issue of principle involved.
        I support—some of my hon. Friends did not—the general thrust of the Bill on the basis that Sunday is a family day, which gives the opportunity to enjoy a range of leisure facilities. Equally, we believe that those who are expected to work to provide those additional leisure facilities during the extra hours that will be available should have rights, and that the two sets of rights need to be brought into balance. That is the purpose behind our proposed new schedule.
        Those who have to work on a Sunday should have the option of being able to set aside some part of the week or some part of Sunday to spend time with their families—perhaps to spend time visiting a bar facility, under the
        1776
        new provisions, or a restaurant. All we are saying is that two sets of rights have to be considered. We believe that new clause 1 and the new schedule that it would introduce are one way in which to do that.
        We do not want to create disharmony. We believe that the Minister has made concessions on other matters, and that he will make some others later this afternoon. We feel, however, that this is an important issue, and we hope that, even at this late stage in the proceedings, the Government will accept that there is a proper case to be made, and that we have made the proper case that the rights of workers who are expected to work on a Sunday should be taken into account.
        Mr. James Hill: I rise to declare that I am a consultant to the Society of Licensed Victuallers, and the legislation will apply to the majority of its members. They would be wary of a Bill passing through the House without any objection.
        My only objection is that, too often, it is the employees who are mentioned. The average licensee has a living to earn; he has to pay high wages these days. He will certainly have to pay much higher wages for Sundays, Christmas day and Good Friday. I am surprised that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, needs to introduce the Bill, because surely deregulation is the name of the game. We should free up the hours completely, not necessarily have a nibble at them from time to time.
        5.30 pm
        I have already led a delegation to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. The retailer—I shall call him that, for that is what he is—is over-legislated for in this sector. I can understand the fears about the employees, but they have an easy means of presenting their fears—by withdrawing from their work.
        I cannot see why we need more regulation in an industry that uses mainly part-time workers for the busy times of the business week. If the landlord can induce his staff to keep working throughout Christmas day, Sundays or Good Friday, it is up to him to see whether he can achieve that through local negotiations. I cannot see why the state needs to become so involved in the legislation.
        Mr. Derek Enright: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the fact that, in London and other large cities, there are many illegal immigrant workers, particularly Australians, who work without a licence and are therefore prepared to work for low rates lest they be reported?
        Mr. Hill: I am sure that the Home Office has a way of dealing with illegal immigrants; I am sure that it is constantly sending out people to identify them. That is not the way that the landlord of an establishment would care to operate. He does not have to ensure that someone has a work permit if he comes to work two hours on a Sunday afternoon. That is up to the Home Office, which has abysmally neglected that part of the labour market.
        This country's immigration policies are lax. I am surprised at that, because my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is generally at the cutting edge of the right, and does not always stand back. The immigration problem is another problem—it is not something that the landlord can do anything about. All he can do is employ people to work the hours.
        The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for going away—I am sorry, for giving way. That was a Freudian slip. The Bill meets my hon. Friend's aims: it deregulates the position in respect of Sunday afternoons. It may not do as much as my hon. Friend would wish in terms of the evenings. While I agree that the new clause would be regulatory, I should have thought that my hon. Friend would want to give the Government some credit for having extended consumer choice, and for introducing what is generally a deregulatory measure.
        Mr. Hill: I thank my right hon. Friend for those few words, but the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) clearly said that the Home Office, indeed the Minister of State, would be making other concessions. I was not too clear about what they were.
        Mr. George Howarth: I do not want to test the hon. Gentleman's patience, but I was not expecting any concessions from the Government on new clause 1. The Government may make concessions on other parts of the Bill.
        Mr. Hill: I am reassured by that. Bills can be dangerous, as they can be added to in future by other political parties that do not necessarily have the same leanings as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. The fewer pieces of legislation there are—this is one Bill that I should have thought was not needed—the fewer restrictions there are. I do not know whether we need a giant prayer against every bit of legislation that affects the licensee.
        If there is anything to be done to ensure that the licensee and the employees have a future, preventing the illegal importation of vast quantities of drink along the south coast would be a good thing. I would be more than satisfied if a Bill were introduced on that subject.
        Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) has his own very strange interpretation of the Bill. Even those who have criticised it on the grounds that it greatly extends the hours for which public houses are open, without resolving some of the problems associated with that, would have to concede that it is undoubtedly a deregulatory Bill. It sweeps away restrictions on the times at which licensed premises can open on Sunday afternoons, Good Friday and Christmas day—a subject on which the Government have said that they will make a concession.
        I am in the strange position of having my name attached to every amendment on the amendment paper today, for a series of different reasons. In the case of the new clause, it is because it follows very much the lines of a new clause that I moved in Committee, which was designed to secure some protection for people who will be obliged to work on Sundays.
        A minute or so ago, the subject of illegal immigrants working in the licensed trade was mentioned. A employer has some responsibility to satisfy himself that someone he employs is legally entitled to be so employed. The Department of Employment also plays a significant role, so the position is not quite that described by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test.
        The primary concern of the new clause, as with the new clause that I moved in Committee, is the large number of people, including licensed house managers and bar staff,
        1778
        who feel extremely vulnerable to pressure to work on Sundays, when they want to set aside at least an hour or two to be with their own families. That fear is genuine and cannot be discounted. The Minister of State and Conservative Members must weigh that fact against the advantages that they see in deregulation.
        The Minister and Conservative Members had to make a similar consideration when the House removed most of the restrictions on Sunday retail trading. At that stage, the House decided that it was necessary to make provision—at least to protect those who entered the retail trade without knowing that they could be legally required to work on Sundays.
        When those people entered the trade, it would not have been legal for them to be required to do so in a great many of the larger shops. That provision was included in that measure. The Bill contains similar provisions in relation to Sunday afternoon trading in pubs, clubs and off-licences. We are looking to see whether we can provide some protection for the staff involved.
        It is unfair and complacent to ignore the feelings that have been expressed. The National Association of Licensed House Managers has been the strongest in expressing those views and has pointed to the contractual obligations under which managers will be required to open their premises for all the legally permitted hours. Bar staff comprise a much less organised group; some of them are part-time and some are dependent on that income. Many of them are women, who are perhaps supplementing a severely diminished family income by working in pubs and clubs. They may want to keep their job, but not have to give up family time on Sundays. That is why some of us thought that such protection was a necessary feature of the Bill.
        I am glad that we have returned to the subject now, and I urge the Minister of State to think carefully about the position of those who do not enjoy the genuine freedom of choice that he seeks to give to consumers. I can understand the Minister's desire to give consumers that freedom of choice and, to a point, landlords are being given greater freedom of choice in so far as the landlord has a real freedom to decide whether to open his premises.
        However, some landlords will not want to be left behind if a neighbouring premises opens on Sunday afternoons. In that case, the premises that opens on a Sunday afternoon may attract the clientele that the other premises attracted earlier in the day, because those people will know that they can stay for longer in the public house that is open all afternoon. Some landlords may feel pressure to open on Sunday afternoons.
        Some people may have freedom of choice, but when the Bill is finally enacted, many people will lose a freedom of choice which they possess at the moment. That is the freedom to spend a limited amount of time on Sunday afternoons with their families, or doing whatever else they want to do on a Sunday afternoon. As the law does not currently allow pubs to be open on Sunday afternoons, they know that they cannot be required to work then.
        The Bill reduces some people's freedom. Ministers must recognise that. One way to do that would be to include provisions along the lines of new clause 1.
        Mr. James Couchman: I repeat the registered interest, which I still have in the licensed trade, that I declared on Second Reading and in Committee. I

        1779
        am still a non-executive director of the family company I disposed of at the end of last October. As I have said before, I still have a vestigial interest in the licensed trade. I am also the vice-chairman of the parliamentary beer club, which I believe is the largest all-party group in the House, as it now has nearly 200 members.
        Mr. Beith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the parliamentary group which takes an interest in non-profit-making members' clubs is a larger group still, by quite a margin.
        Mr. Couchman: The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), who moved the new clause, is seeking to attach the provision to the Licensing Act 1964. That is a very curious mechanism to use through the vehicle of this small and quite limited Bill. The hon. Gentleman has tried to attach to the back of this small Bill a major change in the employment conditions that would apply to bar staff, licensed house managers and tenant licensees.
        Anyone who comes to work in the licensed trade fully expects to do so on Sundays. I accepted in Committee that there is a change with regard to Sunday afternoons, but the new schedule applies to the present restricted opening hours on a Sunday.
        People who work in the licensed trade are aware of the present Sunday opening hours. I can see no possible reason why the draconian new schedule should be included in the Bill in order to give rights which were specifically excluded when the House debated Sunday trading during the last parliamentary Session.
        I was one of the first people to initiate such a protection with regard to Sunday trading, when I introduced a private Member's Bill two years ago. I had the first schedule for protection for workers in my Bill. I recognised that people who were suddenly confronted with the possibility of working on Sundays, when they had been taken on to work six days a week, should have some protection and a right not to work on Sundays.
        If the new schedule is included in the Bill, we would make life very difficult for the licensed house managers and tenant licensees if they found that all their staff wanted to opt out of Sunday working. Under the terms of the new schedule, as I understand it—perhaps the hon. Member for Knowsley, North will correct me if I am wrong—all bar staff throughout the country would be given the right to opt out of Sunday working. I am sure that it is not intended that pubs should close on Sundays, but that would be the effect if the staff opted out of Sunday working.
        In Committee, we discussed at some length what would happen to the people who work in pub restaurants, who may well work through Sunday afternoons at the moment, as restaurants serving full meals may open during the afternoon break on a Sunday. Waitresses, waiters, kitchen staff and chefs would not be covered by the proposal. We would have a curious situation, whereby the kitchen and dining room staff would not be covered, but bar staff would be covered. The bar staff could opt out of Sunday working, but the catering staff could not. As some people will do both bar and catering work during the week, deciding which is which on Sundays would be a problem.
        1780
        The new schedule is a very good try on the Opposition's part, but it is not a realistic proposition to be added to this small Bill.
        5.45 pm
        Mr. John Hutton: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), I supported the Bill on Second Reading because it makes perfect sense for Sunday licensing hours to be liberalised. I support the new clause and the new schedule to the Licensing Act 1964, for several simple reasons. First, it creates a better balance in the Bill between the rights of consumers and the legitimate rights of people who work in the bar trade on Sundays.
        The proposal also creates greater consistency between people who work in on and off-licence premises. As the Minister accepted in Committee, there is at the moment an anomaly between people working in on and off-licence premises on a Sunday. A person working in an off-licence premises on a Sunday currently has the protection afforded to workers under the Sunday Trading Act 1994 not to be compelled to work on a Sunday against his or her wishes.
        At the moment, that protection does not extend to people working in on-licence premises. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said that it was important to have consistency and not to create too many anomalies. Without rehearsing our arguments in Committee, my point is that, unless the Bill is amended in the way that we propose, it will simply add further anomalies and inconsistencies to the law. That is a bad thing.
        It is right in principle, for the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that, when we, through our law-making powers, change the employment conditions of workers who currently cannot be required to work between 3 pm and 7 pm on Sundays, and make it likely that those people will be required to work those hours, we must produce a framework of protection which will allow workers, for whatever reasons—and hopefully for reasonable grounds—to decline to work those hours and to say to their employers that it is not feasible or practical for them to work those hours. People may have other commitments, perhaps of a religious, social or family nature, which would make it difficult for them to work such hours. Those are the points which the new clause and the new schedule seek to address.
        For those reasons, I support the new clause and the new schedule, and I hope that the Minister will have something positive and constructive to say about those issues.
        Mr. Enright: I support the new clause, and I want to give a practical example. I also recognise that, no matter how we do this, there are bound to be anomalies with deregulation. However, I want to describe an anomaly which should not arise.
        As a concrete example, I refer to Hemsworth Conservative club. That club has more members than voters by quite a considerable margin. The club steward was once nearly sacked for putting my poster in his bedroom window, but fortunately good sense prevailed, because the committee was controlled by good Labour men at the time.
        However, people like that club steward are going to be controlled by small committees, be it the Hemsworth Conservative club or the Pontefract RAFA club. Small

        1781
        committees will say, "Thou shalt work on a Sunday afternoon," when clearly the terms of the contracts of the people involved were for very limited hours of working, particularly in some of the smaller clubs. That will no longer be true, because the clubs will get greedy when they see what the next-door club is doing. Similarly, when clubs see what the adjacent club is doing, they will do the same. So I certainly give my full support to the new clause and the new schedule.
        Mr. Michael Forsyth: As the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) expected, I am not sure whether I can assist him by accepting his new clause. I must confess that I was slightly alarmed when my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) began to speak, because I thought that he was attacking the Bill rather than expecting me to accept the Opposition amendment. I hasten to reassure my hon. Friend, because I had no idea that my reputation with him was such that he thought that I would give in so easily, even before the hon. Member for Knowsley, North had been offered the support of his hon. Friends.
        I am interested to hear from the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) that not only is the Leader of the Opposition embracing Conservative policies, but the men of Hemsworth are embracing the Conservative club—a reverse takeover of truly alarming proportions.
        Mr. Enright: May I reassure the Minister by telling him that, when I applied for membership, I was instantly refused?
        Mr. Forsyth: Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman were to read out the speeches that the Leader of the Opposition has been making in support of the policies that we Conservatives have espoused for some time, and to say that he adhered to those principles, he might yet be able to join the Hemsworth Conservative club. He could even go a stage further, and vote for the Conservative candidate there when the time comes.
        The hon. Member for Knowsley, North made the case for the new clause persuasively, as he did in Committee, and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) cited the protection already given to people who work on Sundays as a result of the Sunday Trading Act 1994 and the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, the former of which provided protection for shop workers, and the latter for betting shop workers.
        However, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recall that, during the passage of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act, we debated whether the right should be extended to stable lads as well as betting shop workers. We decided then that it should not, because stable lads could be expected to work on Sundays anyway. That is the distinction here too.
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said, people who work in the licensed trade already expect to work on Sundays, so they are in a different position from shop workers in England, if not in Scotland, who could not have expected to do so. For those reasons, I do not think that there is a parallel, so it would not be right to extend employment protection as has been suggested.
        1782
        The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) put forward an ingenious argument by pointing to the anomaly between the treatment of employees in off-licences and those in other licensed premises.
        I now come to the part of my brief marked, "Use only if pressed". There is an anomaly, and the hon. Gentleman is right to mention it, but the people who work in off-licences are shop workers, and as such already have the right to decline Sunday work. It would be irrational for the law to pretend that employees in pubs, restaurants, hotels, sports clubs and so on are shop workers and should therefore have the same rights, simply because the premises in which they work happen to have liquor licences.
        The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the difference, but it stems from the fact that we dealt with the previous set of anomalies that arose in relation to shop workers, when it was felt that it would not be right to distinguish between people because of the differences between the products sold in the various shops. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the end the distinctions in the Act, such as they are, were made according to the size of premises.
        Mr. Hutton: While the Minister is dealing with my argument, will he also deal with the fact that workers in off-licences, who now have the protection of the Sunday Trading Act, could legitimately have been asked to work on a Sunday before enactment, as well as after? I am afraid that his argument does not hold much water.
        Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman's argument was that we must avoid anomalies, yet he seeks to create another. In so far as an anomaly exists between workers in off-licences and others, it does so because the House took the view that it would be wrong to distinguish between the rights of workers on Sundays according to the nature of the product being sold—in this case, alcohol in off-licences. The hon. Gentleman proposes that, because the distinction exists as a result of the previous legislation, we should create another anomaly in the Bill, covering a particular period.
        Incidentally, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham was not quite accurate in his description of the amendment. The proposal is not that all workers in pubs on Sundays should be protected throughout their day at work; the amendments relate only to the period between 3 o'clock and 7 o'clock in the afternoon. If they were accepted, we should have put on to the statute employment protection for workers in pubs between 3 o'clock and 7 o'clock.
        Some years on, when everyone had got used to the change in the law, some people may look upon that as rather an oddity, just as, in the context of this debate, people who make a careful study of the legislation, such as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, may find an oddity in the treatment of people in off-licences, which under the Sunday Trading Act are shops.
        Therefore, ingenious though the hon. Gentleman's argument is, it is not sufficiently persuasive to enable me to commend the new clause and the new schedule to the House. I ask the hon. Member for Knowsley, North to withdraw the new clause rather than pressing it to a Division, so that we can make progress. No doubt he will already have considered my arguments and the reasons behind them.
        Mr. George Howarth: There is a difference of approach between the Minister and ourselves, which is to some extent exemplified by what his hon. Friends have said. The kernel of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test seems to be that there is an equal relationship between bar staff and the breweries, managed houses or whatever that employ them.
        However, whatever the nationality of the bar staff, all too often the relationship is not as balanced and equal as the hon. Gentleman implied. Especially nowadays, when one cannot walk out of one job into another, rights need to be protected in those circumstances. It is not a simple matter of a discussion between employees and employers, because such discussions never take place on an equal footing.
        The hon. Member for Gillingham did not quite understand my amendment. I can understand why, because it is extremely complicated to deal with deregulation of the licensed trade on an incremental basis. But if the hon. Gentleman reads the new clause and new schedule again, he will discover that, as the Minister conceded, the new schedule would apply only to the additional hours covered by the Bill.
        The hon. Gentleman has a wider objection, which has been well rehearsed, but the specific point that he made on this occasion does not apply to the amendments.
        Mr. Barry Porter: I was taken with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham, to which no one has yet responded. What about the thousands of people employed in restaurants within pubs between 3 o'clock and 7 o'clock on Sundays? There appear to be no problems or difficulties with those people, so why should there be problems with people employed to dispense drinks? I cannot see the difference.
        Mr. Howarth: The hon. Member for Gillingham and, seemingly, the hon. Member for Wirral, South, assume that, if the protection were to become law, all the workers covered would inevitably try to make use of it. Most workers will probably simply accept the extra hours, but for the minority of people with a valid objection, our suggestions set out a procedure that they can go through, and even provide opportunities for employers to state the terms on which objections are not acceptable.
        All that is covered, but amending deregulation legislation as it goes along is a complicated business, and we understand how confusion can arise when people hear what we are saying. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enfield) made some useful points, particularly in relation to the Hemsworth Conservative club. It is perhaps representative of the feeling all over the country that the Hemsworth Conservative club is a bastion of Labour party support.
        6 pm
        Mr. Michael Alison: For the purpose of clarification, as the Yorkshire neighbour of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enfield), I should point out that the hon. Gentleman was refused membership of the Hemsworth Conservative club not because he is a member of the Labour party, but because control of that club has fallen into the hands of the Militant Tendency.
        Mr. Howarth: One of my party pieces is to discuss in some detail Trotsky's theory of transitional demand—which, by the way, I do not support. In the present
        1784
        circumstances, I think that it would be straying too far from the terms of the legislation to enter into a discussion about the Militant Tendency. While my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth continues to represent that constituency, the Militant Tendency will never be allowed in the Labour party. The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) will have to make his own arrangements about dealing with that group in the Hemsworth Conservative club.
        I do not think that we should take too much to heart the fears that Government Members have expressed. The Minister's remarks have not changed my views, and I do not think that they have changed those of my hon. Friends. However, with leave, I will withdraw the new clause, safe in the knowledge that our colleagues in another place will take the opportunity to raise the issue again when it comes before them.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      PERMITTED HOURS IN LICENSED PREMISES
      Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 1, leave out lines 5 to 12 and insert—
      '. —(1) Section 60 of the Licensing Act 1964 (permitted hours in licensed premises) shall be amended as follows
      (2) For subsection (1)(b) (Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday) there shall be substituted—

      "(b) on Sundays, other than Christmas Day, and on Good Friday, the hours from twelve noon to half past ten in the evening; and

      (c) on Christmas Day, the hours from twelve noon to half past ten in the evening, with a break of four hours beginning at three in the afternoon.".

      (3) At the end of subsection (6) (off-licences) there shall be added the words ", and the permitted hours on Sundays, other than Christmas Day, and on Good Friday shall begin at ten in the morning".'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 6, after 'Friday', insert
      'for the words, "Christmas Day" there shall be substituted the words "(other than a Sunday which is Christmas Day)".'.
      No. 3, in page 1, line 8, at end insert—
      '(1A) After section 60(1)(b) of that Act there shall be inserted the words"; and
      (c) on Christmas Day, the hours from twelve noon to half past ten in the evening with a break of five hours beginning at two in the afternoon.".'.
      Government amendment No. 17.
      No. 5, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave out from 'clubs)' to end of line 15 and insert—
      '(a) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—
      "(a) on days other than Christmas Day, the general licensing hours, and"; and
      (b) in paragraph (b), for the words "on Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday" there shall be substituted the words "on Christmas Day" and in sub-paragraph (ii) of that paragraph for the word "two" there shall be substituted the word "three", and for the word "three" there shall be substituted the word "two".'.
      Government amendments Nos. 18 to 25.
      Mr. Forsyth: Very strong views were expressed during the Committee stage of the Bill about the inclusion of Christmas day in the terms of the legislation. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson)

      1785
      is not present in the Chamber, because in Committee he said that there was no point in hon. Members attending if Ministers were not prepared to listen to their arguments.
      I listened to the arguments on this occasion. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the Opposition spokesman pressed me on the matter. Since then, a number of other hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), have approached me about leaving Christmas day licensing hours as they stand at present.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said in Committee—and I agree with him—there is nothing in the Bill which would require public houses to open for the additional hours on Christmas day. Most public houses do not open for the full hours that are presently permitted on Christmas day.
      However, in deference to the views that hon. Members have expressed, I have tabled the amendments—I admit that I did not appreciate that it would take quite so many words to remove "Christmas day" from the legislation. I know that the amendments address the concerns of a number of hon. Members, and I hope that they will speed the Bill's passage through the Parliament.
      The effect of the amendments is to ensure that people who are employed in licensed premises do not have to work on Christmas afternoon. They will be able to spend that time with their families and listen to Her Majesty's broadcast to the nation or whatever. I hope that that accords with the wishes of the House.
      Mr. Beith: I warmly welcome the Minister's decision to move the amendments. He listened to the arguments that hon. Members put during the Committee. I discussed those points with him following the Committee proceedings, and I know that several other hon. Members also approached him about the subject.
      When I moved an amendment along those lines in Committee, I called it the "Bet Lynch Christmas dinner amendment". There is no doubt that it is very important to many landlords and public house managers to be able to shut their doors on Christmas day, get the turkeys out of the oven and spend some time with their families in what are their homes.
      Although the Minister is correct when he says that public houses are not obliged to open on Christmas day, it is at least possible—I think it is quite likely—that competitive pressure in some areas would lead the breweries to force managers in their employ to open on Christmas day. In some cases, licensees would feel obliged to open rather than allow their competitors to test the Christmas afternoon market.
      That would mean the loss of a very special time for almost every family in the country. There are very few families to whom Christmas day is not important, and we try as much as we can to allow workers in all but the most essential industries to spend that time with their families.
      There is no real evidence of a strong demand for Christmas day opening in the same way that there is a genuine call for the relaxation of hours on Sunday afternoons throughout the year. The issue was not addressed by the Prime Minister in his trailer for the legislation. In stressing the importance that he attached to
      1786
      Sunday deregulation, he made no mention of Christmas day. Therefore, I think it right that we should have second thoughts about it.
      Following the Committee stage, I received letters of support from licensees and public house managers, who agreed that it was not necessary to include Christmas day in the terms of the Bill. People should be given a clear assurance that they will not be required to work on Christmas afternoon.
      I am grateful to hon. Members from other parties, including the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson)— and other Government Members, whom I shall not name lest I should embarrass them, who also made their views known—who joined me in seeking to persuade the Minister about the matter. I am very glad that the Minister has listened to our views and has moved amendments in order to achieve the intended effect. There are some technical differences between my amendments and the Government's amendments, but they are of no consequence, and I shall not press my amendments.
      Mr. Couchman: I was going to ask the right hon. Member whether he intended to press his amendments. They are somewhat different from the Government's, and I think that they may tighten the current position further.
      Mr. Beith: The hon. Member is correct in one respect: my amendments would effect a 2 o'clock closure on Christmas day. That was the position until a few years ago, and it is generally thought that the hours on Sunday changed to 3 o'clock because of a mistake on the part of the Home Office. There is a case for at least returning to that original intention, but we can set that aside. There is consensus in favour of accepting the Minister's amendments. I certainly accept them, and I am glad that the Minister has taken that decision.
      Mr. Alison: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on the persistence and perspicacity with which he pursued this narrow but important and valuable point, and on the way in which he argued his case in Committee. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister most warmly on his typical receptiveness and sensitivity in accepting a proposal which I believe will cause general rejoicing in every part of the House and the country.
      It is not merely a symbolic gesture, although the Christmas festival remains a special time in Britain; the measure is also a practical one. The Archbishop of Canterbury recently stated that a quarter of the British population attended Christmas day church services in 1994. That is an almost unimaginable number.
      The amendment will allow more time for family life on Christmas day, and it is symbolic of our national tendency at present—we are militant in the Christian sense of the word, if not in the socialist sense. I congratulate the Minister most warmly on introducing those important amendments.
      Mr. George Howarth: On behalf of the Opposition, I place on record the fact that we also warmly welcome the conversion on the part of the Minister. We accept that Christmas day has a number of meanings for different people. The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), the Church Commissioner, has given one side of the argument. The other side is that, even if Christmas day

      1787
      does not have the same Christian significance for everyone, it has a broader family significance for many. We welcome the Government amendments to the extent that they recognise that fact, and we certainly do not intend to impede them in any way.
      Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 2

      PERMITTED HOURS IN REGISTERED CLUBS
      Amendments made: No. 17, in page 1, line 14, leave out from 'clubs)' to end of line 15 and insert '—
      (a) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—
      "(a) on days other than Christmas Day, the general licensing hours;"; and
      (b) in paragraph (b), for the words "Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday," there shall be substituted the words "Christmas Day,".'.
      No. 18, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
      '( ) In section 62(3) of that Act (notice of permitted hours) for the words "on Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday" there shall be substituted the words "on Christmas Day".'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

    Clause 3

      RESTRICTION ORDERS
      Amendments made: No. 19, in page 1, line 20, leave out 'Christmas Day or'.
      No. 20, in page 1, line 22, leave out ', Christmas Day'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

    Schedule 1

      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 21, in page 3, leave out lines 5 to 38 and insert—
      '. In section 51(2) (register of clubs), for the words "on Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday," there shall be substituted the words "on Christmas Day,".
      . In section 60(5) (permitted hours in licensed premises), for the words "(a) and (b)" there shall be substituted the words "(a) to (c)".
      . In section 68(1)(a) (extension of permitted hours in restaurants), for the words "Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday," there shall be substituted the words "Christmas Day,".
      . In section 87A (power to vary permitted hours in on-licensed vineyard premises)—

      (a) in subsection (4)—

      (i) for the words ", Christmas Day or" there shall be substituted the words ", other than Christmas Day, or on"; and

      (ii) in paragraph (b) for the word "five" there shall be substituted the word "nine"; and

      1788

      (b) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted—

      "(4A) In making an order under this section with respect to the permitted hours on Christmas Day, licensing justices may not so vary the hours as to make them—

      (a) begin before twelve noon; or

      (b) exceed in total more than five and a half hours.".'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

    Schedule 2

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 22, in page 4, leave out lines 4 to 24.
      No. 23, in page 4, line 27, column 3, leave out '4 and 5' and insert 'and 4'.
      No. 24, in page 4, leave out lines 28 and 29.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

    Title
    Amendment made: No. 25, in title, line 3, leave out 'Christmas Day'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
    Bill reported, with amendments.
    Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be read the Third Time, put forthwith and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

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

      EXTERNAL FRONTIERS
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 11287/93, relating to controls on persons at the external frontiers of the European Union; welcomes the objective of achieving effective controls on persons at the external frontiers of the Member States; endorses the Government's determination to take whatever steps are necessary to maintain immigration controls on non-European Economic Area nationals at United Kingdom internal frontiers; endorses the need to preserve the intergovernmental character of agreements concluded under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union; endorses the Government's commitment, in the event of agreement between all parties, that the final text of the draft External Frontiers Convention should be brought back to Parliament before signature and that the draft Convention should not be ratified before the necessary legislation has been enacted by Parliament; and endorses the Government's aim of ensuring that full account is taken of the United Kingdom's present practice in drawing up the common visa list.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
      Question agreed to.

Edgware General Hospital
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
6.10 pm
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful for this important Adjournment debate, which contrasts with the previous harmonious stages of a Bill on which hon. Members on both sides of the House seemed agreed, the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill. This is a painful moment, because it gives me no pleasure to take issue with the Government and with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and other colleagues responsible for the threatened closure of Edgware general hospital's accident and emergency department.
That outrageous decision is unacceptable to me, to many of my hon. Friends and to the local population. A campaign was launched to save the hospital and to maintain its existing range of services. I must express my considerable anger and resentment at the manner in which the matter has been handled, notwithstanding ample exchanges earlier in the House. The last thing you want, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is for me to be repetitive or to refer to other hospitals threatened with total or partial closure. For that reason, although I am tempted to refer to other threatened London hospitals, I shall confine my remarks to Edgware general.
I use the word "threatened" deliberately. The Government have said that they agree with the proposal to close Edgware general's A and E unit. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will not be surprised to hear me say with great force that a massive local campaign will be unleashed to save the hospital's facilities and to persuade the Government to change their mind.
Since the campaign for Edgware general was launched more than one year ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) and by me, it has grown in conviction. It is not, as some bureaucrats suggest, an emotional campaign but a carefully thought-out campaign, with medical evidence supporting our arguments.
I share the resentment of other hon. Members that the dreadful announcement of the proposed closure of Edgware general's A and E unit was made in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on Tuesday, because the hospital is precious to our constituents and an important part of the all-London health service care system. Today, the Secretary of State was obliged to come to the House, to respond to a private notice question from my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). I cannot recall an occasion in recent years, or even decades, when a former Secretary of State who was until recently a member of the Cabinet insisted, justifiably, on a proper statement to the House—if that is the right word for the Secretary of State's lamentable announcement. That statement about Edgware general and other hospitals was not acceptable to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Again and again, the Government gave a solemn undertaking that there would be no adverse effect on primary health care facilities in our part of north-west London. Manifestly, that undertaking will be betrayed and traduced cynically and ruthlessly by the decision to close
1790
Edgware general's accident and emergency facilities. Local Members of Parliament will be fighting hard to ensure that the Government change that decision.
I take no pleasure in saying that, if that does not happen, the Government will face defeat if there are any votes on those matters in the House. I take no pleasure, because I do not want to anticipate that position being reached. However, that is the stark situation that confronts us and the Government.
The whole panoply and the way in which the matter has been handled are encapsulated in the terms of the early-day motion that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North and I, and other hon. Friends tabled on 3 April—the day before the announcement about Edgware general's A and E unit was made. By then, there was an indication that the Department of Health had not listened to any of the local arguments for retaining that facility. It will take a long time before local Members of Parliament change their minds. I much resent the way in which Sir William Staveley and his colleagues on the regional health authority dealt with the many objections to the closure, and to the recent meeting at which that decision was taken. I was unable to attend it myself but received a full report from my local colleagues that the issue was not dealt with satisfactorily.
I shall refer to one or two important elements in our early-day motion, because that is the most convenient way to explain why we feel so strongly and why the A and E unit must be kept open beyond 1997. My constituency and Hendon, North would be most affected, because the hospital borders them on the Edgware road. A large number of my constituents use the hospital, including an above-average number of elderly patients who rely on the services of this outstanding and successful district general hospital.
Today, we received a deputation comprising mainly schoolchildren but also councillors and others. All the children had been born at Edgware general and their parents regularly make use of it—although, obviously, no one takes pleasure in a hospital being regularly used by people who are ill. Edgware general is regarded with great affection locally.
When the Royal National Orthopaedic—a famous teaching hospital—in my constituency was deprived of its accident and emergency facilities 10 years ago, Government spokesmen said that those facilities and immediate treatment would be maintained and enhanced at Edgware general and that there would be no deterioration in the service.
My difficulty, my constituency being on the Harrow side of the border of the Edgware road, has been that decisions have been recommended mainly by Barnet district health authority, whose remit is outside the area which I represent. Close contact and liaison have been maintained, however, between Members and the protest group over many months. There has been close liaison with the understandable exception of a good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman). As he is a Whip, he is not permitted to act on these matters. I fully acknowledge that he is in a different position from other colleagues in the area when it comes to the future of Edgware general hospital, because of the proposal for the extension of Barnet district hospital.

1791
The early-day motion to which I referred reminds the House and the Government with great solemnity that the proposal to close the accident and emergency unit is
"contrary to the overwhelming opinion of those residing in the catchment area … these proposals are based on debatable clinical assumptions allied to conjectural statistics … there are strong social considerations in favour of retaining an Accident and Emergency Department at Edgware; notes that these consideration include transport and traffic problems".
Edgware general hospital is in an extremely congested area. I note the arrival of three distinguished colleagues. I am glad to see that they wish to take part in the debate. I refer to my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon, North and for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). Given the recent Jopling procedural changes, it may be possible for us to speak on this Adjournment debate for a little longer than is usual. We might not wish to continue for as long as some pessimists imagine, despite the great importance of the issue.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I shall assist the House. The rules are clear: the Adjournment debate can continue until 10.30 pm. I remind hon. Members, however, that this is a specific debate that is confined to Edgware general hospital. The House spent an hour earlier on other health service matters. The Chair will be strict in ensuring that the debate is confined to Edgware general hospital.
Mr. Dykes: That is why I was trying, Mr. Deputy Speaker—obviously, I was not especially successful—to choose with great, exquisite and painful care a balance of words that would give the impression that we had the right to continue for longer than usual, but that it was understood that to do so might be rather taxing on the patience of other colleagues, including the occupant of the Chair, especially if the expansion of time were to be excessive in all the relativities. I would welcome such an expansion, however, if it were feasible and possible. As I have said, we are dealing with a crucial issue.
That being so, my colleagues present in the Chamber will understand that I shall not necessarily, unless they are minded strongly to intervene, be prepared to give way. They will have the opportunity to make their own contributions, which I shall welcome warmly. That is subject only to the fact that I have to see one of the Harrow deputations on this subject later this evening. Its members will be coming to the House. I would have to leave the Chamber, if the debate were lengthy, to see them. I also have a speaking engagement later today. In any event, we shall see how the debate goes.
I was expressing the anger that we all feel. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North and I, with the strong support and approval of other colleagues, have led the campaign because our constituents are the most affected physically and geographically. As I have said, the hospital is on the border of the Edgware road. I think that I am right in saying that the majority of patients and others using the hospital probably come, notwithstanding that the figures fluctuate and float, from my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North. I accept, of course, that many come from elsewhere, sometimes from quite far afield. They come to an excellent hospital. It is extremely popular and part of the local human and social community. That must be emphasised to our ministerial colleagues. I have in mind
1792
that which others and I said about Edgware general hospital in unhappy exchanges with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
I am worried about all aspects of the closure proposal. That is why others and I will be fighting hard and relentlessly to persuade the Government to change their mind. I am especially concerned about traffic congestion. It is an extremely congested area. If people are obliged to go to Barnet, Northwick Park or the Royal Free hospitals, their journeys will take a great deal of time. That would be unacceptable for emergency treatment, including other treatment that patients should receive in a hurry. We would be extremely irresponsible as Members if we put up with such bureaucratic nonsense from the Department. I say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, as I said earlier to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that it is the job of politicians in the Department of Health to balance the ruthless arguments of accounting and financial officers, along with those of the bureaucrats, with the human and political considerations that relate to the needs of our constituents and patients generally.
We were given to understand quite a few years ago that there would be no reduction in the services at Edgware general hospital. The hospital is needed, as much as Barnet hospital needs to be expanded. I welcome that expansion, as long as it does not cause Edgware general to suffer. Northwick Park hospital is too far away. It is a major district general hospital with research facilities. St. Mark's hospital is happily going into it, as it were, as a new unit of excellence and special research. All these services are being provided, but a long way away. I estimate that if a journey were made in normal traffic conditions—not in the rush hour—from Edgware general to Northwick Park, it would take about 45 to 50 minutes. In an emergency, that is far too long a journey to an alternative installation.
That journey time shows how inhuman and ill thought out is the judgment with which we are faced. We are faced with a complex—indeed, Byzantine—set of arguments and statistics. I pay tribute to the Evening Standard, which campaigned mostly on behalf of inner-London hospitals, but also for London hospitals generally. There may be some arguments open to the bureaucrats and politicians in the Department of Health that enable them to say that there is some duplication of physical facilities and financial resources in some national central London teaching hospitals, some of which are centuries old. Their long standing is a factor in itself. I can understand the anger that is reflected in the campaign being mounted on their behalf.
At the same time, outer-London hospitals do not have enough facilities. The idea that they have too much is absurd. That is the position in north-west London. In the area that I represent, people are waiting far too long for treatment. It is dispiriting and frustrating for those who have to wait an extremely long time for non-emergency treatment.
The idea that we can close with equanimity, and with callous disregard for the needs of local people, accident and emergency facilities that are so precious to the community is unacceptable. It is not enough for us to protest today about the closure. We will not be doing that because we shall be fighting the proposal all the way through. We shall wage a massive campaign to persuade the Government to change their mind.

1793
It would not be a weakness on the part of Ministers to change their mind and to consider these matters again. They should look again at what has been wrongly decided by the regional health authority. I referred earlier, before the arrival of my hon. Friends, to the cavalier manner in which Sir William Staveley dealt with the proposals at the last consultation meeting. In fact, it was not a consultation meeting. We have been inundated with thousands of views and opinions, including those from medical practitioners and medical experts in our constituencies. I do not know of anyone—if any evidence can be furnished to me to the contrary, I shall happily correct myself at a later occasion—who has given support to the closure proposal. I am talking of people who know about the sharp end or coal face of medical treatment and what is needed for the interests of patients and their families.
It must be understood that a hospital should not be a cold, callous place, one part of what is the greatest health service in the world in many ways, despite the depredations that we have seen in recent years. A hospital is not, as I say, a cold, callous place where people are merely admitted for clinical treatment. It should not be thought of as a place where people receive a necessary bald measure of treatment, and that is it.
Edgware general hospital lives in the hearts and minds of local people. Many people have known it since it started to function and developed with its post-war services. They have known it since it expanded and became a commanding district general hospital in an area of great population growth. It has a particular attraction and affection in the hearts of elderly people locally because of the excellent treatment that they receive in all respects, including accident and emergency services.
About a year ago, on 19 April, I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State various questions about the hospital. I thank the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), who answered, for attending the debate this evening. I hope that some of his answers will be designed to convince us that the proposal is sound. I have my doubts, but I shall give him the benefit of the doubt before his reply.
The campaign against the proposal has continued for a long time. Many hours have been devoted to it. It has been a massive and popular campaign. Detailed arguments have been calculated and considered. It is not merely an emotional campaign, although there is bound to be emotion, of course, when a hospital is threatened with closure. I do not apologise for that. If the bureaucrats in the Department said that it was an emotional campaign, I would agree. But the campaign is not only that: it is based on hard-nosed calculations by us as Members of Parliament and by all the people who are involved in the campaign of what is needed in that area, the population pressure, the lack of facilities if the hospital is closed down, and other related factors.
I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a year ago, on 19 April, what representations against the proposed closure of the A and E services at Edgware general had been sent to the Department since the beginning of 1994. We had started the campaign well before that; we became pessimistic and alarmed about the matter a long time ago. That is why we worked in a cohesive group, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North, who has led our campaign
1794
with great distinction. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West, gave the usual bland temporary service reply:
"Any proposal for a major change in services would be subject to a period of public consultation. The matter comes to Ministers if there are objections. All factors are taken into account including public representations."—[Official Report, 19 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 475.]
Those representations have been brushed aside in this case, by the Department, by the direct agency responsible and, indeed, by Barnet. That is the unacceptable part of this whole business. The anger expressed in the House today about other hospitals is reflected, repeated and mirrored in this Adjournment debate when we express and redouble our expression of anger about the views of people and the medical experts being dismissed with flimsy statistical justification. I particularly resent that, as they know more about the subject than all of us.
The accountants have an obsession that, somehow, money will be saved. I doubt that very much. I think that it would cost more in the end if the services were transferred to the other two hospitals and to the Royal Free. The Royal Free—like most hospitals, sadly—is severely overloaded, and so it is one of the least practical suggestions.
After I received the reply from the Under-Secretary, I commented, saying:
"I regard the last part of the answer as crucial"—
referring to the public representations and consultations.
"The vast number of objections to closure will I trust be conclusive in the end, partly because they include most informed medical opinion in the area as well."
At that stage, a number of medical people were arguing on behalf of the Barnet proposal instead. That is true, but I think I am right in saying that that support has died away, and the longer the campaign has gone on, the more angry and resentful has become the medical and the wider social world. The people whom we respect in the local community: the opinion formers, the professional people—without being pompous to others—the people whose opinions are respected by members of the public, because they are leading representatives of the community in a non-political sense, are all against the proposal. It is not just a knee-jerk reaction that happens when facilities are reduced.
The old pledge that Conservatives gave—I regarded it as a most solemn pledge to my constituents, was happy to echo it and was delighted when it was said from Conservative party platforms and repeated by the noble Baroness Thatcher, and afterwards—that the national health service would be safe in our hands, was one of the most solemn pledges given by any political party in recent decades—
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Outrageous.
Mr. Dykes: I heard my hon. Friend the Whip say, "Outrageous". It was loud enough for me to hear. If it is outrageous for me to remind my Government colleagues, whom I normally support loyally and faithfully, that a pledge that the national health service would be safe in our hands is now being undermined by the closure of district general hospitals, I make no apology and would ask him to be a gentleman and apologise later on. Perhaps next time he will be wiser.
I am quite intrigued that my hon. Friend the Whip is laughing and smirking when I am protesting and doing what a Member of Parliament never has to apologise for,

1795
to any Department or Minister—defending the interests of his own constituents when a vital medical health installation is threatened with closure. If that is a matter for laughing and smirking, my hon. Friend is not fit to be a Government Whip, because most of my colleagues who are Government Whips would not behave like that. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend is continuing to laugh. I am glad that he has a well-developed sense of humour. Perhaps it will stand him in good stead later on when his constituents reflect on his performance as a Member of Parliament, because now that he has to take the Trappist vow of silence as a Government Whip, he will have to work that much harder locally to appeal to them with his local performance.
In contrast to my hon. Friend the Whip's behaviour—he is continuing to laugh—I am glad to pay tribute to our hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, who cannot, of course, speak on this matter, and is bound to have a different view on the matter because of the position of Barnet hospital in his constituency. My colleagues in the Whips' office in general—perhaps with one exception—are decent people and behave properly on these occasions. Once again, I am sad to see that kind of reaction when I am doing what I perceive to be my duty. But I am and remain a loyal supporter of the Government.
I hope that that will reinforce the scope and extent of my protest, because I would not attack all the proposals that the Government are making: trying to make the NHS more efficiently managed and better run financially with a greater rational sense of the use of resources. That is right and it is the duty of any Government. All Governments, of whatever colour, would have to be extremely careful about the use of NHS resources—the unlimited demand for them—and I pay tribute to their efforts to do that. But that should not mean closure of district general hospitals or, indeed, the most important part of the services. When I say closure, I do not mean the whole hospital but the A and E unit, which is the major part of a hospital. Without an A and E facility in Edgware hospital, the hospital would die. We know that. It would be a very small rump hospital, without the essential services that are needed on these occasions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North has kindly allowed me to quote from a letter from one of his constituents. I shall not identify the constituent's name, as that would be wrong. It is from a constituent who has always been a strong supporter of our party. We have been inundated with thousands of letters on the subject, as would be expected. The letter reads:
"I cannot see how the Labour party could destroy our health service any more than it is at the moment".
That is a rather over-strong statement, which I do not accept, but one can understand that reaction when people see what is happening to this precious local unit. The letter continues, in more acceptable language:
"The closure of Edgware Hospital as a community hospital serving all the needs of the local people is appalling. Don't tell us that this is not directly the Governments responsibility, it could be if they wanted it to be. The people most affected by the changes at the hospital will be the young people with young children and the elderly, who do not have cars to take them to the other hospitals who are supposed to make room for the people of Edgware … It is also very difficult to get to particularly in the busy times when it can take 50 minutes by car."
That is a figure that I have timed in my own car to get to, say, Northwick Park hospital. Anyway, it is a different catchment area. That must be emphasised.
1796
The letter continues:
"An elderly friend of mine was admitted as an emergency at Edgware only to find herself in a bed at Chase Farm, Enfield. With no family and only other elderly friends to rely on, this lady was stranded. It would have taken three buses for her friends"—
one can imagine how long it would take, waiting at bus stops, the changes, and so on—
"to reach her at this hospital. They were frightened of travelling so far and also coming home in the dark. Incidentally, the staff kept reminding her that she was not in their catchment area and they did not know what the procedures would be for after-hospital care … She also had to pay for a minicab to take her home."
That is just one example of the thousands of letters that we have received. Do I accept the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Whip and just ignore them? Should I dismiss them and say, "Don't you complain. You are just voters and constituents. You don't matter. We've had consultations. We have thrown all the papers away?" That is impossible. No Government can ask their supporters in the House to put up with such a proposition. That is why the campaign will continue.
It gives me no pleasure to talk in those terms. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will understand how strongly my hon. Friends and I feel. I look forward to his reply. It is not too late for the Government to reconsider these matters. This is only the first stage. As has been said, the circumstances of the announcement were extremely regrettable and clumsy, but that can be corrected. The Government can think again.
There may be some arguments at the margin about some of the central London facilities, although I hesitate to agree too wholeheartedly with that because I would like them all to continue if they can be afforded. Outer London hospitals in general and the Edgware general hospital in particular are in a different position from the point of view of catchment, transport links, congestion and the needs of the elderly, the young in particular, and all those who need accident and emergency facilities.
My hon. Friend is a conscientious Minister. We thank him for his attentions in the past. He has acquired something of a reputation for being more reasonable in many ways than others, whom I shall not name, in his responses to our efforts to obtain a just solution to this difficult problem. I hope that he will be able to reassure us today, even as a temporary measure, by saying that the matter will be looked at again.
That is a heartfelt plea. I say with great sincerity that it is important that our local people are reassured. They have had many economic and social hammer blows in recent years and this is the last straw in the local area. They cannot put up with it and we want the Minister to say that he will reconsider the matter, take further advice and see what can be done. I would be most grateful if he could reassure us on this occasion.
6.41 pm
Sir Rhodes Boyson: I concur entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes): this is a major issue in our constituencies. I have visited Edgware general hospital on a number of occasions. I have timed the journey to it by car. I have talked to patients inside and to its staff. They are unanimous that the accident and emergency department should continue.

1797
I know the roads in the area as well as any Member of Parliament who is here because they go through my constituency. From Edgware general hospital to Northwick Park hospital is a journey of six and a half miles on congested roads. On a Saturday afternoon, early in the morning or during the second rush hour the journey can take anything up to an hour and a quarter or an hour and a half. At those times I usually have to make a detour in order to complete my journey in a reasonable time.
We are asking for a reappraisal. There is no local support for the closure of the accident and emergency department. Closure will add to the difficulties in other hospitals as people have to be sent further and further afield.
I trust that this is a listening Government. All Members of Parliament from the area feel strongly that the accident and emergency department should remain at Edgware. Even at this late hour, the matter can be reconsidered. A sensible Government can do sensible things at any time, just as an non-sensible Government can do non-sensible things at any time. We ask for a full reappraisal so that those of us who feel strongly about the matter are not forced to take action in the Lobby that we do not wish to take.
6.43 pm
Mr. John Marshall: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. Perhaps preference should have been given to hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst), but I am sure that he too will catch your eye.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman was fortunate to catch my eye as I took the Chair.
Mr. Marshall: I should not complain about my good fortune, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank you for your kindness now and for your kindnesses earlier this morning.
Edgware general hospital serves two wards in my constituency—Hendon and West Hendon wards. I know the accident and emergency department quite well because I have twice had to take my youngest son there. On Sunday I decided that I would drive to Barnet hospital to try to work out how long it would take me to take him there compared with Edgware. The difference is some 50 per cent. On a Sunday afternoon when there is relatively little traffic, that does not make a great deal of difference. During the week it would take substantially longer to take a child or a patient from Hendon to Barnet than it would from Hendon to Edgware.
Some of the wards served by Edgware general hospital are among the most socially and economically deprived in the London borough of Barnet and in the north-west of London. The West Hendon ward and the West Hendon estate have much social deprivation and car ownership is much lower than elsewhere in the borough.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is suggesting that in-patient facilities should be transferred from Edgware, which is relatively convenient for visitors, to Barnet general hospital, which will be inconvenient for visitors living in the West Hendon ward. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to think again.
1798
Earlier this afternoon I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State how much money would be spent on additional primary care facilities in the London borough of Barnet. We are told that some £210 million will be spent across London. But it is no use constituents using the Edgware general hospital being told that facilities are not going into West Hendon or Burnt Oak but into Hackney or Islington. That is not providing the additional facilities that are necessary to relieve the pressure on hospital facilities in north-west London.
As part of the change, we are told that in-patient facilities will go from Edgware general hospital to Barnet, the Royal Free and Northwick Park. My agent has twice been into the Royal Free in recent weeks and she says that it is already bursting at the seams. The thought of additional patients going to the Royal Free is just not on.
I should like my hon. Friend to tell the House what the net change in in-patient facilities will be when the new Barnet general hospital is completed. Obviously, in addition to the beds required at Barnet general for patients who currently use that hospital, beds will be needed for those transferred from Edgware. We should be told how many that will be.
The proposed closure of facilities at Edgware also concerns the London ambulance service. I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister on that subject from time to time and I should like an updated statement on the efficiency of the London ambulance service.
We should also be given some concept of the change in timing as a result of yesterday's announcement. When the subject went out to public consultation it was suggested that the facilities would be removed in April 1997. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put certain conditions upon the decision announced yesterday and I should like my hon. Friend the Minister, if he can, to say how long he envisages it will be before those conditions are confirmed.
Some three years ago there was a proposal to close Barnet hospital and we all agreed with our hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) that the roads between Barnet and Edgware were so poor and the journey time between them so long that they were two different communities and that it was wrong to say that they should have to use the same hospital. Just as it was wrong to propose the closure of Barnet general hospital—my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) was also at the forefront of that battle—I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look again at these proposals and answer some of the specific questions that I have asked him this evening.
6.49 pm
Sir John Gorst: I shall not go over the same ground as my hon. Friends, all of whose comments are worthy of consideration by the Government. A year or so ago I secured an Adjournment debate on this subject; my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) was present then, and may wish to remind himself of what I said.
Let me try to bridge the gap between what my hon. Friends and I think should be happening, and the Government's view. The Government see the current

1799
hospital closures in the light of facts, statistics and other rational considerations, but I ask them to consider the wider issues before making the wrong decision.
Let me explain the difference between the job of a politician and that of a civil servant. Let us suppose that a building development on the property of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East is proposed, and that the proposal is cost-effective, rational, logical and immensely convenient to many other people. Let us also suppose, however, that my hon. Friend and his neighbours take exception to the proposal, along with people living in the village and, indeed, the district.
It is the job of a politician—a Minister, perhaps—to say, "Of course it all sounds reasonable, but this Dykes character will not wear it, and nor will anyone else living in the district. Go away and find another plan that will not involve his house."
When I spoke to the my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State late last week, I pointed out that when a calculator is asked to add two and two it can produce only one answer: four. I ask Ministers to go back to their civil servants and say, "We want you to make a different calculation." They can very easily come up with a different plan.
We, as politicians, must recognise that there is another element in the equation: human feelings—human fears and reactions. We are talking not just about someone's house but about people's lives. We are talking about a place where people are born, where they may go in a traumatised state if they are ill or have an accident and where—alas—some of them will die, and be visited in their final days. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to bear in mind that deeply emotional dimension, rather than merely producing statistics to prove the clinical importance and the rationality of the decision.
We have heard about the clinical, financial and social considerations. My hon. Friends have spoken eloquently about the social considerations, and I spoke of them a year ago. However, there are also political considerations. I am not talking about the number of votes that my constituency will attract or lose; I am talking about intangible issues relating to people's real concerns.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will re-examine the position. No one wants to resort to extreme measures in the Lobby, but I repeat my commitment to vote against the Government if they will not reconsider—and I can give no assurance that I will not withdraw my support in the Lobby for their plans for London's health service as a whole. They are not considering the important element that we were elected to deal with: the human element. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reflect carefully on what I have said.
6.55 pm
Mr. Jim Dowd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). The fates have conspired in his favour: not only is the debate particularly opportune, but he has a good deal of time on his hands, not normally granted to those who have the luck to secure Adjournment debates.
I freely admit that I am not as well briefed on issues relating to Edgware and Barnet as others who have spoken, but I believe that issues surrounding the decisions that have been made also apply to other parts of London, particularly the part that I represent. As the hon. Member
1800
for Harrow, East pointed out, the nature of consultation is important: how much weight is given to the views of those who are consulted?
Many people throughout London feel that decisions were made at the outset, and that little or no regard has been paid to the subsequent consultation exercise other than very selectively. They feel that the views that they have been asked to submit on issues affecting the areas in which they live have been jettisoned, or at least placed so far down the scale as to be rendered virtually meaningless. People will rightly feel aggrieved about some aspects of what is happening to Edgware general hospital: what they want cannot be given to them, for reasons that have not been adequately explained.
Earlier today, in a question to the Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) defined democracy, or its purpose, as giving people what they want. Obviously, we cannot always do that; there are constraints on resources. I served on an area health authority, and subsequently a district health authority, from 1976 to 1990, so I am well aware of the difficult decisions that must be made. However, I strongly share the instinct voiced by the hon. Member for Hendon, North—the feeling that, if we cannot give people what they want, there must be glaringly compelling, overpowering reasons for not doing so. The technical assessments of what may or may not be right simply do not measure up to the task of providing what people want.
It is generally possible to make budgetary decisions from one year to another that can be improved in better times, or avoided in the light of experience. In the case of the closure of hospitals that have served generations of people in certain localities, however, much of the action that is now being suggested will prove to be irreversible. I feel that people and their Members of Parliament are fully entitled to know that every possible step has been taken, and every implication considered, before such irreversible decisions are made.
6.59 pm
Mr. Hartley Booth: I am one of the four Members representing Barnet and last year we waged a local battle to maintain facilities at Barnet general hospital, which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). We won that battle. It would be churlish to begin what I believe is a unhappy chapter this week without at least giving credit to the Government for saving Barnet general hospital at considerable expense to the taxpayer. We believe that the Government meant what they said, and certainly we approved last year when the Government decided to rebuild, modernise and improve Barnet general hospital at a cost of some £90 million.
Yesterday afternoon we heard the decision that the accident and emergency department at Edgware general hospital is to close when the facilities at Barnet general hospital are considered adequate to cope with patients from west Barnet and, doubtless, the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes).
My hon. Friend the Minister is known for listening and I would put it to him that when we offer the Government guidance on the health service and try to get them to take the right decisions on such issues as the Edgware general hospital, we cannot go by the old socialist bureaucratic

1801
rule book that everywhere has to be identical. That is flying in the face of reality. Every health district is different.
Barnet health district has one of the most extraordinary differences from other health districts which must be taken on board. We have between the west and the east of Barnet the huge block of the A1. I have spoken about it before, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South for mentioning it tonight.
The A1 cuts through what was a network of little villages around London. Those little villages were joined up in a way which is now causing the most terrible traffic jams. People have had appalling traffic experiences. It is physically impossible for me or my wife to deliver three children to different schools in the locality between the hours of 8 and 9 in one car journey in the morning. The roads are seized up regularly.
The Government must recognise that our local traffic problems are reaching the point at which lives will be at risk in emergencies when people drive their cars through the traffic jams to try to get past the A1 with its rows of juggernauts. They will not always make it and there will be deaths.
I was grateful to have been permitted an intervention in earlier proceedings and to have received a reply from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health that the Department of Transport will be consulted. Inevitably, recommendations will made and they will cost money. Let us face the facts now that consulting experts will cost money.
I am concerned about whether the Government will be able to deliver their promises of better health for the people of our locality. Secondly, we are a Government known for good management of resources. If, as a result of all this, when we have delivered a good hospital in Barnet general, but we have closed another accident and emergency department, it is found that the net cost—including the traffic costs and all the other problems—will be greater than keeping the unit open, we will not be known for good management and we will be hide-bound by the bureaucratic rule that we had to get rid of one accident and emergency department because Whitehall said so.
I understand the feelings expressed in the House this afternoon that other localities in Britain suffer even more. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) said that some of his constituents have to travel 60 miles to a hospital. In time, not in distance, it can be worse in Barnet. It can take two hours to reach a hospital when one is travelling through a solid traffic jam.
We are told that any emergency cases will go by ambulance. Certainly the blue light of the ambulance will carve a path through seized traffic, but I am worried that if someone is bleeding to death or dying of some illness, their wife, mother or brother may attempt to drive them to Barnet general hospital and get stuck in traffic. It is a real problem. We all see it as local Members of Parliament and we hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise the problem.
We hope that my hon. Friend will listen, as he is noted for listening, address the matter in his research and come back and candidly tell us what is in the report from the
1802
Department of Transport so that we can consider it before the closure of the accident and emergency department at Edgware general hospital.
7.6 pm
Mrs. Barbara Roche: May I first join the congratulations to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on his success in gaining this evening's Adjournment debate the day after the secretive announcement about hospital changes in London, which included announcements about Edgware general hospital, and the day on which the Secretary of State had to be brought to the House, to use the rather colourful expression of one of my hon. Friends, kicking and screaming to account for herself.
I represent the constituency of Hornsey and Wood Green in north London. It is in the borough of Haringey, which adjoins Barnet. It is fair to say that in north London, certainly in the boroughs of Barnet, Enfield and Haringey, what happens in one of those boroughs certainly has a knock-on effect on health provision in the other boroughs.
Today we are debating the proposed closure of the accident and emergency facilities at Edgware general hospital. In Haringey and Enfield we were much concerned about the possible amalgamation of the accident and emergency facilities between the North Middlesex and Chase Farm hospital. We were aware that there could have been a knock-on effect on Barnet. When we consider what is happening in one area of north London, we should be mindful that a much wider area might be affected, so it is extremely important that we are having this debate this evening.
Let me say something about accident and emergency facility in a hospital. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) put his finger on it when he said that in essence they are the life blood of a hospital. If the accident and emergency unit is closed it signals the death knell of a hospital. That has happened in many of our hospitals, of which Bart's is a good example.
Something that has distressed me, both today and on other occasions when London Members of Parliament, from both sides of the House, have come together to discuss health issues, is the apparent anti-London bias among some Conservative Members. There is a feeling that London is well provided for. That is not the case. Indeed, what we have heard tonight about the future of Edgware general hospital shows that it is not over-provided for.
In the context of the wider picture, I draw attention to the Whittington and North Middlesex hospitals and the consequences for them of the proposed closure of the accident and emergency unit at Edgware. I am extremely worried about the effects of that.
Hon. Members have referred to the traffic problems in London, about the problems of having to travel some distance to a hospital and about the problems of the London ambulance service. I do not need to remind hon. Members about the difficulties and problems of the London ambulance service, which all Members, of whatever political persuasion, recognise. The Department of Health has shown a gross lack of management of that service. It has not given proper support to the excellent men and women who work for that service—a service to which we, as Londoners, owe such a great debt.

1803
I end by referring to our responsibilities as Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) touched on that. We all owe a duty to our constituents, no matter which party we represent. Week in, week out, at our constituency surgeries and in our postbags, we receive representations from our constituents. We come to this place not just to have the pleasure of listening to our colleagues or to the sound of our own voices; we are here as the voice of our constituents.
In London, as elsewhere, local people have a great attachment to their local hospitals. They identify with them. The great difficulty with health provision, and this is not often recognised by the Government or the bureaucrats, is that part of getting well and of feeling well cared for is not just the excellent professional care that people receive in their local hospitals, it is how people feel about the hospital itself. It is how the family—husband, wife, son or daughter—feel about it. Most important, it is what the community feels about the hospital. That is absolutely vital.
It appears that in dealing with Edgware general hospital, the Government, once again, have not taken into consideration the feelings of local people and those who use our local facilities. I urge the Government to think about the consequences for the Whittington and North Middlesex hospitals and also to think again about all the central London hospitals that have been so badly affected by the Government's policies.
7.14 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: At lunchtime today, I had the great privilege of representing the parliamentary Labour party when meeting a delegation of very young constituents of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who had come to the entrance of the House to ask us to save their hospital. I understand that most of those young children had been born in that hospital. They had spent time preparing leaflets and making a banner and badges to set out the case for their local hospital. They had obviously been encouraged to do so by their teachers and parents, but their strength of feeling about the hospital was made clear to me and to their local Members of Parliament, who are all Conservative Members.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow, East on having secured this important debate. I congratulate his colleagues the hon. Members for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst), for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), and for Finchley (Mr. Booth) and the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). It was not easy for them to make the important contributions that they have made today. It is not easy to speak in a manner that will not find favour with one's Front Bench. It requires courage to do that and I congratulate them on it. I recognise the case that they are making, which is not for a change, but for a review; a ministerial reflection. That case has been well made today.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) that the manner of the announcement yesterday left just about everything to be desired. It was sneaked out in a written answer. The range of changes announced to the hospital service in London was so significant that it merited a statement in the House. Indeed, the private notice question to which the Secretary of State had to respond today—she came here because
1804
she had to, not because she wanted to—the number of interventions that were made and the fact that some hon. Members were still rising at the end of a generous hour's questioning show how strong the feeling is on both sides of the House.
That strength of feeling transcends party politics. Every Member of Parliament, regardless of party affiliation, wants to do his best for the constituents who elected him to come to this place to represent them. I congratulate both Conservative Members and Labour Members on doing just that. The Secretary of State for Health has done herself no good—nor, indeed, the office that she holds—by perpetually sneaking out difficult announcements under the cover of some other statement. Yesterday, it was the statement on the report of the Privileges Committee; not long ago the announcement of the increase in prescription charges was sneaked out on the day of the Northern Ireland announcement. That is no way to serve democracy and I deplore it.
This debate is important because it enables the House again to express its view—a virtually united view—to the Under-Secretary of State for Health. He can be in no doubt about the strength of feeling or the sincerity of the local Members of Parliament. It was deplorable that they were laughed at by the Government Whip. This is not a laughing matter. The constituents of those Conservative Members take it very seriously indeed. Those hon. Members perfectly properly have done what they should do: represented their constituents' views. That should have the sympathy of the House; it certainly should not be treated as a laughing matter.
The Secretary of State has never provided a debate on any health issue in Government time. Any such debate has always had to have been dragged out of the Department by a Member or it has been provided through an Opposition Supply Day. The narrow issue, although there is a wider context, is the plan to close the accident and emergency unit at Edgware general hospital. The claim is that the geographically nearby Barnet hospital will be able to cope.
The piecemeal way in which decisions have been made in London is deeply flawed. London will rue the day that those decisions are implemented. Of course, the points made about traffic issues are well taken, especially in the context of the shortcomings of the London ambulance service. To say that those facilities will be replaced with primary health care eventually is just not good enough. Local people and their elected representatives rightly worry that they will lose the accident and emergency service, and that primary health care will, at best, come later. I notice that the Secretary of State has not been forthcoming about how much is to be spent. More important, she has not been forthcoming not only about how much revenue expenditure is to be committed, but about when it will be committed. That failure to make a definite statement is clearly fuelling the uncertainty, as well it might.
Further investment in primary health care is right for London, but it will not lead to a reduction in the demand for secondary care. An increase in primary care may stimulate demand for secondary care and for the sort of services that are provided at Edgware general hospital. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green made the good point that the loss of an accident and emergency unit was the thin end of the wedge, and that the general closure of the hospital would not be far behind.

1805
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) said, this exercise is driven by financial considerations. No one could have taken any comfort from the light statement that the Secretary of State made about the revenue issues involved in that exercise.
Hon. Members have made the point about consultation. If one is to consult local people, one should do it in a meaningful way. One should be willing to listen to what they have to say. However, in the whole debate on secondary health care in London, no evidence exists of the Department listening to anyone. Clinicians, managers, local people, their elected representatives and members of local authorities are screaming at the Government to think again.
When the parliamentary Opposition say to the Government, "Think again", they satirise our position as requiring a review of a review. I have said this before and I make no apologies for saying it again. If one is going in the wrong direction, there is no shame in pausing, thinking and saying, "Perhaps we ought to turn around". That is the position that the Government find themselves in today. I urge the Minister to listen to what just about everyone is saying to the Department. I urge it to come out of its ivory tower, and to mix with real people rather than a handful of professional advisers.
Sir John Gorst: As the hon. Gentleman is talking about listening, may I tell him that, when the regional health authority finally considered the matter, the admiral of the fleet who chairs that organisation said—I cannot vouch for this, but I have been informed that it is so—that it was a meeting in public, but not a public meeting.
Mr. Brown: That is a new concept to me. The Government are clearly doing to the national health service what they have done to the Royal Navy, and they are using the same people to do it. Representing Swan Hunter shipyard, I speak with some feeling.
The exercising of political judgment is the real issue. The Secretary of State and her team of Ministers do not seem able to do that. They rely on specialist advisers. They do not allow anyone else to put a point across to them, no matter how widely the public support that point. They make decisions and do not have the courage to announce them proudly in the House of Commons, or in any other forum where they can be criticised, and then they seem to be slightly resentful of the fact that they are eventually dragged here to explain what on earth they think they are doing.
That is a hopeless state of affairs. The only way out of it is an independent review, which should be conducted not by the Government's political opponents—although that may happen soon enough—but by an independent body that can take evidence. The people who serve on it should be respected across the professions as well as local communities. A post-Tomlinson reassessment is needed because much of the evidence on which Tomlinson was founded is deemed by many people to be so deeply flawed.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow, East on securing the debate. I assure him that I support his request for a review.
7.24 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on bringing this debate before the House. I have no doubt as to the great sincerity with which he has done that, or about the feelings that the matter has engendered in his constituents and in those of my hon. Friends. I congratulate all those who have spoken and, in particular, with one exception, I commend them on the brevity of their speeches. I welcome the fact that the debate has attracted expert witness from as far away as Lewisham and Newcastle. I have no doubt about the importance of the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East.
I should like to make one important point first. Edgware hospital will not close. As has been said, it will continue as a major provider of health care in the region. I shall briefly run through the matters that will be out for consultation, but, at Edgware hospital, there is likely to be a great range of out-patient services, rehabilitation, mental health facilities and palliative care, not forgetting minor accident treatment, which is likely to be used by many people—a large proportion of those now using the accident and emergency department.
I have been asked about beds.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Sackville: I think that I shall continue. The hon. Gentleman has already intervened at some length in the debate.
Currently, there are 747 beds in the Wellhouse Trust, excluding psychiatry. Following the changes, the potential capacity is 635, a reduction of 112. The House might like to know that, since the publication of the consultation document, an additional 50 beds have been opened at Northwick Park hospital, with additional plans already in hand for a further 62. An extra ward of 24 beds has already been brought into use at the Royal Free hospital, and the provision of an extra 44 beds in existing wards has been made.
Sir John Gorst: Listening to my hon. Friend, I wonder whether he knows or recognises the difference between when someone is ill or has some slight infirmity that requires hospital treatment, and when someone is traumatised by a sudden accident or heart attack? What an accident and emergency unit does is at the heart of what reassures people. He is telling us that all the peripheral things will be there. He is missing the point of the whole debate.
Mr. Sackville: I was seeking to answer a specific question about in-patient beds. I shall talk later about A and E departments and 999 attendances.
I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has said. The A and E department will not close until new facilities are in place—that is to say, an expanded modern A and E department at Barnet general hospital. Part of the £29 million phase 1a extension at that hospital will include new theatres, wards and other facilities and, of course, bringing the minor accident treatment service at Edgware into operation.
If I were asked briefly to give the reasons that have led to those proposals and the decision, I should divide them into two parts. First, it is true that we want services to be

1807
provided more efficiently in the whole region. We are constantly faced with the need to provide health services efficiently. There is indeed a financial aspect to this. There is no doubt that there is a subsidy to the local area which, to a great extent, is a result of the fact that we are currently providing acute services at two hospitals. All hon. Members who have spoken tonight know that this has been presented as an on-going problem which will probably get worse unless some action is taken.
Secondly, as has been mentioned, there are clinical reasons for the decision. We do not want any duplication of specialty services; we want modern facilities of a certain size so that the correct number of patients pass through, thus enabling us to provide, where possible, not only a consultant-led service but a consultant-provided service. We have heard too many stories recently about things going wrong in the NHS in the absence of consultants. That is particularly true of accident and emergency services where, whether or not it is possible to achieve this in the short term, we aim to provide 24-hour consultant cover. One cannot always expect junior doctors to provide the same level of expertise as doctors with years of experience.
Accident and emergency departments in particular—although it is to a certain extent true of other specialities—need a certain flow of patients. It is no good providing a very specialised service—the accident and emergency service is now recognised as such—if the doctors and nurses involved do not see enough cases to develop the expertise to deal with, for example, head injuries. One needs a service that is large enough to develop expertise, or one runs the risk of having unsafe services because for too much of the time one would be running them with too low a grade of medical staff and with staff who do not have sufficient exposure to special problems to be able to offer the best that is available today.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that the accident and emergency department at Edgware hospital is very heavily utilised?
Mr. Sackville: Yes. I believe that it has a volume in excess of 40,000 attendances a year and that something in the order of 25 "999" ambulances use it. It does not have 24-hour consultant cover. We are not aiming for the American model of trauma centres, but we at least want to ensure that anyone who attends an accident and emergency department as an emergency is seen by a consultant. That must be our aim because it can make an enormous difference to the outcomes. Certainly, we have to count beds and consider questions of access and distance, but, at the end of the day, it is the outcomes that are enormously important. That is what the service is all about.
I am well aware of the concern felt by many hon. Members about transport. I can confirm that it will be kept under review. The district health authority and the trust will want to ensure that the necessary action is taken where transport facilities are inadequate.
The issue of "999" ambulances is of grave concern to the public and has already been mentioned once or twice this evening. The London ambulance service has had problems that are unique to the capital. Of the 35-plus services in England, only the London ambulance service has failed to get anywhere near its target time. The target
1808
time involves responding to 90 to 95 per cent. of calls within 14 or 19 minutes, depending on whether the service involved is a rural or urban one.
I am glad to be able to make it clear that there has been a very marked improvement in recent months in the London ambulance service's performance from what I admit was a very low base. Not long ago, we were talking about performance figures of only 50 per cent. or just over. Recently, the figure has been 76 per cent., and the latest figures reveal that targets were reached in 74 per cent. or 75 per cent. of cases, which is a favourable development. I suspect that there is now a very much better atmosphere between management and staff than that which bedeviled the service.
Mr. Marshall: In effect, my hon. Friend is saying that the target is not hit in one in four cases. Does he accept that, if that rate continued, the proposal would be unacceptable?
Mr. Sackville: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we would expect a further improvement in performance. I can report to the House that there are already plans for extra resources to go directly into the Barnet and Edgware area. In fact, the local health authority is putting an extra £320,000 into local ambulance cover and two extra standby points for "999" ambulances have been provided.
Detailed work has recently been carried out into the journey times of the London ambulance service and it has been calculated that, with the extra resources, the average call-to-hospital time for Brent and Harrow residents would decrease by between one and two minutes with an increase for Barnet residents of just under half a minute compared with current performance. That is the effect that the extra resources, quite apart from the overall increases in performance, would have on journey times. I think that that is encouraging.
Mr. Dykes: In view of the distance between Barnet hospital, Edgware hospital, the Royal Free and the Northwick Park hospital, that input of two additional ambulances will be wholly inadequate.
Mr. Sackville: The question of ambulance cover and where ambulances are stationed has to be worked out on the basis of the demand at different times of the day and the week. We have to leave it to the London ambulance service to make those dispositions, but we demand that the service not only provides additional resources to cover that area but that it makes an overall improvement in performance of the sort that has been achieved all over the country.
The London ambulance service is funded at the same level as, or even better than, any other urban ambulance service. There is no reason on earth why it should not achieve the very high standards of many of the county ambulance services, which are probably as high as any in Europe. We look to the service to do just that.
Primary care is fundamental to all our arrangements.
Mr. Booth: Before my hon. Friend moves on to another subject, may I draw him a little further on transport? He said that he would keep it under review, but does he accept that, unless he has expert advice or an independent inquiry, as suggested by the hon. Member for

1809
Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), there will be nothing to review because his Department is not responsible for transport?
Mr. Sackville: Access to hospitals is fundamental to any monitoring of the performance of those hospitals and especially that of accident and emergency departments. I assure my hon. Friend that the matter will not be forgotten or ignored.
I deal now with primary care because, clearly, all those matters involving the configuration of acute services and hospital services in our major city need to be accompanied by improvements in primary care, in GP services and in community services. I well understand that those improvements are needed.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said, somewhat hesitantly—I will say it more robustly—that there would be £15 million of new, special funding spent over five years for primary care in the Edgware area. Current projects, to give an example, include the extension of home nursing for people who are terminally ill. There have been improvements in GP surgeries and there is an outreach ophthalmology clinic. Further planned projects include improved community therapy services, increases in the number of community nursing staff and a new GP surgery in Burnt Oak.
Mrs. Roche: Can the Minister tell me what community therapy services and community nurses have to do with the closure of an accident and emergency facility?
Mr. Sackville: I was making a general point about improvements in community and primary services. These are specially funded services rather than just what is normally provided by the health authority and the FHSA.
Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend has said that there will be an extra £15 million over five years. How much of that is coming in the current financial year?
Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend has defeated me there. I shall have to write to him on that point.
Sir John Gorst: This is precisely the point that many of us have been making. The announcement has been made and no plans exist. The Minister does not even know the position.
Mr. Sackville: The hon. Gentleman is being unfair. We have to assume that the statement about £15 million over five years suggests that there will be fairly level spending over that period. I am sure that he is right to try to—
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Is not the Minister really saying that once the savings have been realised from the closure of the accident and emergency unit, they will then be ploughed back into primary care?
Mr. Sackville: I am not saying that at all. Primary care is already being improved in London, as it is all over the country because new primary facilities are provided everywhere. I have opened many new GP surgeries and community centres in the past two and a half years. The money is extra money from a special fund aimed at improving community and primary services in the area.
1810
A more general point, which has been made several times, concerns the way in which the changes were announced. I must correct the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), who said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came kicking and screaming to the House. I was here and I saw her neither kick nor scream during any part of the day. She answered a number of questions extremely convincingly.
On the question of whether my right hon. Friend should have made a statement—much has been made of this—all that I can say, speaking as a north-western Member, not a London Member, is that I have been involved in many major changes in the health service involving the closure of hospital facilities. They are always accompanied, as in this case, by major redevelopments of modern facilities. On no occasion have we made a statement on the subject to the House. I agree that this is a major package of changes, but I believe that there is not, formally speaking, any precedent for making a statement for the agreement of proposals for the reconfiguration of hospital services. It has never been suggested during the two and a half years in which I have been involved in dozens of such proposals.
Sir John Gorst: May I offer a different point of view to my hon. Friend? If the Birmingham theatre closed, I would not expect the nation to have a statement from the Secretary of State for National Heritage. However, if Covent Garden opera house was to be closed, I would expect the Secretary of State to come to talk about it. What has happened here is that two of the monuments of our medical service—Bart's and Guy's—are to he closed in a most surreptitious fashion, with no statement. I honestly believe that it is wrong for the Minister to say that just because no statements are made about Birmingham, no statements should he made about the cathedrals of the medical world.
Mr. Sackville: That is the sort of elitism to which we in the north-west have to listen a great deal. I am not particularly convinced by that argument. These are matters that have been discussed widely in the House and elsewhere over recent weeks and months.
Mr. Dowd: That may have been the Minister's judgment before. He must, however, have noticed, because he sat loyally through the private notice question this afternoon, that it ran for one hour and four minutes, yet there were still at least half a dozen Conservative Members waiting to get in. Does that not now, post hoc, suggest to him that the decision not to present the proposals as a statement was a miscalculation? Will he bear that in mind if something like this happens in future? Let us hope that no such thing happens.
Mr. Sackville: I note that Madam Speaker granted a private notice question; that is a matter for the Chair. I also note that yesterday, she did not grant a private notice question on the subject. This is not a matter I want to go into further.
Although I welcome very much the fact that the subject has been so ably aired by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, I ask him to read Hansard and to reconsider some of his remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), the Government Whip. He may find that he went a little far, especially as he was

1811
talking about an hon. Member who, by long convention of the House, was not able to answer the charges made against him.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: Even at this stage, the Minister must be aware of the depth of feeling on the matter. It should and must be looked at again, and it should be thrashed out. At the moment, it is a question of saying that the proposals will take effect in two years' time; there is time. I presume that the two years apply because there will be two years of consultation. We have had none yet.
Mr. Sackville: Uncomfortable as many of these decisions are, a decision has to be reached in these cases. I do not like being here at the Dispatch Box having to defend this decision because, like many decisions over much-loved local hospitals, it is not popular. People do not like it and they fear the worst as a result of hearing that local health facilities will be closed. I absolutely accept that there are grave concerns. On the other hand, I have spelt out some of the reasons why we have had to arrive at this decision. I have spelt out some of the factors that should reassure people that there will be no closure of the A and E, for example, until new facilities are in place.
As I have already told the House, I have been involved in several such decisions. No one ever likes them. The local health managers and often—it is true in this case—some or all of the clinicians agree with the decision; very few other people do because it is natural that people do not want health services to change. From our point of view, as those responsible for trying to provide a consistent health service around the country, we have to make changes. We have to modernise and we have to concentrate services from two or three places, sometimes into one, simply to provide them not only efficiently, but well and safely. I would not pretend that this decision is popular.
I regret very much that, from the tone of the debate, I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have apparently failed to convince the local Members of Parliament. I can tell them that we have considered these matters carefully. We are quite certain, as are all the others who work in the health service who have contributed to this decision, that the proposals will provide over the area as a whole a better and more modern health service.
Sir John Gorst: It is possible that the House might take a different view—we hoped that my hon. Friend the Minister might have taken such a view, but he has not so far suggested that. If the proposals were to be vetoed by the House on a vote, what would be the position in relation to the London closures? We should know that because it is important when deciding how to treat any vote on the subject.
Mr. Sackville: That is a procedural matter and it involves health considerations that go much wider than the subject of the debate. While I understand my hon. Friend's question, I am sure that he will forgive me if I
1812
do not attempt to answer it. All that I can say is that I believe that we have made the right long-term decision for the overall good of health care in the area. We have to make many such decisions.
I resent the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East that this is an example of the health service being unsafe in our hands. If we took no such decisions, never made any major changes to hospital provision and went on exactly as we were, we would probably have very few new hospitals, and would be treating fewer patients rather than more, and at greater cost. That is not a recipe for the NHS to be safe in anyone's hands.
Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that he misunderstood—I specifically paid tribute to the need for the Government to have disciplined financial management over all matters and all installations in the national health service. I have always supported that policy in general, and think that everybody should do so. I thought that we had made our views crystal clear and I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not seem to be grasping the reality.
The perception is wrong; the public do not trust the process. I am sad and regret having to say that they do not feel that they can accept my hon. Friend's assurance that the consultations have been genuine. The Government have been going through pretend motions, then ignoring and dismissing the views and the thousands of opinions, including expert medical ones. The trouble is that the Government never reassure the public in respect of any such instances. That is why we continue to fight in this case to see whether the process has been genuine and other opinions against the closure of the accident and emergency unit have been heeded. Why should they not be heeded? Why should not the Government say that they disagree with the regional health authority and will keep the facilities open because the hospital is needed?
Mr. Sackville: The Government find themselves agreeing with the regional health authority that we have to make the changes in order to provide an efficient, safe and high-quality health service over the area.
If, over the past few years, we had not made any decisions about hospital provision—many of them unpopular—we would not be treating 120 patients for every 100 that we treated four or five years ago. We would not have better outcomes—
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Sackville: No, I shall not as I am just about to finish my speech.
It is sometimes necessary to take decisions which may not always be popular, but which we know to be in the best interests of providing a modern health service in the long term. The decision that we are discussing is no exception.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Eight o'clock, till Tuesday 18 April.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Water and Sewerage
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 15 March,Official Report, column 630, if he will give such information on water and sewerage charges paid by his Department, as can be provided without disproportionate costs. [15935]

  Mr. Jack
  As my reply on 15 March said, there is currently no centrally held record of payments made on water and sewerage charges paid by the Department. Under decentralised budgets, responsibility of these matters rests with well over 100 accommodation managers throughout the estate, who are dealing with a diverse range of property occupation. There would be disproportionate costs involved in attempting to collect this information now.

  The Department is working on establishing a central database for water, and other types of charges, but this will not be fully effective until after 1994–95.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 499, regarding calves loaded at Brightlingsea on 3 March, what steps he has taken to assure himself that all calves were individually fed in the period stated while they were still in the vehicles. [17127]

  Mrs. Browning
  There was only one lorry carrying calves for that sailing. It was not loaded to its full capacity, and so the calves could be fed while on board the vehicle. The calves were individually bucket fed while the lorry was waiting at the port, and this was carried out satisfactorily, according to the report of the veterinary office who was present.

  I should make clear, with apologies, that the answer I gave on 14 March about livestock exported from Brightlingsea on 3 March was unfortunately corrupted in transmission and should have read:
  "I understand that the journey of the 194 calves began at 05.30 hours from premises in Kent. The lorry carrying calves arrived at a lairage near Harwich shortly after 10.00 hours where it waited until convoyed to the port, arriving at about 14.00 hours. The calves were fed abroad the lorry between 18.00 hours and 19.50 hours. The vessel berthed at 23.10 hours an the calves were loaded from 23.30 hours fed immediately. All were aboard by 23.45 hours. Sheep were loaded between 23.45 and 01.20 hours."

  The two final paragraphs which were mistakenly added to the above-mentioned reply ought to have been included instead in my reply of 14 March to the hon. Member about livestock exported from Shoreham port on 6 March—column 499. This latter reply should have read:
  1108
  "A veterinary officer was at the port awaiting the arrival of six trucks containing calves. In the event, a demonstration prevented two livestock lorries already on their way to Shoreham from reaching the port. I understand that these lorries returned with the calves to the premises of origin in Oxfordshire. Officials were satisfied that all the animals could be returned to the home premises within the 15-hour limit by which time the animals would have had to be fed and rested.
  The other four livestock lorries were at local lairages ready to load calves already resting there. In the circumstances, loading of those animals for Shoreham did not even begin.
  Journey plans had been scrutinised by officials before the proposed export journeys started and were satisfactory."

  Rabies
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many dogs have developed rabies in quarantine during a 20–year period; how many of these had valid certificates of vaccination against rabies; and which countries they came from. [17200]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: Two dogs have developed rabies in quarantine in the last 20 years—an Irish wolfhound imported from the USA in 1983 and a Welsh terrier cross imported from Zambia in 1990. The Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and other Mammals) Order 1974 requires all dogs to be vaccinated against rabies on entry into quarantine to prevent infection from being contracted within the premises if another animal should develop rabies. There is no requirement for animals to have been vaccinated prior to entry into quarantine and therefore no information is held on whether they hold valid certificates of vaccination.

  Baby Milk
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what policy considerations underlay his decision to amend the draft version of the United Kingdom regulations on advertising of baby milk in relation to the dissemination of information and controls on the advertising of brand name baby milk; and what representations he has received for and against his amendments. [17484]

  Mrs. Browning
  In deciding the final form of the regulations, Ministers gave heed to the Government's deregulation policy of implementing the minimum requirements of EC legislation, unless there are very good reasons for going beyond them.

  Since the regulations were made and laid before the House, Ministers have received a large number of representations objecting, in particular, to the advertising controls on infant formulae. Not unexpectedly, only a few representations have been received from those content with the regulations.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers the United Kingdom has to sustain its ban on the import of meat products from animals reared using growth hormones if this is ruled to be illegal under GATT. [17475]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: The ban to which the hon. Member refers results from a European regulation. The UK voted against its adoption on the grounds that it was not justified scientifically. The legality of the ban has not so far been tested in the GATT. Were there to be a successful challenge we should, in

  1109
  conjunction with our EU partners, need to respond appropriately under the rules of the World Trade Organisation on the settlement of disputes.

  Holderness Coast
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultation he has held with English Nature, the Countryside Commission, the National Rivers Authority and Holderness borough council over proposals to draw up a coastal protection scheme for the Holderness coast. [17844]

  Mrs. Browning
  Under the provisions of the Coast Protection Act 1949, coast protection authorities, such as Holderness borough council, must obtain the Ministry's approval for capital works intended to protect the coast against erosion. The Ministry is in regular contact with such authorities and requires them to consult other relevant bodies, including the National Rivers Authority, English Nature and the Countryside Commission, on proposed works. My right hon. Friend the Minister met a delegation from the council, led by the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), to discuss Holderness coastal defence issues on 7 February.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment has been made of the potential impact of the proposed trial of a submerged tyre bank off Dimlington coast, Holdersness on sites of special scientific interest at Dimlington cliff and Spurn point; and if a licence will be granted for a trial; [17843]

  (2) If Sir William Halcrow and Partners have published the results of its environmental study into the consequences of a trial of a submerged tyre bank off the Dimlington coast, Holderness. [17842]

  Mr. Jack
  An application has been received under part 11 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 from Humberside county council for a licence to deposit rubber rocks made from tyres in a trial offshore reef to test the effectiveness of such structures in contributing to the protection of the Humberside coast. The council has been told that a full environmental assessment will be required in support of the application and we understand this is currently being prepared by Halcrow and Partners. Publication of the study is a matter for the council.

  The Ministry will wish to study this assessment and consult other interested parties before deciding whether or not to issue a licence.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make an assessment of the consequences, both for the British fishing industry and other interests, if the United Kingdom withdraw from the common fisheries policy; and if he will make a statement. [17970]

  Mr. Jack
  The Government's views on the idea that the UK might withdraw from the common fisheries policy have been made clear to the House on a number of occasions. These include already this year, for example, the fisheries debate on 18 January, oral answers on 23 March, and three private notice questions, on 10 January and 13 and 28 March.

  Aujeszky's Disease
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of Aujeszky's disease were reported in each year since 1985. [17820]

  Mrs. Browning
  The number of confirmed outbreaks of Aujeszky's disease in England for the period in question is as follows:

  Year

  Number of outbreaks

  1985

  12

  1986

  5

  1987

  6

  1988

  5

  1989

  5

  1990–1995

  Nil

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the change in the occurrence of food poisoning which can be attributed to the slaughter and handling of meat at abattoirs since the introduction of the EC meat hygiene regulations in 1992.
  [17953]

  Mrs. Browning
  A number of organisms, such as escherichia coli 0157:H7, some salmonella serotypes and listeria monocytogenes have been implicated in food poisoning incidents associated with the consumption of meat and meat products. In most cases of this kind, it is not possible to trace the meat back to the abattoir of origin.

  Thorough cooking will destroy most, if not all, pathogenic micro-organisms, but steps must be taken at every stage of production to limit the risk of contamination of the unprocessed product because of the hazards associated with cross-infection and light cooking. The most appropriate point to address the problem of contamination with pathogenic organisms is in the slaughter hall, a critical control point in the chain of production where a number of conditions of animal and public health significance can be detected.

  The Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992 have improved hygiene standards generally in slaughterhouses and other licensed fresh meat premises but it is not possible to assess whether the occurrence of food poisoning has changed as a result of their introduction.

  Fish Species
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the fish species in United Kingdom waters and in the North Atlantic that(a) have been fished out and (b) are in danger of being fished out. [17854]

  Mr. Jack
  I am not aware that there are any fish species in waters around the United Kingdom or in the north Atlantic which are biologically extinguished or likely to be so. However, on the basis of 1994 scientific assessments, 37 per cent. of commercial fish stocks around the United Kingdom are at or below minimum
  1111
  biologically acceptable levels, that is, recruitment of young fish is insufficient to maintain the size of the stock at current levels. These stocks are:

  North Sea—cod, saithe, plaice, mackerel;

  Eastern Channel—cod, whiting, plaice;

  Western Channel—sole;

  Bristol Channel—cod, sole, plaice;

  Western waters—hake, mackerel;

  Irish Sea—cod, whiting, sole;

  West of Scotland—cod, haddock, saithe, whiting, Clyde herring

  In the north Atlantic, the following stocks are insufficiently prevalent to permit a viable commercial fishery:

  East and West Greenland—offshore cod;

  Faroes—bank cod;

  A fishing moratorium applies within the regulatory area of the North-west Atlantic Fisheries Organisation to the following:
  American plaice, yellowtail flounder, witch, capelin; cod, in NAFO division 3N0.

  Blue Tongue
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of Blue Tongue were reported in each year since 1980. [17817]

  Mrs. Browning
  No case of Blue Tongue has ever been reported in England.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fishers and Food what alternatives were considered to the Meat Hygiene Service during its development. [18408]

  Mrs. Browning
  A review of the options for meat hygiene enforcement by a MAFF-Department of Health study team in 1991 considered:enhancement of local authority enforcement,
  central enforcement by the State Veterinary Service,
  transferring enforcement to a separate body, and contracting out.
  The possibilities of privatisation or of contracting out were further considered as part of the process of establishing the Meat Hygiene Service as an agency of this Department.

  Green Policy
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fishers and Food if he will name the green Minister for his Department and list(a) the green initiatives taken by that Minister in respect of the Department's functions, (b) the representations made by the Minister in respect of functions carried out by other Departments and (c) the input made by the Minister in consultations on the Environment Bill. [18650]

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend the Minister is the nominated green Minister for MAFF. This reflects the importance we attach to the consideration of environmental implications across the whole range of MAFF policies. Progress on MAFF's environmental performance is reported annually in departmental reports—Cm 2803—and in the United Kingdom's annual report "This Common Inheritance"—CM 2822. Copies of both are in the Library of the House.

  Arable Area Payments
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hectares of land were set aside under the arable area payments scheme in each region of England in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and what is the estimate of the number of hectares of land that will be set aside in each region in 1995–96. [18659]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The area of land set-aside under the arable area payments scheme in each region in England in 1993–94 is shown in the table below. Equivalent figures for 1994–95 are not yet available and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as they are. It is still too early to estimate the number of hectares that have been set aside in 1995–96 as farmers do not have to submit their integrated administration and control system claims until 15 May.

  Areas set-aside in 1993–94 (hectares)

  Number

  Wessex

  32,323

  Anglia

  131,930

  Northern

  16,674

  North Mercia

  21,385

  South West

  10,092

  North East

  75,643

  East Midlands

  96,168

  South East

  73,183

  South Mercia

  35,467

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the total cost of payments for(a) set-aside and (b) in total under the arable area payments scheme in each region of England in (a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and what is estimate of the total cost of payments in each region of England in 1995–96. [18635]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The total of payments claimed for set-aside and arable area payments for regions of England for 1993–94 is shown below. The total amount paid will have been slightly lower because of reductions made for various reasons. However, since such reductions have to be calculated on the basis of the total claim, which may include land in more than one region, it is not possible to give the total amounts paid on a regional basis. The equivalent figures for 1994–95 are not yet available and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as they are. It is not yet possible to estimate the cost of payments in each region for 1995–96 as integrated administration and control system claims do not have to be submitted by farmers until 15 May.

  Cost of set-aside and arable payments in
  1993–94

  Set-aside £

  Total AAPS £

  Wessex

  8,625,448

  41,258,638

  Anglia

  35,205,471

  175,758,954

  Northern

  4,450,178

  22,587,760

  North Mercia

  5,706,655

  275,179,904

  South West

  2,693,018

  12,115,126

  North East

  20,185,548

  101,011,554

  East Midlands

  25,662,373

  136,205,244

  South East

  19,528,730

  104,344,814

  South Mercia

  9,464,455

  49,928,317

  1113
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many claims were made for in England (1) for set-aside and (2) in total under the arable area payments scheme in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95 of(a) between £0 and £5,000, (b) between £5,001 and £10,000, (c) between £10,001 and £15,000, (d) between £15,001 and £20,000, (e) between £20,001 and £25,000, (f) between £25,001 and £50,000, (g) between £50,001 and £75,000, (h) between £75,001 and £100,000, (i) between £100,001 and £150,000, (j) between £50,001 and £200,000, (k) between £200,001 and £1,000,000 and (l) over £1,000,000; and what is his latest estimate of the number of claims that will be made in 1995–96 in each value band. [18634]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The number of claims made in England for set-aside and in total under the arable area payments scheme in England in 1993–94 were £26,283 and 45,774 respectively and in 1994–95 were 29,261 and 46,920.

  The distribution of payments for 1993–94 is only available in the form set out below. Similar figures for 1994–95 are not yet available as the final oilseed payments for the year are still being made. It is too early to estimate the value of claims for 1995–96 as IACS claims do not have to be submitted by farmers until May 15.

  Total payments in England banded by size of payment

  Size band

  Number of payments

  Up to £4,999

  21,345

  From £5,000 to £9,999

  6,577

  From £ 10,000 to £24,999

  9,712

  From £25,000 to £49,999

  5,164

  From £50,000 to £99,999

  2,325

  From £100,000 to £249,999

  599

  From £250,000 to £ 499,999

  45

  From £500,000 upward

  17

  Total

  45,774

  1 It is not possible to identify separately the number of payments above £1,000,000 for reasons of confidentiality.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outline the measures taken, facilities offered and adjustments made in his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to facilitate access for disabled people; what plans he has to improve access; and if he will make a statement. [18593]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Ministry, including its agencies, takes its responsibilities in the area of equal opportunities seriously and aims to respond as far as reasonably possible to the needs of disabled members of the public and staff.

  In the area of access, the Ministry has for several years been reviewing its estate and improving the accessibility of the buildings it occupies. A survey of all staff in 1993 showed where they thought additional measures were necessary. Funds have now been set aside for a further three-year programme, starting with a full survey of the estate to indicate where further improvements can be made.

  Badger Setts (Paignton Zoo)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many badger setts there are known to be in the boundaries of Paignton zoo; how many of these have been interfered with; how many have received a licence to be interfered with; for what reasons the licences were issued; and if he will make a statement. [18636]

  Mrs. Browning
  I will write to the hon. Member once ADAS, the Ministry's wildlife adviser, has completed a site visit.

  Central Veterinary Laboratory
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what targets have been set for the Central Veterinary Laboratory in 1995–96. [19214]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have set the Central Veterinary Laboratory the following strategic performance targets for 1995–96:

  Financial Performance—full cost recovery for all Central Veterinary Laboratory services
  Efficiency: an overall efficiency gain of 2.5 per cent.
  Service Delivery: 85 per cent. of ROAME R and D milestones achieved
  Service quality: achievement of a satisfactory report from a Visiting Group
  Achievement of laboratory accreditation for Radiochemistry Unit

  Details of performance in 1994–295 will be set out in the agency's annual report and accounts to be published during July 1995.

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has completed the review of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate; and if he will make a statement. [19210]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The review of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate has now been completed. This has concluded that the VMD should continue to operate as an executive agency.

  An independent evaluation of the VMD was carried out by external management consultants. As well as assessing the VMD's performance this also considered the effects of agency status on both the VMD and core Department. Overall, the study concluded that the VMD had made significant progress since its launch as an agency in 1990. There were, of course, some areas for improvement and lessons to be learnt for both the agency and the Department. I have placed a summary of the evaluation's main recommendations, and the management response, together with a copy of the VMD's revised framework document in the Libraries of both Houses.

EMPLOYMENT

  Service Sector Pay
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what comparisons he has made on the basis of purchasing power parity between the living standard of
  1115
  the average service industry worker in the United Kingdom and that of his EU counterparts. [15930]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  For service sectors where information is available, gross pay in the UK is higher than in Western Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands—once the cost of living has been taken into account.

  Manual Worker's Pay
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the increase in real take-home pay for manual workers between(a) 1973–74 and 1978–79 and (b) 1978–79 and 1993–94. [18425]

  Mr. Oppenehim
  Real take-home pay for a single man at the lowest 10 per cent. of the earnings distribution fell by 1 per cent. between 1973–74 and 1978–79 and increased by 23 per cent. between 1978–79 and 1993–94.

  Job Losses
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs were lost in each region, broken down by gender, over the last 12 months for the occupational categories(a) managerial and administrative, (b) professional, (c) associate professional and technical, (d) clerical and secretarial, (e) craft and related, (f) personal and protective service, (g) sales (h) plant and machine operatives and (i) other. [18421]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: Information is available only for the net change in jobs. This can be obtained from the labour force survey Quantime service available in the Library.

  Remploy
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for all standard employment regions the total number of Remploy units and the number of people employed in them for the last three favourable years. [16758]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, dated 5 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the total number of Remploy units and the number of people employed in for the last three years.
  The information in the following list gives Remploy's estimates, by Employment Service Region, of the numbers of severely disabled people employed in their factories as at end March for the last three years. It does not include those on the Interwork programme.

  Region

  Year

  Number of severely disabled people

  Number of units

  East Midlands

  1992

  456

  7

  1993

  420

  8

  1994

  400

  8

  North East

  1992

  862

  8

  1993

  796

  8

  1994

  770

  8

  1116

  Region

  Year

  Number of severely disabled people

  Number of units

  North West

  1992

  1,552

  18

  1993

  1,465

  18

  1994

  1,473

  19

  Scotland

  1992

  915

  10

  1993

  854

  10

  1994

  850

  10

  South East

  1992

  789

  10

  1993

  748

  10

  1994

  752

  10

  South West

  1992

  583

  9

  1993

  551

  9

  1994

  569

  9

  Wales

  1992

  1,288

  14

  1993

  1,200

  14

  1994

  1,176

  15

  West Midlands

  1992

  607

  5

  1993

  579

  6

  1994

  568

  6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1992

  940

  14

  1993

  907

  14

  1994

  903

  14

  I hope this is helpful.

  Special Contracts and Priority Suppliers Scheme
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received regarding the workings of the special contracts arrangements and priority suppliers scheme; and if he will make a statement. [16759]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have received representations from a range of people and organisations, including correspondence from hon. Members.

  Occupational Health
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will indicate the measures that his Department undertakes to address occupational health; and if he will make a statement. [18255]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Much of the Health and Safety Executive's everyday activity, such as modernising the framework of health and safety law, inspection of workplaces, provision of advice and formal enforcement action, addresses occupational health issues and the reduction of levels of occupational ill health. Details are contained in the Health and Safety Commission's plans of work and annual reports. The plan of work for 1995–96 will be published on 21 April and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Additionally, the HSE is giving priority in 1995 to implementing a programme of action based on the conclusions of its recent strategic review of the 10 main occupational health risks: toxic substances, biohazards, noise, vibration, ionising and non-ionising radiation, manual handling, upper limb disorders, sick building syndrome and stress. Action includes obtaining better information on the scale and pattern of ill health; commissioning further research, for example on

  1117
  prevention techniques; provision of practical guidance and publicity and inspection campaigns.

  In May 1995, the HSE will be launching a major new three to four-year campaign, "Good Health is Good Business", to help to improve employers' management of health risks. The first year will focus in particular on noise, respiratory sensitisers and musculoskeletal risks.

  Minimum Wage (Women)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will meet the Equal Opportunities Commission to consider its research findings on the effect of women of the introduction of a minimum wage. [18773]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have no plans to do so.

  Transfers and Redundancies
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to amend the legislation concerning consultation with employees' representatives about collective redundancies and transfers of undertakings; and if he will make a statement. [18972]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Employment Department is seeking views from a range of organisations on a proposal to amend the legislation concerning an employer's duty to provide information to, and to consult, representatives of employees about proposed redundancies and business transfers. A copy of the proposal has been placed in the Library.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Palestinian National Authority
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals were made by the Prime Minister during his recent visit to extend material and technical aid to the Palestinian national authority. [15535]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 14 March,Official Report, column 476.

  Gaza Airport and Port
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what statements were made by the recent British delegation to Gaza about the willingness of Britain to be involved in building Gaza airport and port. [15536]

  Mr. Baldry
  No statements on this issue were made by representatives of Her Majesty's Government. I understand that a number of British firms expressed interest in these projects.

  International Development Association
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he plans to ensure that contributions to IDA-11 will reduce poverty. [15584]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have already made clear in the on-going IDA-11 negotiations that we look to the World bank to strengthen the effectiveness of its programmes,1118
  including implementation of its poverty reduction strategy. I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him on 7 and 13 March, Official Report, columns 130–31, and 366–67.

  Somaliland
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals exist at British or international level for the reintroduction of mine clearing operations in Somaliland. [17824]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 13 February 1995, columns 488–89. The situation is unchanged.

  South African Elections
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria were used to decide the delegation sent to monitor the 1994 South African elections; and if he will make a statement. [18139]

  Mr. Baldry
  Britain provided a total of 70 election observers under the auspices of the United Nations and European Union observer missions. The main criteria for the selection of individuals was that they should have experience and professional skills relevant to the running of elections.

  Aid for Trade Projects
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the projects funded, and the sums allocated, by the £34.5 million returned to the aid budget in 1994–95 in recompense for the illegal use of the money to fund the Pergau dam and three other aid for trade provision projects. [18211]

  Mr. Baldry
  Spending on these four projects for 1994–95 was estimated to be £32.016 million. This was allocated as part of a wider reallocation of resources at the time of the spring supplementary estimate. The availability of these funds effectively allowed:

  i. further spending on country programmes (£13.825 million)—principally for additional programme aid for Malawi, mine clearance in Cambodia and a range of know how fund projects in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union;

  ii. additional spending on emergency and refugee relief (£12.191 million)—principally of work in Bosnia, Rwanda and Chechyna; and

  iii. additional funding (£6 million)—principally for research and primary health care work in developing countries through the WHO and other international health organisations.

  Natural Resources Institute
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for the restructuring of the Natural Resources Institute;

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for the restructuring of the Natural Resources Institute.

  Mr. Baldry
  Against the background of changes in the nature and level of demand for the NRI's services, we have put in hand a restructuring programme. The result will be a smaller institute which focuses on the NRI's interdisciplinary strengths in adaptive research and related development services. The NRI management envisage an
  1119
  organisation of around 360 professional and administrative staff, which will mean a reduction of present staffing level by 140. We aim to achieve the reduction in staffing by voluntary means.

  The restructured institute will continue to play a major role in Britain's programme of aid for the natural resources sector in developing countries. It will do so as a supplier of services in its own right and as a manager of resources from the available science base. The NRI's expertise is increasingly sought by outside clients in the development aid community. The institute will be strongly encouraged to expand this aspect of its activities.

WALES

  "D" Plates
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to amend the law relating to the display of "D" plates by learner drivers in Wales. [19243]

  Mr. Richards
  The Government are considering amending the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1987 to permit learner drivers in Wales to display "D" plates in preference to "L" plates if they wish. A consultation document seeking the views of the public and organisations with an interest in this matter is being issued today and a copy has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  School Pupils
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to publish the full programme of action to raise the achievement of pupils in schools in Wales promised in "People and Prosperity: An Agenda for Action in Wales". [19244]

  Mr. Redwood
  I intend to publish this document on Thursday 6 April. The text is entitled "A Bright Future: Getting the Best for Every Pupil at School in Wales". Among other things, it follows-up material in "People and Prosperity: An Agenda for Action in Wales". Taken as a whole, this initiative will be directly relevant to primary and secondary schools. It includes a consultation on a specific target for attainment in the core subjects of the national curriculum. The proposal is that, by 2000, at least half of all individual 15–year-olds should get an A to C grade in each of GCSE mathematics, science, English or Welsh, first language. Responses are sought by the end of June and the final target will be published in the autumn.

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Clwyd

  377

  187

  213

  264

  318

  251

  251

  472

  Dyfed

  160

  104

  121

  193

  225

  272

  397

  437

  Gwent

  272

  235

  463

  338

  402

  480

  497

  395

  Gwynedd

  80

  70

  99

  133

  130

  205

  178

  201

  Mid Glamorgan

  537

  575

  643

  543

  490

  545

  583

  542

  Powys

  17

  16

  30

  78

  120

  134

  55

  77

  South Glamorgan

  217

  201

  174

  243

  184

  215

  274

  321

  West Glamorgan

  274

  234

  304

  307

  358

  354

  415

  436

  Wales

  1,934

  1,622

  2,047

  2,099

  2,227

  2,456

  2,650

  2,881

  1120
  I have made arrangements for copies of the text to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Lydia Owens
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received a copy of the report of the inquiry team which investigated the abduction of Lydia Owens from Glan Clwyd hospital and if he will make a statement. [19245]

  Mr. Richards
  The inquiry team set up by Glan Clwyd NHS trust has completed its report and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. I am satisfied that the circumstances have been thoroughly investigated and the board of the trust has accepted the recommendations, which are being implemented. All hospitals are reviewing their security arrangements and the chairman of the Glan Clwyd NHS trust has discussed the recommendations with the chairmen of other NHS trusts in Wales so that they can implement them where appropriate.

  Smoking
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what initiatives the Welsh Office is taking to encourage people to stop smoking; and if he will make a statement; [16799]

  (2) what is the budget allocated for publicity to educate the public about the effects of smoking in the current year; and if he will make a statement. [16774]

  Mr. Richards
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children have received statements for special educational needs in each of the counties in Wales in each year from 1980 to the present time. [16837]

  Mr. Richards
  Estimates of the number of children in each county in Wales for whom statements of special educational needs were made for the first time, for each year since 1987, are shown in the following table. Data for earlier years are not available on the same basis. Totals for Wales shown in the table reflect the county estimates and in respect of 1987 and 1988 should be substituted for those I gave the hon. Member in my reply of 17 March,Official Report, column 766.

  Errors in the return to the Welsh Office from one county have been identified in the meantime.

  Carbon Fibre Pollution
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the sources of carbon fibre pollution in Wales. [17511]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Carbon fibre is an inorganic material used in the manufacture of a wide range of products including aircraft, high-performance cars and sports equipment. It is normally used, in small quantities, as a strengthening material. The World Health Organisation has indicated that the potential health risk from carbon fibre pollution in the general environment is very low.

  County Council Smallholdings
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many county council farm tenancies there are in each of the counties of Wales(a) at present and (b) in 1979; and if he will make a statement. [17395]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of Tenancies (position as at 31 March)

  1979

  1994

  Clwyd

  186

  154

  Dyfed

  144

  163

  Gwent

  120

  89

  Gwynedd

  184

  175

  Mid Glamorgan

  29

  4

  Powys

  261

  219

  South Glamorgan

  72

  35

  West Glamorgan

  7

  2

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the estimated number of acres of council farm tenancies in the proposed new local authorities based on the former Clwyd county council; and if he will make a statement. [17398]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As at 31 March 1994, Clwyd county council let 3,640 hectares of land as smallholdings. It is not possible to estimate the number of hectares of council farm tenancies falling within each individual new local authority. It is the Government's intention that the smallholdings should be transferred to the new authorities.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number and percentage of general practitioner practices in(a) Merthyr Tydfil, (b) Rhymney and (c) Mid Glamorgan which have established patient participation groups. [17387]

  Mr. Richards
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioner trainees there are currently in(a) Merthyr Tydfil, (b) Rhymney and (c) Mid Glamorgan. [17389]

  Mr. Richards
  The numbers of GP trainees currently engaged in the general practice component of their training are as follows:

  Number

  Rhymney

  1

  Merthyr

  0

  Ogwr

  13

  Rhondda/Taff

  8

  Total in Mid Glamorgan

  22

  1122
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of general practitioner practices in(a) Merthyr Tydfil, (b) Rhymney and (c) Mid Glamorgan that have established the programmes and standards listed in section 6.2 of the Mid Glamorgan family health services authority's business plan 1995–96. [17391]

  Mr. Richards
  This information is not held centrally.

  This is a local management issue for the Mid Glamorgan family health services authority.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has of the number and percentage of general practitioner practices in(a) Merthyr Tydfil, (b) Rhymney and (c) in Mid Glamorgan which have employed nurses. [17386]

  Mr. Richards
  This information is not held centrally.

  The number of practice nurses employed in Mid Glamorgan at 1 April 1994 was 169—whole-time equivalent 121.5.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number and percentage of United Kingdom-trained general practitioners in(a) Merthyr Tydfil, (b) Rhymney and (c) Mid Glamorgan. [17388]

  Mr. Richards
  This information is not readily available.

  The number of unrestricted principals at 1 April 1994 in Mid Glamorgan was 303.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of whether family health services authorities' procedures are adequate in assisting and advising families who believe that a general practitioner has been negligent in his care of a patient belonging to that family; and if he will make a statement. [18099]

  Mr. Richards
  Negligence is a matter for the courts; it is not something on which FHSAs would offer advice.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of general practitioner practices in(a) Alyn and Deeside and (b) Clwyd that have established patient participation groups; and if he will make a statement. [18101]

  Mr. Richards
  This information is not held centrally.

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received concerning(a) nurses' pay (b) ambulance staff pay and (c) radiographers' pay; and if he will make a statement. [17397]

  Mr. Richards
  I have received 31 representations, including a petition, on nurses' pay and two representations specifically about radiographers' pay. I have not received any regarding the pay of ambulance staff.

  Respite Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he will take to deliver more respite care in each of the counties of Wales; and if he will make a statement. [17401]
  1123
  Mr. Richards
  It is for local authorities, health authorities and GP fundholders to determine and meet the need for respite care in their areas.

  Local authorities in Wales will receive £124.4 million in 1995–96 for community care, including respite care. It is for those authorities to decide how best to use this money to meet the needs of their local populations.

  The recent Welsh Office guidance on NHS responsibilities for meeting continuing health care needs—WHC(95)7, WOC16/95—has reiterated that health authorities and GP fundholders have important responsibilities too, in arranging and funding respite health care. Working with local authorities, health authorities have been asked to set out by April 1996 the arrangements they will make for this.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who advises him on sustainable development policy issues pertaining to Wales; and if he will make a statement. [17482]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Advice on sustainable development matters is available to my right hon. Friend from a range of sources. These include in particular the Welsh Office, the Government panel on sustainable development, and the UK round table.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to establish a Welsh advisory group on sustainable development along the lines of that set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [17497]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) by my right hon. Friend on 17 March 1995,Official Report, column 770.

  Registered Playgroups
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of children in(a) playgroups and (b) toddler groups in each of the counties of Wales; and if he will make a statement. [17400]

  Mr. Richards
  Information on the numbers of children in playgroups and toddler groups is not held centrally. The available information relates to the number of places in registered playgroups for children aged from two years and six months and is given in the following table:

  Number of places available in registered playgroups as at 31 March 1994

  Local Authority

  Places

  Clwyd

  5,131

  Dyfed

  3,089

  Gwent

  3,063

  Gwynedd

  3,348

  Mid Glamorgan

  3,928

  Powys

  1,513

  South Glamorgan

  4,093

  West Glamorgan

  1,318

  Total

  25,483

  Rheumatology Services
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if a consultant has yet been found for the proposed rheumatology service for Gwent; and if he will make a statement. [17420]

  Mr. Richards
  It is the responsibility of health authorities and trusts to identify health needs and corresponding staff requirements; therefore, this information is not held centrally.

  Mid Glamorgan Family Health Services Authority
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes to meet the underfunding identified in Mid Glamorgan family health services authority's business plan 1995–96. [17390]

  Mr. Richards
  None. For 1995–96, the Mid Glamorgan FHSA has received its weighted capitation share of administration funding and cash increase of 7.9 per cent. for its cash-limited general medical services. The average increase for FHSAs in Wales was 6 per cent.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations have been received by his Department from the Celtic League regarding the dangers posed by toxic pollution fall-out arising from crashes of RAF aircraft on low flying exercises in Wales. [17520]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None; although I understand the Celtic League has written to the Ministry of Defence about this.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many parliamentary questions to his Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence; [18530]

  (2) how many parliamentary questions to his Department in each year since 1979–80 requesting a priority written answer or answer on a named day, were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further five, 10, 15, 20 days or longer. [18548]

  (3) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has written to an hon. or right hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question; [18550]

  (4) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report; [18549]

  (5) how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by his Department in each year since 1979–80; and how many such questions received a substantive answer written 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18547]

  (6) how many parliamentary questions to his Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior officials of a non-departmental

  1125
  public body or agency for which he has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report in each years since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence. [18529]

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is a matter of public record, but it could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  NHS Complaints
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review the procedures of medical complaints and assess whether they are carried out speedily enough; and if he will make a statement. [18100]

  Mr. Richards
  All NHS complaints procedures were reviewed by the committee chaired by Professor Alan Wilson, whose report "Being Heard" was published in May 1994. The Government's response was announced on 21 March and included targets of two working days and four weeks for initial and full responses to complaints made at stage 1 of the new system. Deadlines for complaints made at stage 2 will be worked out in discussion with interested parties.

  Dental Services
  Mr Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many dental practices taking new NHS patients there were in 1992 in Gwynedd; and if he will make a statement; [18225]

  (2) how many dental practices there are in Dyfed taking new NHS patients; and if he will make a statement; [18223]

  (3) how many dental practices taking new NHS patients there were in 1992 in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement; [18226]

  (4) how many dental practices there were taking new NHS patients in Powys in 1993; and if he will make a statement; [18230]

  (5) how many dental practices there are in the county of West Glamorgan currently taking new NHS patients; and if he will make a statement. [18224]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is not available centrally in the form requested.

  Family health services authorities are best placed to provide information on local availability of NHS general dental services, and to provide advice and assistance to any unregistered patient who experiences difficulty in finding a dentist willing to accept them under NHS arrangements.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dental practitioners with fewer than two years' post-qualification experience there are in the county of Clwyd; and if he will make a statement [18229]

  Mr. Richards
  According to information supplied by the family health services authority, there are six de.tists in Clwyd who have less than two years' post-qualification experience.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dental practices there are in(a) the county of Dyfed and (b) Clwyd. [18228]

  Mr. Richards
  Information on the number of dental practices is not available centrally. However, at 31 December 1994, there were 104 and 119 general dental 1126
  practitioners practising in Dyfed FHSA and Clwyd FHSA respectively. Dentists who work in more than one FHSA have been counted in the FHSA where they perform most work.

  Teaching Posts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the number of teachers in Wales who cannot find permanent posts. [18105]

  Mr. Richards
  Information about teachers seeking permanent posts is not available. The appointment of teachers is entirely a matter for local education authorities and schools. The overwhelming majority of full-time teachers have permanent contracts.

  Remploy
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total number of Remploy units and number working in them for each county and for Wales as a whole during the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [16757]

  Mr. Redwood
  Responsibility for Remploy has been delegated, by the Employment Department, to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has asked the chief executive to provide information on the number of Remploy units and employees in these units. This information is not available at county level in Wales and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Out-patients
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost to the NHS in Wales of the non-attenders to out-patient appointments in 1993–94. [17712]

  Mr. Redwood
  No calculation is made centrally of the cost of failures to attend out-patient appointments in hospitals in Wales.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters he has received from individual members of the board of the Countryside Council for Wales during the current year which have been critical of his proposals for the funding of the Countryside Council for Wales. [18638]

  Mr. Redwood
  One.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters he has received from the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales from 1 January to date concerning the funding of the Countryside Council for Wales; and on what dates he received such correspondence. [18737]

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received two such letters dated 27 February and 9 March.

  Arable Area Payments
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hectares of land were set aside under the arable area payments scheme in Wales in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 and what is his estimate of the number of hectares of land that will be set aside in 1995–96. [18660]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Some 3,114 hectares of land were set aside under the arable area payments scheme in 1993–94 and 4,181 hectares in 1994–95.

  It is too early to estimate the hectarage for 1995–96 as farmers do not have to submit their integrated administration and control system applications until 15 May.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many claims were made in Wales (1) for set-aside and (2) in total under the arable area payments scheme in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95 of(a) between zero and £5,000, (b) between £5,001 and £10,000, (c) between £10,001 and £15,000, (d) between 15,001 and £20,000, (e) between £20,001 and £25,000, (f) 25,001 and £50,000, (g) between £50,001 and £75,000, (h) between £75,001 and £100,000, (i) between £100,001 and £150,000, (j) between £150,000 and £200,000, (k) between £200,001 and £1 million and (l) over £1 million; and what is his latest estimate of the number of claims that will be made in 1995–96 in each value band. [18630]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The figures requested are as follows:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Set aside

  Total

  Set aside

  Total

  £0–£5,000

  285

  2,282

  331

  2,177

  £5,001–£10,000

  13

  134

  32

  148

  £10,001–£15,000

  1

  50

  6

  79

  £15,001–£20,000

  1

  21

  3

  46

  £20,001–£25,000

  —

  8

  —

  21

  £25,001–£50,000

  —

  12

  —

  25

  £50,001–£75,000

  —

  —

  —

  11

  £75,001–£100,000

  —

  —

  —

  1

  There were no claims above £100,000.

  It is too early to estimate number of claims in 1995–96 as farmers do not have to submit their IACS applications until 15 May.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of payments under the arable area payments scheme(a) for set-aside and (b) in total in Wales in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) in 1994–95 and what is his estimate of the cost of payments in 1995–96. [18631]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Total payments under the arable area payments scheme for(a) set-aside amounted to £617,380 in 1993–94 and £1,104,525 in 1994–95 and (b) in total amounted to £5,526,389 in 1993–94 and £7,923,953 in 1994–95. It is too early to estimate payments for 1995–96 as farmers do not have to submit their IACS applications until 15 May.

  Green Policy
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will name the green Minister for his Department and list(a) the green initiatives taken by that Minister in respect of the Department's functions, (b) the representations made by the Minister in respect of functions carried out by other Departments and (c) the input made by the Minister into consultations on the Environment Bill. [18651]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is the "Green Minister" for the Welsh Office, having special responsibility for its environmental policies and programmes. Details of these can be found in the latest Welsh Office departmental report, Cm 2815, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The proceedings of Cabinet and Cabinet committees, and communications between Ministers, are confidential. However, the latest position on the Government's overall strategy on the environment is set out in "This Common Inheritance—UK Annual Report 1995", Cm 2822, a copy of which is also available in the Library of the House.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will outline the measures taken, facilities offered and adjustments made in his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to facilitate access for disabled people; what plans he has to improve access; and if he will make a statement. [18585]

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department has a disabled persons officer to identify needs of disabled people and to ensure that a range of specialist facilities and services are provided in meeting those needs wherever it is safe and practicable to do so. At office buildings, these include reserved car parking, adaptations to entrances and building layouts, toilets, modifications to lifts and service installations, vehicles, furniture, telephones, computers and other office equipment. The Cadw agency also makes special arrangements for easy access to monuments which the disabled people can visit in safety; full details are published in a Cadw information sheet for people with disabilities.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will produce further guidance notes to footnote (7) to appendix 1 in his departmental report published on 9 March, when he has reached agreement with the local authorities and the other bodies eligible for funding for infrastructure projects from the European regional development fund on the split between allocation to local authorities and the other eligible bodies for the year 1995–96 to 1997–98, and if he will make a statement. [14762]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 March 1995]: At no point does the Department agree with the various sponsors of ERDF projects any split between the allocations to local authorities and other eligible bodies. The distribution of the resources under the objective 2 and 5b programmes is made by the technical working groups of the monitoring committees on a project-by-project basis. Decisions are taken throughout the life of these programmes on the basis of agreed selection criteria.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by his Department in each year since 1979–80; and how many such questions received a substantive answer within 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18455]

  (2) how many parliamentary questions to his Department requesting a priority written answer or answer on a named day, were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further five, 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18456]

  (3) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report; [18457]

  (4) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has written to an hon. or right hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question. [18458]

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is a matter of public record but it could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) how many parliamentary questions to his Department were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence; [18459]

  (2) how many parliamentary questions to his Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report, in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence. [18460]

  Mr. Newton
  None. I am not responsible for any non-departmental public bodies or agencies.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Pension Fund
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he received the report by the Government Actuary on the valuation of the parliamentary contribution pension fund as at 1 April; when the report was laid on the Table; and when copies of it were placed in the Vote Office of the House. [18768]

  Mr. Newton
  I received the report on 28 March; copies were sent to the right hon. Member and other trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund on 29 March; it was laid on the Table on 30 March and copies were placed in the Vote Office on 4 April.

  Secretarial Allowance and Pensions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress he has made on taking forward recommendations made by the Senior Salaries Review Body on the temporary secretarial allowance and secretarial pensions; and if he will make a statement. [17509]

  Mr. Newton
  A number of modifications are proposed to take account of practical problems identified in the report and representations from a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Lady herself. These have been approved by Madam Speaker. The Accountant is writing to all hon. Members with details of the modifications, which are being implemented with effect from 1 April 1995.

  Parliamentary Channel
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what representation he has received about the cost to subscribers to Videotron's Option 1 of receiving the Parliamentary channel. [16626]

  Mr. Newton
  No such representations have been received.

  Lord Advocate
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his letter, on what aspects of the Lockerbie case the Lord Advocate can volunteer a statement to the Scottish Grand Committee. [18095]

  Mr. Newton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate cannot properly volunteer a statement on aspects of a particular criminal case. Although the Lord Advocate can make a statement to the Scottish Grand Committee under Standing Order No. 94D(2)(a) to facilitate his questioning by members of the Committee about a matter relating to his officials' responsibilities, to the extent that they fall within the order of reference of the Scottish Affairs Committee established under Standing Order No. 130, the consideration of individual cases is excluded under that standing order. In this regard, the Lockerbie case is no different from any other current criminal case.

  In addition, provision is made under Standing Order No. 94D(2)(b) for a Law Officer to announce the policy of the Government on a matter relating to Scotland or the response of the Government to an event relating to Scotland. However, having regard to the interests of justice, it would be improper for the Lord Advocate to make any announcement giving details of the evidence or any investigative steps in relation to any criminal case while proceedings are pending. Once again, in this regard the Lockerbie case is no different from any other criminal case.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his letter, in what circumstances the Lord Advocate can attend the Scottish Grand Committee. [18094]

  Mr. Newton
  The Lord Advocate, who is not a member of the Scottish Grand Committee, may attend the Committee by virtue of Standing Order No. 94D. Under paragraph (1) of that standing order, the Chairman of the Committee may permit a Scottish Law Officer, whether or not a member of the Committee, to make a statement, of which prior notice has been given to him, and to answer
  1131
  questions thereon put by members of the Committee. Paragraph (4) provides that a Law Officer who is not a member of the Committee may not make a statement from the body of the Committee, and shall not vote, make any motion or be counted in the quorum.

  Press Gallery
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will arrange improvements to the comfort of the seating in the Press Gallery.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  No improvements are presently planned. If the hon. Member has specific proposals, he should write to the Director of Parliamentary Works.

  Parliamentary Data and Video Network
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee when GroupWise was promised for the PDVN; when it was delivered for DOS and Windows users; when it will be working for Apple Macintosh users; and how much Novell will have to pay for late delivery.

  Mr. Waller
  GroupWise is version 4 of the software package formerly known as WordPerfect Office which constitutes the main user software for the Parliamentary Data and Video Network. A useable version of GroupWise version 4.1 for Windows was delivered on 15 November 1994. A version for DOS was received by instalments soon afterwards and is still being evaluated. The final sections of the UK version for Apple will be provided in early May 1995.

  The agreement with WordPerfect which was due to expire at the end of February 1995 was renegotiated with Novell, which has now taken over the WordPerfect corporation, for an additional year, compensating the House for the fact that it was not possible to upgrade from WordPerfect Office version 3 to GroupWise version 4 during 1993–1994.

  Fire Officers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many fire officers are employed full and part time in the Palace of Westminster; who pays for them; what is the cost to public funds and what has been the cost to public funds, with particular reference to the Palace and its estate, of implementing fire regulations.

  Mr. Beith
  The agreed complement of the Palace of Westminster fire section is one principal fire officer, four senior fire officers and 24 fire officers. Members of the fire section are civilian employees of the Metropolitan police. The cost of the service to the House of Commons was £570,000 in the last financial year. During the period 1993 to 1999, an average expenditure of approximately £1 million per annum has been planned towards meeting fire safety requirements throughout the parliamentary estate.

  Family Mediation Exhibition
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to family mediation services to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.
  1132
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Tuesday 6 June to Friday 9 June 1995.

  Energy Efficiency
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what measures were taken in 1994 to improve energy efficiency in the Palace of Westminster and increase recycling facilities in the Palace of Westminster; and what is the percentage of(a) stationery used within the Palace of Westminster which is made of recycled material and (b) paper, tin, plastic and glass waste produced in the Palace of Westminster which is recycled.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  A report by the Director of Works entitled "Energy Conservation on the Parliamentary Estate" dated 20 June 1994 describes the measures being taken and is available in the Library. During the financial year 1993–94, approximately 30 per cent. of stationery provided for Members' use from the Serjeant at Arms's store was made of recycled material. All non-confidential waste paper, glass, plastic and recycled metal is recycled.

TRANSPORT

  Railways (Safety Plan)
  Mr. Budgen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received the railway group safety plan for 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [19305]

  Mr. Watts
  The Railtrack board has now submitted a 1995 safety plan for Britain's national railway network. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The plan sets out strategic safety objectives for 1995–96, reports safety performance by British Rail and Railtrack in 1994–95 and gives details of the arrangements for managing safety on the railway. The objectives are designed to maintain safety and to set strategic objectives to improve it wherever practicable. Railtrack and operators have developed programmes and action plans designed to achieve their individual and shared objectives. The plan is also an important companion to railway safety cases, and will ensure that full and proper attention is paid to safety during the privatisation process.

  RAF Northolt
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans the Government have to assist business aviation at RAF Northolt; and if he will make a statement. [19247]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government carried out a consultation exercise last year with business users on the possibility of creating a civil enclave at RAF Northolt to make better use of the existing capacity. Responses showed that the high capital costs and physical constraints would make this financially unviable. The Government do not intend to pursue this proposal.

  However, it is clear that the business aviation industry would welcome increased activity at Northolt through extending shared use of the facilities. The Government

  1133
  will consult further with the industry, and take into account the views of the local communities and other interested parties, to identify detailed working arrangements at Northolt which could improve the service offered to users and to business in the south-east more generally.

  Driving Licences (Fitness to Drive)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total number of motorists who, since the implementation of the Road Traffic Act 1988, have notified the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of(a) any disability or condition that affects their fitness to drive or which might do so in the future and (b) the proportion of this total that have glaucoma. [17870]

  Mr. Norris
  Between January 1989 and December 1994, the DVLA received 2,016,601 notification of medical conditions—some drivers would have submitted more than one notification in that period. The number of notifications of glaucoma from January 1992 to December 1994 was 11,211. Figures prior to 1992 are not available.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what publicity measures his Department have taken to inform drivers of their requirement under the Road Traffic Act 1988 to notify the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of any disability or condition that affects their fitness to drive or which might do so in the future. [17871]

  Mr. Norris
  Every driving licence carries a note reminding the holder of his obligation to notify the DVLA of the worsening of an existing medical condition or the onset of a new condition. Leaflet INS 57 which is issued with every driving licence carries a similar message.

  Leaflet D100 "What you need to know about driving licences", available from most post offices, carries more detailed information.

  Between February 1994 and January 1995, a leaflet aimed at older drivers which reinforced the medical requirements was issued with all vehicle excise licence reminders.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will outline the measures taken, facilities offered and adjustments made in his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to facilitate access for disabled people; what plans he has to improve access; and if he will make a statement. [18600]

  Mr. Norris
  Advice about space planning and risk assessment for people with disabilities has been issued to my Department's property managers. They have been asked to improve access to and within buildings.

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96 (est)

  DVLA

  a) TV

  Nil

  33,000

  121,000

  101,000

  551,000

  n/a

  b) Radio

  74,000

  87,000

  137,000

  88,000

  79,000

  n/a

  c) Press (including recruitment)

  67,213

  55,329

  106,077

  99,000

  25,000

  n/a

  d) Other

  363,000

  178,000

  304,000

  422,000

  87,000

  n/a

  e) Total

  504,213

  353,329

  668,077

  710,000

  742,000

  n/a

  Internet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the Internet electronic mail addresses of(a) his Department and (b) each Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement on his Department's approach to the information superhighway. [17734]

  Mr. Norris
  Neither the Department centrally, nor Ministers, have Internet addresses. The Transport Research Laboratory and several hundred staff in the Department have Internet mail addresses used for specific aspects of their work. The Department is currently reviewing the scope for wider use of the Internet in planning new internal and external electronic mail facilities for installation in 1996.

  Railways (Passenger Service Requirements)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the basis for the passenger service requirements; and how long his Department has been researching passenger service requirements as a way of improving the rail system. [17369]

  Mr. Watts
  The guidance issued to the franchising director by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport requires him to ensure that passenger service requirements for the first franchises are based upon the timetable being operated by BR immediately prior to franchising. A copy of an explanatory note setting out the franchising director's approach to, and criteria for, setting these passenger service requirements has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The White Paper "New Opportunities for the Railways:the Privatisation of British Rail"—July 1992, CM 2012—set out proposals for specifying service levels in franchise agreements as an important element in our plans for improving passenger services.

  Public Bodies
  Mrs. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list each non-departmental public body and agency for which he has responsibility and, for each, list separate figures for the spending by that body or agency on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotional materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising for each year since 1979–80 or for each year of its existence if it has been created since then; and what are his latest estimates of (a) to (f) for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17640]

  Mr. Norris
  The information on non-departmental public bodies and agencies is not held centrally, nor are figures readily available elsewhere. Such data as could be obtained without incurring disproportionate costs are in the following table.
  1135

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96 (est)

  f) Recruitment (percentage of total)

  0.44

  0.09

  0.31

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Traffic Director for London1

  f) Recruitment

  —

  Nil

  11,647

  9,812

  29,306

  30,000

  London Regional Passengers Committee (LRPC)1

  f) (Recruitment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,410

  n/a

  Northern Lighthouse Board1

  f) (Recruitment

  5,097

  17,335

  5,291

  6,227

  5,731

  5,000

  Trinity House Lighthouse Service1

  f) (Recruitment

  5,000

  14,000

  10,000

  16,000

  11,000

  15,000

  Traffic Commissioners1

  f) (Recruitment

  —

  —

  13,919

  —

  —

  13,000

  VI1

  f) Recruitment

  43,503

  29,566

  11,635

  5,562

  904

  Nil

  Highways Agency1

  f) Recruitment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  36,541

  n/a

  VCA1

  f) Recruitment

  —

  200

  —

  626

  1,547

  1,500

  TRL1

  f) Recruitment

  —

  —

  n/a

  40,000

  50,000

  70,000

  DSA1

  f) Recruitment

  49,000

  800,000

  Nil

  10,000

  34,000

  12,000

  Marine Safety Agency1

  f) Recruitment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12,181

  15,000

  The Coastguard Agency1

  f) Recruitment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23,458

  21,000

  1 No above the line advertising (a to d).

  Green Policy
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will name the green Minister for his Department and list(a) the green initiatives taken by that Minister in respect of the Department's functions, (b) the representations made by the Minister in respect of functions carried out by other departments and (c) the input made by the Minister into consultations on the Environment Bill. [18646]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I am the green Minister for the Department of Transport but all my ministerial colleagues share a common objective of promoting transport policies compatible with sustainable development.

  My aims for transport, as set out in "This Common Inheritance 1995" are to develop appropriate national and local strategies and measures for reducing the need to travel and to encourage more sustainable and environmentally acceptable patterns of transport.

  I have been fully involved in consultations on the Environment Bill.

  Private Detective Agencies
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total cost to date, and what is the current cost per month, of his Department's and the Highways Agency's use of(a) Brays private detective agency, and (b) other private detective agencies and if he
  1136
  will give a breakdown of those costs per road scheme or project.

  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 Laurie Haynes to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 5 April 1995:
  Mr. John Watts has asked me to write in reply to your Parliamentary Question about the use by the Department of Transport and the Highways Agency of Brays and other private detective agencies in connection with road schemes.
  Detective agencies have been employed by solicitors, on behalf of the Department on the following schemes. The information you requested is below. All but £200 of the payments, marked *, were to Brays Detective Agency.

  Road scheme

  Paid to date £

  Estimated ongoing monthly cost £

  A12 Hackney Wick to M11 Link Road

  294,000

  25,000

  A4/A6 Batheaston/Swainswick Bypass

  150,000

  Nil

  M3 Bar End-Compton

  259,000

  Nil

  M65 Blackburn Southern

  1,500

  Bypass

  *200

  Nil

  1137

  Road scheme

  Paid to date £

  Estimated ongoing monthly cost £

  A34 Newbury Bypass

  300

  Nil

  A11 Besthorpe-Wymondham

  450

  Nil

  Total of all above

  705,450

  25,000

  The figures have been rounded. I hope this is sufficient for your purposes.

  Disabled People (Transec)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the facilities for staff with disability provided in the new accommodation occupied by the transport security division; and if he will give full financial and technical details regarding lifts and arrangements for the evacuation of disabled staff in the case of an emergency. [17904]

  Mr. Norris
  Transec's accommodation provides facilities for visitors and staff with disabilities. These include parking spaces, access ramps suitable for wheelchairs and a special toilet. The landlord is responsible for ensuring that the lifts comply with all legal requirements and for meeting any costs. A copy of Transec's incident control procedures, which include emergency arrangements for the evacuation of all staff, will be placed in the Library.

  Railway Passenger Services Funding
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State (1) what amount and type of funding will be made available to the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive to support local railway services after the expiry of metropolitan railways grant; [18021]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to announce replacement funding for metropolitan railways grant before May; and if he will notify passenger transport executives of the arrangements in sufficient time to allow them to support services under a seven-year franchise. [18022]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend proposes to replace the current temporary arrangements, whereby revenue support for railway passenger services funded by English passenger transport executives is divided between revenue support grant and metropolitan railway grant, with an enhanced RSG with effect from 1996–97. The proposed arrangements for allocating the enhanced RSG to PTEs have been set out in a consultation paper, which has been circulated to the PTEs with an invitation to comment by the middle of April. We intend to announce a final decision on future funding for PTE supported railway passenger services shortly after that date.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by his Department in each year since 1979–80; and how many such questions received a substantive answer within 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18505]

  (2) how many parliamentary questions to his Department in each year since 1979–80 requesting a
  1138
  priority written answer or answer on a named day, were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further five, 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18506]

  (3) how many parliamentary questions to his Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence; [18510]

  (4) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has written to a right hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question; [18508]

  (5) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report; [18507]

  (6) how many parliamentary questions to his Department were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence. [18509]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is a matter of public record, but could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Coach Parking, London
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy for providing coach parks in central London, with particular reference to coaches bringing tourists to visit the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey; and if he will make a statement. [18096]

  Mr. Norris
  It is for the London boroughs to provide coach parking facilities. With this Department's encouragement, discussions between the boroughs, the coach and tourist industries and others have recently brought significant improvements, including the provision of 150 new coach spaces in central London.

  Pedestrian Rights
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to the implementation of the European charter of pedestrian rights. [18235]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government endorse the intentions of the charter to promote the principle of pedestrians as road users, but we do not believe that it would be practicable to adopt all of its detailed requirements.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Under-Secretary of State for Transport will reply to the letters from Mr. Brian Bostock, dated 20 February and 8 March. [18264]

  Mr. Norris
  I replied to Mr. Bostock's letter of 8 March on 28 March. My Department has no trace of his letter of 20 February.

  Railway Noise Barriers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost per metre of(a) reflective and (b) absorbent railway noise barriers of a common height. [18397]

  Mr. Watts
  Railway noise barriers vary in height, but the most commonly used are 2m high. The comparative costs per linear metre at this height are £210 for a reflective barrier and £340 for an absorptive barrier. The costs quoted are for barriers alongside a new railway line and include installation.

  Defective Public Service Vehicles
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances a public service passenger vehicle may remain in service with a defective speedometer or tachograph. [18263]

  Mr. Norris
  It is an offence to use, cause or permit to be used any vehicle on a road which does not comply with the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 which include provisions relating to speedometers and recording equipment.

  In addition, under European legislation, in the event of a breakdown or faulty operation of a tachograph, the employer must have it repaired by an approved fitter or workshop as soon as circumstances permit or, if the vehicle is unable to return to the premises within one week, en route.

  Pedestrian Zones
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has undertaken into the extent to which restrictions on vehicles entering pedestrian-only zones are flouted. [18234]

  Mr. Norris
  None. Local authorities are solely responsible for the day-to-day administration of their pedestrian zones.

DEFENCE

  Phoenix
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when a decision will be taken on the future of the Phoenix remotely piloted vehicle programme; and if he will make a statement. [18774]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Ministry of Defence has reviewed the Phoenix programme to determine how best to proceed in the light of delays to the programme and remaining technical problems.

  Subject to the satisfactory conclusion of an agreement with the prime contractor, GEC-Marconi Avionics, we have decided that an additional programme of work on Phoenix should be undertaken to resolve the remaining technical difficulties and to demonstrate satisfactory system performance over a series of rigorous flight trials. This programme of work, which will last about one year, will be undertaken at the contractor's expense. The MOD will make no further payments to the company for the supply of Phoenix until the successful completion of the programme.
  1140
  We believe that, provided the remaining technical problems can be overcome within an acceptable time scale, the Phoenix system will provide a cost-effective means of meeting the Army's need for an unmanned airborne surveillance system. Should GMAv fail at any stage to demonstrate satisfactory progress during the programme of work, the Ministry of Defence will, however, be prepared to cancel the project. While the work is in progress we will, therefore, examine potential alternative systems, in case it does not prove practicable to bring Phoenix up to an acceptable standard.

  The prime contractor's undertaking to carry out the necessary work at its own cost and risk will require the company to apply considerable additional resources. We welcome this substantial commitment on its part, which reflects the confidence expressed at the most senior levels of the company in its ability to produce an effective system. In the meantime, the position of the Ministry of Defence and the interests of the taxpayer have been fully protected.

  Defence Accounts Agency
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the first three-year review of the Defence Accounts Agency have now been completed; and if he will make a statement. [18775]

  Mr. Freeman
  The review of the first three years of operation of the Defence Accounts Agency has now been completed and I have placed a consultative document, summarising its findings; the options for the future; and the proposed way ahead in the Library of the House.

  The Ministry of Defence has also now considered the future of the proposed Defence Accounts Agency mainframe rationalisation project. We have decided in the light of the conclusions of the review, that it would not now be appropriate to proceed with this project.

  Service Career and Manpower Structures
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his policy towards performance-related pay for the Armed Forces; [18297]

  (2) what consideration he is giving to a reduction in the number of ranks in (a) the Army, (b) the Royal Air Force and (c) the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement; [18299]

  (3) when he expects to make a statement concerning the Bett report. [18298]

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: My right hon. Friend, the then Minister for the Armed Forces, announced on 9 February 1994, Official Report, column 361, the intention, in the light of changes in military commitments and deployment patterns, to set in hand a major independent review of service career and manpower structures and terms and conditions of service, to ensure that we will have personnel and management arrangements appropriate to the early part of the 21st century. The review was to be wide-ranging in accordance with the terms of reference set out on 30 March 1994, Official Report, columns 748–49. It was also to take into account the implications of the front line first exercise. In that context, the Government have made it clear that, following the decisions that have been taken on the size, capabilities and roles of the armed forces for the post-cold war world, the armed forces are now set on a steady

  1141
  course for the future. Mr. Michael Bett was appointed to lead the review.

  Mr. Bett and his team have completed their review; I received their report, "Managing People in Tomorrow's Armed Forces", on 30 March. Mr. Bett has consulted extensively within the armed forces and within my Department. He has made some 150 recommendations which cover the whole field of rank and career structures, pay and allowance structures and pensions, housing and accommodation policies and wider conditions of service. As Mr. Bett says, his intention has been to ensure that the armed forces continue to hold their own against civilian competitors, in recruiting and retaining high quality people. We are most grateful to Mr. Bett and his team for all their work.

  Mr. Bett has undertaken an independent review; we now need to consider his recommendations. Our initial examination is likely to take several weeks, and will include a consideration of the amount of further study and development required to validate Mr. Bett's proposals. I shall make a further statement about our general approach at the end of that period. Thereafter, there will need to be a further, more lengthy development period before a final definitive response to the report can be made.

  Throughout this process, I intend that, as for front line first, the armed forces themselves should be fully involved. Service personnel will be encouraged to submit their comments, which we shall consider carefully. In the meantime, to assist in the consultation process, Mr. Bett's report is being published today. A copy of the report is being distributed to every unit of the armed forces, together with an explanatory leaflet for every service man and woman. Copies of the report and leaflet are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Internet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Internet electronic mail addresses of(a) his Department and (b) each Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement on his Department's approach to the information super-highway. [17739]

  Mr. Freeman
  For security reasons, the MOD does not use Internet electronic mail widely for communication within this Department. This function is served by the Department's own secure electronic mail facility within its corporate headquarters office technology system.

  Departmental Internet electronic mail addresses are not centrally co-ordinated within MOD and no list is available. However, there are estimated to be several hundred personal addresses rising to more than a thousand if the Defence Research Agency is included. There are no personal Internet electronic mail addressees for MOD Ministers.

  The Department's approach to the information super-highway is that it may be used where appropriate. For example, the Department's press releases are issued electronically through the Central Office of Information and are accessible to users of Internet via Data-Star dialog (Europe) or Mead/Lexis/Nexis.

  RAF Strategic Deterrent Force
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what review process was adopted in regard to the official history commissioned from Humphrey Wynn on 1142
  the RAF strategic nuclear deterrent forces, published by HMSO. [17519]

  Mr. Soames
  Humphrey Wynn's official history on the RAF strategic nuclear deterrent forces was reviewed in accordance with the initiatives set out in paragraph 9.28 of the White Paper on Open Government, Cmd 2290, and released under the provisions of section 5(1) of the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967.

  Aircraft Crashes
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what post-crash investigations into the possibility of toxic contamination are conducted by or on behalf of his Department in the event of accidents involving RAF or Royal Naval aircraft. [17517]

  Mr. Soames
  An RAF environmental health officer is held at immediate readiness at all times to attend aircraft crash sites to identify hazards. The EHO's role is to provide occupational hygiene advice and monitoring for other personnel attending the crash site and environmental monitoring of the site to advise on soil and water contamination.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will establish an investigation into the recent allegations published in Newfoundland that an RAF Canberra aircraft carrying radioactive samples crashed at Goose bay, Newfoundland in 1957. [17518]

  Mr. Soames
  I am unaware of these allegations. I can confirm that an RAF Canberra crashed in the vicinity of Goose bay, Labrador, on 16 May 1957. An investigation into the incident was conducted at the time, and I know of no reason to reopen it.

  Airport Use
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for transport in respect of the possibility of using BAe-owned airports for civilian use in areas where current civilian airports are overcrowded. [17377]

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

  Disabled Former Service Personnel
  Mr. Jim Cunnigham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he is making to ensure that those disabled former members of the armed forces are assisted in finding insurance to meet mortgage interest payments. [17374]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department makes no specific arrangements to assist disabled former members of the armed forces in finding insurance to meet mortgage interest payments. All service personnel discharged on medical grounds are advised by a resettlement advice officer on how best to prepare for entry to civilian life, and this advice covers a number of aspects such as employment, housing and financial matters.

  Major Projects (Late Running)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to remedy the late running of major defence projects; and what was the total amount of cost overruns in the current financial year. [17375]
  1143
  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has instituted several initiatives in recent years to improve the timeliness of delivery of major projects. These initiatives include tauter contracting; improved risk management; better training and guidance for project managers; and procedures for better estimation of in-service dates. Information on Defence equipment cost control performance was published in March 1995 in the MOD's departmental report, Cm 2801, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Nigeria (Visits)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the exact dates of visits by officials in his Department to Nigeria since June 1993 and the reason for the visit in each case. [17777]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department does not hold a central record of visits by officials overseas nor could one be provided except at disproportionate cost. No official visits to Nigeria since June 1993 have been identified.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the exact dates of ministerial visits to Nigeria since June 1993 listing the Ministers and the reasons for the visit in each case. [17782]

  Mr. Freeman
  There have been no visits to Nigeria by Ministers in my Department since June 1993.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures his Department will be implementing to ensure that all future transfers of military, security and police equipment, including dual-use technologies, will comply with the European Parliament resolution, passed on 19th January. [17781]

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology to him.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the effect on the marine environment of any leakage of the contents of the ships scuttled in the Irish Sea in the mid-1950s; [17849]

  (2) on how many occasions since 1965 ordnance, nerve gases and other noxious agents have been dumped at sea. [17851]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 448, 3 February, Official Report, column 890, and 31 March, Official Report, columns 875–76, to the hon. Members for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald).

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy for getting rid of surplus ordnance and chemical and biological weapons. [17850]

  Mr. Soames
  Surplus conventional munitions are disposed of by demolition, open burning or breakdown. The UK no longer holds stocks of chemical weapon munitions, and any old chemical weapons munitions found in the UK are transferred to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down, where rounds are individually analysed and the chemical agent 1144
  "fill" disposed of by incineration. Biological weapons were abandoned by the UK in the 1950s: there has been no recent requirement to dispose of any such weapons.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that nerve gases, bombs and other noxious agents dumped in the North sea in the mid-1950s do not pose a threat to coastal areas of the United Kingdom and Ireland and to the marine environment. [17852]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no knowledge of dumping of any chemical munitions or their agents in the North sea in the 1950s.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the reason for the low-level pass over Bessacarr, Doncaster, by an RAF jet at 19.28 on 23 March. [17833]

  Mr. Soames
  Two formations of two United States Air Force F-15 aircraft were authorised to fly in the general area around this time, and an investigation is underway to establish whether these aircraft flew at low level over Bessacarr. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State will write to the hon. Member when this is complete.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of the training exercise which brought eight Tornado aircraft from RAF Bruggen to Barnoldswick on 30 January. [17853]

  Mr. Soames
  The cost of the training sortie was £117,000. As the hon. Member is aware from my answer of 10 February,Official Report, column 463, an investigation is under way to establish whether the aircraft flew over Barnoldswick.

  Tornado Crashes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 March,Official Report, column 397, how many RAF personnel or civilians were killed or injured as a result of the Tornado crashes. [17806]

  Mr. Soames
  A total of 17 RAF personnel and two civilians were killed in the Tornado crashes referred to.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 March,Official Report, column 397, what reasons have been established for each of the Tornado crashes. [17804]

  Mr. Soames
  Summaries of the RAF boards of inquiry into all but four of the crashes referred to in the question can be found in the Library of the House. Boards of inquiry into the remaining four are still under way and copies of the summary of their findings will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 March,Offical Report, column 397, what was the replacement cost of the 27 Tornado aircraft lost since 1981. [17805]

  Mr. Soames
  Of the 27 Tornado aircraft which crashed over the UK land area or at sea in UK waters, four have been repaired. No replacement costs arise for the remaining 23 aircraft since there is an attrition reserve
  1145
  from which aircraft are taken to replace those lost. Records are not maintained centrally of other costs which may arise from an accident, such as aircraft salvage or third party claims.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 March,Offical Report, column 397, if any of the 17 Tornados which crashed on land did so in built up-area. [17807]

  Mr. Soames
  No.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF Tornado aircraft have crashed since 1983 outside United Kingdom land and United Kingdom-controlled sea(a) in military operations, (b) as a result of pilot error and (c) due to mechanical or similar failure. [17848]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) six Tornados crashed during combat sorties during the Gulf conflict.

  Completed RAF boards of inquiry concluded that:

  (b) six Tornados have crashed as a result of aircrew error;

  (c) three Tornados have crashed as a result of mechanical or similar failure.

  Sarin
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the chemical agent Sarin was stored at RAF Llandwrog. [17893]

  Mr. Soames
  No Sarin was stored at RAF Llandwrog.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many parliamentary questions to his Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence; [18454]

  (2) how many parliamentary questions to his Department in each year since 1979–80 requesting a priority written answer or answer on a named day were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further five, 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18450]

  (3) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has written to a right hon. or hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question; [18452]

  (4) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report; [18451]

  (5) how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by his Department in each year since 1979–80; and how many such questions received a substantive answer within 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18449]

  (6) how many parliamentary questions to his Department were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence. [18453]
  1146
  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is a matter of public record but it could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, for 1992–93 and 1993–94, separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotional materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising; and what are his latest estimates for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17617]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost of aid in each of the last five financial years from his Department to states of the former Soviet Union; and from which subheads of which votes this expenditure has been taken. [18126]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Ministry of Defence's programme of promoting bilateral defence cooperation and contacts with central and eastern Europe—including the states of the former Soviet Union—began in 1993–94 and involved expenditure of £70,000 under vote 1E1, in that same year. The budget for 1994–95 was increased to £200,000. In addition, the MOD has on occasion agreed to waive costs of training provided to central and eastern European countries where the aims serve defence interests. The total of these waivers was £77,000 in 1993–94 and £456,000 in 1994–95.

  The Ministry of Defence is also assisting Russia in the removal of nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles to destruction sites. The total costs of this fall to vote 3B4 and are:

  1992–93: £2.2 million

  1993–94: £13.4 million

  1994–95: £16.6 million

  Trident
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the total cost of procurement for the Trident system in(a) the current financial year and (b) the financial year 1995–96; and from which subheads of which votes this expenditure is taken; [18130]

  (2) what is the total cost of running the strategic weapons system in (a) the current financial year and (b) the financial year 1995–96; and from which subheads of which votes this expenditure is taken; [18128]

  (3) what is the total cost of construction in support of the Trident programme at Faslane and Coulport in (a) the current financial year and (b) the financial year 1995–96; and from which subheads of which votes this expenditure is taken. [18131]

  Mr. Freeman
  Estimated expenditure in 1994–95 and 1995–96, where available, is as follows:
  1147

  1994–95 £ million

  1995–96 £ million

  Subhead vote

  Trident System1

  696.0

  456.0

  2n/a

  Strategic Weapon System Running Costs (Polaris and Trident missiles)

  386.5

  4n/a

  2A1, 2A2, 3C2, 3D2

  Trident Construction Programme (Faslane and Coulport)

  42.0

  6.2

  3D1

  Notes:

  1 As well as all costs associated with the submarine and its weapons and other systems, the figures include the shore construction costs which are also shown separately in the table.

  2 Details of the vote subheads of all acquisition costs attributable to the Trident system are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  3 This figure includes the cost of repairs, spares and technical, storage and engineering services provided by contractors and MOD at various locations in support of the UK's Polaris and Trident missiles.

  4 Estimated costs for 1995–96 are not yet available.

  Mutual Defence Co-operation Agreement
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost to his Department of the administrative expenses of the mutual defence co-operation agreement with the United States of America. [18124]

  Mr. Freeman
  Administrative tasks associated with business conducted under the aegis of the 1958 UK/US mutual defence agreement are mostly handled by the atomic control office, London and the atomic co-ordinating offices at Aldermaston and Washington. The costs of these tasks are not calculated separately.

  Nuclear Submarine Decommissioning Costs
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost of provision for nuclear submarine decommissioning costs in(a) the current financial year and (b) the financial year 1995–96; and from which subheads of which votes this expenditure is taken. [18132]

  Mr. Freeman
  The estimated cost of decommissioning nuclear submarines in 1994–95 was £4.3 million and the provision for 1995–96 is £9.2 million. These costs are attributed to class I vote 2, subhead 2A21.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the variation in expenditure from Class I, Vote 1, Subhead B4 of his Department's budget for the last three years. [18125]

  Mr. Soames
  There is no such subhead. There is, however, a subhead B4 in class I vote 3.

  The year-on-year variations against this subhead reflect the progress of this programme, which peaked in 1994–95 and is now nearing completion.

  Nuclear Equipment Exports
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the timetable for delivery of nuclear warhead containers and transport equipment to Russia. [18127]

  Mr. Freeman
  To date, 155 super-containers have been delivered. The remaining 95 will be delivered in two shipments which will be made in April and June of this year.

  Production of the transport equipment has been completed. Delivery of the truck cargo heavy duty (Russia) (TCHD(R))s has slipped from the original schedule, due to difficulties of siting support staff in Russia. These have now been resolved and deliveries are expected to commence in the middle of this year, completion being by early March 1996.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has an on-going requirement for carrying out nuclear tests in relation to the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile. [18121]

  Mr. Freeman
  We have a responsibility to ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons and we are currently studying how best to meet this requirement.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy in relation to hydro-nuclear experiments and the proposed comprehensive test ban treaty. [18147]

  Mr. Freeman
  We are negotiating in good faith a comprehensive test ban treaty with an effective verification regime. We are studying how best to meet our responsibility to ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons under such a treaty.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost of running the Atomic Weapons Establishment in(a) the current financial year and (b) the financial year 1995–96; and from which subheads of which votes this expenditure is taken. [18129]

  Mr. Freeman
  The costs of the defence nuclear programme have been regarded by successive Governments as inappropriate for public disclosure. With contractorisation, AWE operating costs have also become commercially sensitive.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who, within his Department, is to be authorised to have direct access to the police national computer; and what procedures are being established for ensuring that information gained from this source is handled correctly. [18133]

  Mr. Soames
  As a fully constituted and recognised police force, the Ministry of Defence police have for some time had direct access to the police national computer. The procedures in place to ensure that information is handled correctly are those issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Direct access to the specific transaction for security vetting has also been approved for the Department's security vetting organisations. The service, which has not yet been implemented, will be subject to a memorandum of agreement with the Home Office which will set out

  1149
  the operating procedures and the purposes for which the information will be used.

  British Meat
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what percentage by value of meat purchasing contracts placed by his Department is the origin of the meat specified; what percentage is specified as British meat; what percentage is specified only as imported meat; and what percentage is specified as British or imported meat. [18347]

  Mr. Freeman
  Since 1 October 1994, the supply of food to the armed forces has been the responsibility of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute. My Department does not specify the source from which meat should be obtained.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent by his Department in the last year for which figures are available on British meat; and how much was spent on imported meat. [18346]

  Mr. Freeman
  Contract specifications for the supply of meat to the armed forces are concerned with quality and price and do not stipulate the source from which meat should be obtained. The information requested is therefore not available.

  Transport (Royal Family)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the costs for the last two years and what are the estimated costs for the current year and the next two years of(a) the royal yacht, (b) the Queen's flight, (c) royal flights in civil aircraft and (d) equerries. [18049]

  Mr. Soames
  Actual and estimated expenditure in support of the royal family borne by my Department on class I votes is as follows:

  £ thousands

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–951

  1995–962

  Royal yacht

  8,361

  8,397

  11,090

  8,411

  Queen's Flight3

  7,590

  9,105

  8,893

  n/a

  Royal flights in civil aircraft

  9

  140

  160

  480

  Equerries

  170

  316

  319

  292

  Notes:

  1 Current forecast of outturn.

  2 Amount included within the Class I 1995–96 Supply Estimates presented to the House on 23 March 1995.

  3 Total operating cost. The Queen's Flight has not been used exclusively by the Royal Family, and it would not therefore be possible to allocate expenditure to users without disproportionate cost. On 1 April the Queen's Flight was merged with 32 Squadron to become No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron. A disaggregated element of the cost of royal flying is being established.

  We do not publish detailed future plans, as approval to commit expenditure is subject to formal endorsement through Ministers and the parliamentary supply system. Figures for 1996–97 are therefore not yet available.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline the measures taken, facilities offered and adjustments made in his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to facilitate access for disabled people; what plans he has to improve access; and if he 1150
  will make a statement. [18597]

  Mr. Freeman
  Because my Department does not deal with the public direct, the main thrust of our initiatives aimed at providing access and facilities for disabled people relates to our role as an employer of civilian staff. These initiatives form part of my Department's programme for action on disability called "Ability not Disability", which aims to achieve equality of opportunity for disabled people in recruitment, training and career development. One specific action within the programme is a survey of all buildings housing 100 or more staff to identify what needs to be done to make them accessible to disabled people, and to fund the necessary modifications by 1999.

  Green Policy
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will name the green minister for his Department and list(a) the green initiatives taken by that Minister in respect of the Department's functions, (b) the representations made by the Minister in respect of functions carried out by other Departments and (c) the input made by the Minister into consultations on the Environment Bill. [18656]

  Mr. Freeman
  My noble friend Lord Henley, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, is the Department's green Minister. He chairs the ministerial steering group which provides policy direction and determines appropriate environmental and energy efficiency strategies to ensure compliance with relevant United Kingdom legislation, EC directives and wider Government policy. The ministerial steering group has initiated a programme of environmental reviews of defence activities which have the potential to harm the environment. These include reviews of land contamination and the defence estate; pollution prevention procedures; the use of particularly hazardous substances and my Department's aqueous discharge and water abstraction arrangements.

  Army Vehicles
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of the trial for a replacement of the Army's Land Rover 1 tonne and three-quarter tonne ambulances. [18792]

  Mr. Freeman
  The competitive evaluation trial has been completed, and the technical reports are now in preparation. It is anticipated that a final decision on the outcome of the competition will be made in late summer with contract placement expected by early October this year.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have(a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared. [18321]

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: I have asked the chief executives of the agencies to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Jim Drew to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 5 April 1995:
  I have been asked to reply, as Chief Executive of the Army Base Repair Organisation (ABRO), to your recent Parliamentary Question

  1151
  asking the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have a) been taken over by contractors and b) disappeared.
  Since ABRO was launched as a Defence Agency on 1 April 1993, no jobs have been lost as a result of being taken over by contractors. The number of staff in the Organisation has however reduced from 3800 to 3379. A significant proportion of the reduction has been in military posts—the result of a combination of efficiency savings and a policy of transferring military posts to units providing first and second line support to Army field units. The remaining reduction is attributable to efficiency measures undertaken at the Agency's workshops.

  I hope that you find this information useful.

  Letter from Peter Trevelyan to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 3 April 1995:
  Minister (DP) has asked me to write to you on behalf of the Defence Accounts Agency in reply to your Parliamentary Question, number 7171G, in which you asked for a list of the jobs that have been lost to Agencies in the Ministry of Defence in the past two years that have (a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared.
  The Defence Accounts Agency was formed four years ago with a staff of about 2,000. Since its formation no further jobs have been transferred to it by the Ministry of Defence. The Defence Accounts Agency has neither been taken over by a contractor nor disappeared.
  I hope that this reply is satisfactory.

  Letter from Paul Altobell to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 5 April 1995:

  PQ NO 717IG
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your question about jobs lost to agencies in the past two years.
  Taking the individual parts of your question, the Defence Analytical Services Agency has:

  a. had no jobs taken over by contractors

  b. disestablished 29 posts as part of the Department wide PROSPECT initiative.

  Letter from Andrew Roache to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 5 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question No 7171G, where you ask to list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have a) been taken over by contractors and b) disappeared.
  I have interpreted your question to mean jobs lost from the agency during this period. Since the Defence Animal Centre (DAC) was launched as a Defence Agency in June 1993, no jobs have been lost as a result of being taken over by contractors.
  As a result of the MOD-wide Options for Change initiative and Defence Costs Study measures 46 military posts have been lost with effect I April 1995.

  I hope you find this information useful.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 5 April 1995:
  1. In today's written answer the Minister for State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying to your question concerning job losses in the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). DERA was formed on 1 April 1995 to bring together most of the MOD's non-nuclear science and technology resources and it includes three former MOD agencies, the Defence Research Agency (DRA), the Defence Operational Analysis Centre (DOAC), and the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE).
  2. As Chief Executive of DERA I now have responsibility for all these areas. All three agencies have undergone some structural changes as a result of their incorporation into DERA and there may be some reduction in numbers resulting from the formation of the new agency. Specific figures are not yet available.
  3. Between April 1993 and March 1995 there were 62 job losses at DOAC and 17 job losses at CBDE, none of which were contractorised; the savings have been achieved through efficiencies.
  4. The reduction in posts in the Defence Research Agency between April 1993 and March 1995 amount to 1600 of which 390
  1152
  were redeployed, the majority within DRA. These reductions have arisen from a combination of a reduction in demand for services as the disciplines of hard charging for services have led to more critical scrutiny of real need by customers, and, efficiency improvements achieved through rationalisation and streamlined processes aimed at reduced cost and improved quality. These reductions have been primarily in the support services area and comprise around 1595 full time posts whose functions have been discontinued and 5 posts which have been transferred to contractors.
  5. I hope you will find this information useful.

  Letter from Richard Kirby to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 4 April 1995:
  I have been asked by the Minister for Defence Procurement to reply to your Parliamentary Question about Defence Agency job losses. As the Chief Executive of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency (DCTA) I can brief you on the aspects affecting this area of business.
  I am pleased to say that the formation of the DCTA, on 22 November 1994, has not generated any job losses, either internally or in the private sector. Planned future re-structuring of the Agency, collocating to a single site in early 1996, together with the requirements of Defence Cost Study exercises will however undoubtedly lead to a streamlining of the business structure which in time will lead to a number of posts being lost within the organisation. We would expect these changes to be achieved through natural processes, without redundancy.

  Letter from Tweedie M. Brown to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 5 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your question about jobs transferred to agencies in the past 2 years.
  As of 1 March 1995, the Defence Postal and Courier Services Defence Agency had 487 military and civilian personnel in post. This is a reduction, in the past 2 years, of 33 of which 23 were taken over by contractors.

  Letter from Keith Ellender to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 5 April 1995:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION: AGENCIES AND JOB IOSSES
  I have been asked to reply to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence as to the number of jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have (a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared, as it affects my Agency.
  There has been a reduction of nine posts–5 UK based Civilians and 4 locally engaged employees in the Disposal Sales Agency as a result of contractorisation of the sales disposal function in Germany.

  Letter from G. H. Wilson to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 3 April 1995:
  I have been asked to reply to your PQ 7171G.
  In response to your request to list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in the Ministry of Defence in the past two years, the Duke of York's Royal Military School has lost the following:

  (a) 0.5 (Steward). Taken over by contractor.

  (b) 1.5 (Housemaids). Disappeared.

  (c) 1.0 (Instructor Officer). Disappeared.

  Letter from S. Parnell to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 5 April 1995:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION—PQ 7171G
  You recently asked The Secretary of State for Defence to list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have (a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared.
  During the period 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1995 the number of staff directly employed by the Hydrographic Office Defence Agency has reduced by 29. No jobs were lost to contractors. All reductions are ascribed to efficiency improvements.

  Letter from Alan Pollard to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 5 April 1995:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION—AGENCIES AND JOB LOSSES

  1153
  The Logistic Information System Agency was formed on 21 November 1994. No jobs were lost or transferred to a contractor upon formation.
  In accordance with the Government's Competing for Quality programme we are considering how best to carry out our "non-core" activities. Current proposals envisage the transfer of these activities to a civilian partner. If this is followed through we see about 150 posts being transferred. The final numbers are not yet firm. Following transfer all transferred staff will continue to work on our sites under a "Government Owned Contractor Operated" (GOCO) arrangement, although the GOCO status will be reviewed at an appropriate time. We have no plans to cut the remaining staff in the Agency.

  Letter from Martyn Bittleston to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 5 April 1995:
  On behalf of the Chief Executive, who is out of the country at the moment, I have been asked to amplify the Minister's response to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning contractorisation.
  In the Meteorological Office

  a. No jobs have been taken over by contractors in the past 2 years.

  b. The total number of jobs has fallen from 2526 to 2299 in the 2 years to 31 March 1995. A net loss of 227.

  Letter from Brigadier A. J. Hoon to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 3 April 1994:
  I understand that you have asked the Secretary of State for Defence to list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years. Acting on behalf of the Chief Executive of Military Survey I have been asked to reply with regard to this Agency.
  As a Defence Agency, remaining in the defence chain of command, I can identify no job losses to Military Survey in the past two years.

  Letter from W. S. Graham to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 4 April 1995:
  1. The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question concerning jobs that have been lost to Agencies in his Department for the past 2 years.
  2. My response to your 2 part question is as follows:

  a. There are no jobs in the NARO Defence Agency that have been taken over by contractors.

  b. The size of workforce of this Agency is task related and is therefore subject to minor fluctuations, but has however increased overall in the past 3 years.

  Letter from Brian Raine to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 4 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question No. 7171G about Agencies and Job Losses.
  At Queen Victoria School no jobs have been taken over by contractors or lost in the past 2 years.
  I hope this answers your question satisfactorily but if there is anything on which you would like me to elaborate please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Letter from Air Vice-Marshall R. H. Kyle to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 5 April 1995:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he would list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have (a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared.
  The Maintenance Group Defence Agency manpower figures have reduced progressively for several years. The average figures for each year are reported in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts. Figures taken from the last three reports, together with the latest available figures, are:
  1154

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1 February 1995

  Service

  7,500

  6,800

  6,634

  4,760

  Civilian

  6,100

  6,000

  5,679

  4,575

  Total

  13,600

  12,800

  12,313

  9,335

  A major reorganisation within the Ministry of Defence took place on 1 April 1994. As part of this process, 1,978 Service and 947 civilian posts were transferred from the Maintenance Group Defence Agency to another area.

  There have been no jobs within the Agency that have been lost to contractors in the past 2 years. The other reductions in jobs that have occurred have been as a result of efficiency savings and the effects of the ending of the Cold War.

  Letter from David Rennison to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 4 April 1995:
  I write on behalf of the Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force Signals Engineering Establishment (RAFSEE) in response to your Parliamentary Question No. 7171G to the Secretary of State for Defence.
  Since becoming a Defence Agency on 22 November 1994 no jobs have disappeared or been taken over by contractors.

  Letter from I. S. Mitchelson to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 5 April 1995:
  1. I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the jobs that have been lost from Agencies in the past two years—in this instance with particular regard to Children's Schools (North West Europe) Defence Agency.
  2. This Agency has:—

  (a) had no jobs taken over by Contractors; and

  (b) lost 492 teaching posts (inclusive of UK based/locally enrolled, full time equivalent) in the last two years as a result of the Drawdown of British Forces in Germany and the subsequent closure of schools and falling rolls at those remaining. Additionally there has been a loss of 311 locally employed non-teaching staff. These figures reflect the last two years, beginning 1 April 1993.

  Letter from Air Vice-Marshal J. A. G. May to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 5 April 1995:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION No. PQ7171G

  —TRAINING GROUP DEFENCE AGENCY REPLY
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement has asked me to reply to the question you asked of him in respect of Defence Agencies and Job Losses.
  I am able to tell you that no Training Group jobs have been transferred to contractors since the launch of Training Group Defence Agency on 1 April 1994. I am able to tell you, too, that no Training Group jobs have "disappeared" since the same date.
  I am copying this letter to the Agency's owner, the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Personnel & Training Command.

  Defence Equipment
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of each type of(a) ships, (b) ammunition, (c) artillery, (d) missiles, (e) helicopters, (f) torpedoes and (g) aircraft surplus to his Department's requirement have been or are to be sold in the 1994–95 financial year. [15803]

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: Quantities of surplus United Kingdom defence equipment

  1155
  sold or expected to be sold in the financial year 1994–95 are as follows:

  Amount

  Ships

  Type 22 frigates

  4

  Leander class frigates

  3

  River class minesweepers

  7

  Oberon submarines

  1

  Fleet tenders

  11

  Motor fishing vessels

  3

  Fleet tankers

  1

  Landing craft

  3

  Mooring and salvage vessels

  1

  Target vessels

  3

  Floating cranes

  1

  Armament lighters

  3

  Sullage lighters

  2

  Diving vessels

  1

  Barges

  2

  46

  Ammunition

  Rounds naval

  24,000

  Artillery

  55,000

  Small arms

  5,000

  84,000

  Artillery

  M109s

  32

  Missiles

  Skyflash

  40

  Helicopters

  Lynx HAS3

  3

  Aircraft

  Andovers

  4

  Beagles

  1

  Beavers

  1

  Buccanners

  10

  Canberras

  6

  Chipmunks

  12

  Devons

  2

  Gnats

  2

  HS125s

  5

  Hunters

  19

  Jaguars

  1

  Javelins

  1

  Jet Provosts

  56

  Jet Provost ground runners

  3

  Lightenings

  1

  Spitfires

  1

  Varsities

  1

  Victors

  1

  127

  Overseas Contracts
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 218, if he will name the representatives of the Government of Indonesia and the representatives of Her Majesty's Government who signed memoranda of understanding on behalf of their respective Governments in September 1983, March 1984, April 1986 and November 1991; and in each case what positions they occupied as officials or Ministers within those governments. [17053]
  1156
  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 30 March 1995]: Details of exchanges between Governments are confidential; and it has been the general policy of successive Governments not to reveal details concerning such arrangements without the prior approval of the other Government.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 609, if he will list the exact date of, and the signatories to, each memorandum of understanding signed with the Government of Nigeria since 4 May 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 22 March 1995]: The answer given in March Official Report, column 609, referred to defence exports-related MOUs. No central record of MOUs is kept by my Department and a comprehensive list could be compiled only at disproportionate cost. MOUs not related to defence exports were signed with the Government of Nigeria on 24 November 1980 and 14 July 1992. It has been the general policy of successive Governments not to reveal details without the prior approval of the other Government.

TREASURY

  Financial Services
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he is doing to improve the performance of the British financial services industry in terms of long-term investment in Britain. [16443]

  Mr. Nelson
  Last year, the Treasury conducted an inquiry into provision of finance for industry entitled "The Industrial Finance Initiative". A summary of our conclusions was submitted to the Trade and Industry Select Committee, and I gave evidence to the Committee on 8 February. I refer the hon. Member to that submission—a copy of which is available in the Library—and in particular to the catalogue of measures since implemented to improve the terms and availability of finance for industry.

  Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the costs for the last two years and what are the estimated costs for the current year and the next two years of the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood. [18050]

  Mr. Nelson
  The figures requested are set out in the table:

  £000

  1992–93 (Outturn)

  1993–94 (Outturn)

  1994–95 (Forecast outturn)

  1995–96 (Estimate)

  1996–97 (Estimate)

  605

  477

  564

  669

  677

  Insignia re-stocking occurs irregularly, according to need.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many parliamentary questions to his Department in each year since 1979–80 requesting a
  1157
  priority written answer or answer on a named day were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further five, 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18488]

  (2) how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by his Department in each year since 1979–80; and how many such questions received a substantive answer within 10, 15, 20 days or longer. [18487]

  Mr. Nelson
  The table gives the numbers of ordinary written and named day, or priority as appropriate, written questions tabled to Treasury Ministers since 1988–89, and the number of holding answers given to named day and priority questions for each of these Sessions.

  Information relating to earlier years and the analysis sought of substantive replies are not readily retrievable and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Parliamentary Questions tabled to the Treasury

  Session

  Ordinary written

  Named day/priority written

  Holding answers

  1988–89

  1,007

  924

  530

  1989–90

  1,162

  827

  413

  1990–91

  851

  796

  298

  1991–92

  481

  485

  180

  1992–93

  1,811

  1,373

  473

  1993–94

  1,316

  731

  245

  1994–951

  733

  470

  271

  1 To 5 April.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many parliamentary questions to his Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence; [18942]

  (2) how many parliamentary questions to his Department were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence. [18491]

  Mr. Nelson
  Since October 1992, when arrangements were introduced for printing in the Official Report letters sent to hon. Members by agency chief executives in response to parliamentary questions, chief executives responsible to Treasury Ministers have replied directly to four questions:

  1992–93: 3

  1993–94: —

  1994–95: 1

  In each case, the answers were printed in the Official Report.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has written to a right hon. or hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question; [18490]

  (2) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being
  1158
  placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report. [18489]

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested is a matter of public record, but it could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost to the Exchequer in 1995–96 of extending the 20p band to the point at which it would become the highest marginal rate of tax(a) for half of all income tax payers and (b) for three quarters of all income tax payers. [16820]

  Sir George Young
  The full year cost at 1995–96 income levels would be about £4.3 billion for half of income taxpayers and about £7.5 billion for three quarters. These estimates do not allow for any behavioural changes which might result from the introduction of the new regime.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of income tax revenue was paid by those with the top 10 per cent. of incomes in each year from 1978–79 to 1995–96. [18974]

  Sir George Young
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Shares of total tax liability paid by top 10 per cent.1

  Percentage

  1978–79

  35

  1979–80

  34

  1980–81

  35

  1981–82

  35

  1982–83

  36

  1983–84

  36

  1984–85

  38

  1985–86

  38

  1986–87

  39

  1987–88

  41

  1988–89

  42

  1989–90

  42

  1990–91

  42

  1991–92

  43

  1992–93

  44

  1993–942

  44

  1994–952

  44

  1995–962

  44

  1 For years up to and including 1989–90 married couples are counted as one taxpayer and their incomes are combined. Following the introduction of independent taxation in 1990–91 husbands and wives are counted separately.

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the information provided to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on 5 May 1994,Official Report, columns 588–92 for (a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96, (c) 1996–97 and (d) 1997–98; and if he will revise the figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94. [17429]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 31 March 1995]: Available information on income tax payers is given in the table. The increases in taxpayer numbers is largely due to economic growth. In addition, the number of people in work is increasing—United Kingdom work force in employment up 174,000 between December 1993 and December 1994.
  1159

  Taxpayers by marginal rate: Numbers in thousands

  Marginal rate

  1992–93

  11993–94

  11994–95

  11995–96

  20

  4,240

  5,200

  5,000

  5,400

  25

  19,430

  18,400

  18,400

  18,400

  40

  1,720

  1,900

  2,300

  2,400

  Total

  25,390

  25,500

  25,700

  26,200

  1Provisional estimates projected from the 1992–93 survey of personal incomes.

  Taxpayers by marginal rate: Percentages

  Marginal rate

  1992–93

  11993–94

  11994–95

  11995–96

  20

  17

  20

  19

  21

  25

  76

  72

  72

  70

  40

  7

  8

  9

  9

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1Provisional estimates projected from the 1992–93 survey of personal incomes.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will be publishing consultation documents on industrial and provident society, credit union and friendly society measures contained in the illustrative list attached to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. [19126]

  Mr. Nelson
  I am pleased to announce that consultation documents proposing amendments to regulations governing the constitutions and activities of these institutions were published today. Copies are being placed in the Library. The effect of the changes will be to ease the administrative burden on societies and unions without removing any necessary protection for their members. Subject to the response, the Government hope to implement the proposals later this year through an order under section 1 of the Act.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of whether Her Majesty's Government are required, under the provisions of the Maastricht treaty, to seek to aim at any specified levels of inflation or of the public sector borrowing requirement; and if he will make a statement. [18152]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: Article 103 of the treaty on European Union requires all member states to regard their economic policy as a matter of common concern, but the broad guidelines on economic policy adopted by the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers under article 103(2) are only recommendations. The same applies to the outcome of the excessive deficits procedure set out in article 104c.

  The latest broad guidelines on economic policy, adopted by ECOFIN on 11 July 1994, recognised the need to achieve low inflation on a permanent basis and sound public finances. Such aims are consistent with Government's existing economic policy, as were the recommendations under the excessive deficit procedure, adopted on 7 November 1994.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of individuals whose after-tax income will be reduced by the forthcoming restriction of tax relief on mortgage interest at source from 20 to 15 per cent. [17180]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 30 March 1995]: About 10.1 million single people or married couples will benefit from mortgage interest relief in 1995–96, all of whom will be affected by the change in the rate of relief.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual value of mortgage interest relief at source to(a) the average standard rate taxpayer and (b) the average higher rate taxpayer, with (i) a £30,000 mortgage, (ii) in a £60,000 mortgage and (iii) a £100,000 mortgage (1) in 1979–80, (2) in 1993–94, (3) as projected for 1994–95 and (4) as estimated for 1995–96 expressed in 1994 prices. [16812]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 29 March 1995]: Information is given in the following table.

  Much of the reduction in the value of the relief is due to lower interest rates.

  Annual value of mortgage interest relief (£)

  11979–80

  21993–94

  31994–95

  41995–96 (in 1994–95) prices)

  Basic rate taxpayer with:

  £30,00 mortgage

  970

  590

  470

  350

  £60,000 mortgage

  970

  590

  470

  350

  £100,000 mortgage

  970

  590

  470

  350

  Higher rate taxpayer with:

  £30,000 mortgage

  1,450

  590

  470

  350

  £60,000 mortgage

  1,450

  590

  470

  350

  £100,000 mortgage

  1,450

  590

  470

  350

  1 Average higher rate taxpayer assumed to obtain relief at 45 per cent. Average building society interest rate was 12.9 per cent.

  2 Average building society interest rate was 7.9 per cent.

  3 Interest rate of 7.8 per cent. used. This is based on the average building society interest rates from April 1994 to January 1995, and then assuming, by convention, no changes from the current interest rate of 8.1 per cent. Relief at 20 per cent.

  4 Assumes, by convention, no changes from current interest rate of 8.1 per cent. Relief at 15 per cent.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the regulations under the Legal Aid Act 1988 which require that where a person granted legal aid succeeds in recovering a preserved property the legal aid is repayable, with particular concern for those on income support. [17212]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he
  1161
  has to review the interest charged on legal aid assistance. [17213]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  When a legally aided person recovers or preserves money or property as a result of the proceedings for which he or she is legally aided, the Legal Aid Board recovers the legal aid costs from that money or property. This is known as the statutory charge. In certain circumstances, enforcement of the charge is postponed. In those cases, simple interest is charged for the length of the postponement at a rate which is currently 8 per cent. per annum. This rate is reviewed from time to time when it seems appropriate to do so in the light of movements in interest rates generally. There are no current plans to change the rates.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much money has been paid in legal aid for persons whose cases are being considered by(a) the European Court of Justice and (b) the European Court of Human Rights; and if he will list the number of (1) cases and (2) people involved.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have reflected carefully on this inquiry to which my hon. Friend returns, but regret that I must refer him to the answer I gave him on 28 March,Official Report, column 525.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he now plans to take in respect of the provision of legal aid to the nation's richest citizens. [17845]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor is now considering the responses he received to the consultation paper, "Legal Aid for the Apparently Wealthy." He will announce shortly the proposals which he intends to take forward.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the cost of civil legal aid for divorce cases for each of the last five years and the estimated cost for the current financial year; and what is the projected cost for the next financial year. [17098]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is not possible to provide the net cost of divorce cases alone. Net expenditure in respect of all civil matrimonial legal aid for each of the five years is as follows:

  1989–90: £87.5 million

  1990–91: £108.6 million

  1991–92: £150.5 million

  1992–93: £207.2 million

  1993–94: £266.7 million

  The net cost of all civil legal aid in 1994–95 is estimated to be £611.1 million and is projected to be £677.8 million in 1995–96.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to restrict the availability of legal aid for divorcing couples and their children; what mechanisms he intends to introduce to allow those adults and children requiring professional legal assistance, rather than the assistance of mediators, for the protection of their interests to get that assistance; and who will be taking decisions about whether people get the assistance of a mediator or lawyer in publicly funded matrimonial cases. [17104]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor will be issuing his Green Paper on legal aid later in the spring. Proposals relating to legal aid in family cases will be covered in that document.
  1162
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost to public funds of legal aid granted to persons who were not British citizens or resident in the United Kingdom during the most recent 12–month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Information as to an applicant's nationality is not collected and is therefore not available. The Legal Aid Board does maintain a record of applications received from applicants resident outside the United Kingdom, but information on the cost to legal aid of those cases could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Privity of Contract
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he proposes to introduce legislation relating to the law of privity of contract; and if he will make a statement. [17240]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It remains the intention of the Government to proceed with legislation in this area as soon as there is a suitable legislative opportunity.

  Age Limits (Courts)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the(a) legal lower age limit and (b) customary lower age limit on visitors to criminal or civil courts. [17230]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There is no legal age limit for any visitor to a criminal or civil court. People of all ages visit these courts.

  Internet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the Internet electronic mail addresses of(a) his Department and (b) each Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement on his Department's approach to the information super highway. [17728]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Neither my Department, the Lord Chancellor nor I have an Internet electronic mail address. My Department has no current plans to use the Internet but will keep under review the facilities available and their potential use.

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list, for 1992–93 and 1993–94, separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotions materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising, and what are his latest estimates for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17629]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Expenditure on all forms of advertising and publicity, and separate figures for recruitment advertising, are given in the table. The recruitment advertising figures are only for recruitment carried out centrally. Recruitment is also carried out locally but costs are not separately identifiable. It is not possible to identify separate figures for the different types
  1163
  of advertising. The figures include costs for the Court Service, which became an agency on 3 April 1995.

  Year

  Total advertising and publicity1

  Recruitment advertising

  Recruitment as percentage of total

  1992–93

  51,901

  36,209

  70

  1993–94

  126,195

  47,744

  38

  1994–95 (provisional)

  152,412

  45,341

  30

  1995–96 (plan)

  191,650

  52,650

  27

  1 Including recruitment.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list each non-departmental public body and agency for which he has responsibility and, for each, list separate figures for the spending by that body or agency on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotional materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d), and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising, for each year since 1979–80 or for each year of its existence if it has been created since then; and what are his latest estimates of (a) to (f) for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17630]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A list of the non-departmental public bodies and agencies is set out below. In relation to the non-departmental public bodies for which the Lord Chancellor has responsibility, the following information is available:

  Legal Aid Board (created in 1989
  Publicity budget for publicising the legal aid scheme:

  1989–90: £103,000

  1990–91: £150,000

  1991–92: £132,000

  1992–93: £234,000

  1993–94: £140,000

  1994–95: £185,000

  The planned expenditure for 1995–96 is £243,750. No figure has yet been planned for 1996–97. Publicity in this area is carried out, almost exclusively, by way of leaflets and posters for the general public.

  Information on recruitment advertisements is available only from 1992–93:

  1992–93: £215.731

  1993–94: £135,259

  1994–95: £252,359 (estimate)

  Law Commission Apart from 1992–93, expenditure was all on recruitment

  Newspapers £

  Other (D) £

  Total £

  1986–87

  11,500

  NIL

  1,500

  1987–88

  11,700

  NIL

  1,700

  1988–89

  12,100

  NIL

  2,100

  1989–90

  12,400

  1500

  2,900

  1990–91

  13,000

  11,000

  4,000

  1991–92

  13,500

  11,250

  4,750

  1992–93

  3,783.50

  25,408.25

  29,191.75

  1164

  Law Commission Apart from 1992–93, expenditure was all on recruitment

  Newspapers £

  Other (D) £

  Total £

  1993–94

  3,838.73

  2,067.33

  5,906.06

  1994–95

  4,816.18

  2,145.87

  6,962,05

  1995–963

  4,500

  2,000

  6,500

  1 Best estimate: figures prior to 1986–87 are not available and until 1992 were not distinguished from miscellaneous expenditure.

  2 Includes a Law Commission brochure.

  3 Estimate.

  Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct (created in 1991)
  The only expenditure has been on newspaper advertising for the recruitment of staff. The figures are:

  1991–92: £4,917.19

  1992–93: £7,013.36

  1993–94: £11,195.98

  1994–95: £11,200 (estimate)

  The other NDPBs either do not incur such expenditure or the cost is included in departmental figures.

  The Lord Chancellor is responsible for four agencies: the Court Service, Her Majesty's Land Registry, the Public Record Office and the Public Trust Office. The Court Service, which came into operation as an agency on 3 April 1995, is covered in the answer to the question about this Department. As the question concerns specific operational matters on which the chief executives of the other three agencies are best placed to provide answers, I have accordingly asked the chief executives to reply direct.

  NON-DEPARTMENTAL PUBLIC BODIES

  Executive Bodies

  Legal Aid Board

  Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board (now inactive)

  Advisory Bodies

  Insolvency Rules Committee

  County Court Rule Committee

  Supreme Court Rule Committee

  Land Registration Rule Committee

  Family Proceedings Rule Committee

  Crown Court Rule Committee

  Advisory Committees on General Commissioners of Income Tax

  Advisory Committee on JPs in England (excluding the Duchy of Lancaster) and Wales

  Judicial Studies Board

  Advisory Council on Public Records

  Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct

  Council on Tribunals

  Law Commission

  Northern Ireland Court Service—

  Advisory Committees on General Commissioners of Income Tax (NI)

  Advisory Committees on JPs in Northern Ireland

  Advisory Committees on Juvenile Court Lay Panel

  Legal Aid Advisory Committee (NI)

  TRIBUNALS

  Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Adjudicators

  Lands Tribunal

  Pensions Appeal Tribunal

  Valued Added Tax Tribunal

  Transport Tribunal

  General Commissioners of Income Tax

  AGENCIES

  Court Service

  1165

  Her Majesty's Land Registry

  The Public Record Office

  The Public Trust Office

  Letter from S. Hutcheson to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 4 April 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary question, listed on 28 March 1995, regarding the cost of advertising and promotional activities.
  The Public Trust Office has not spent any money on
  (a) television or (b) radio advertising since 1979.
  Expenditure on (c) newspapers advertising has been limited to the advertising of senior management posts which cost a total of £19,891.58 in 1994–95. Prior to 1994 recruitment was undertaken centrally by the Lord Chancellor's Department and no separate figures are available for the Public Trust Office.
  The cost of (d), other promotional materials and activities, including the design and printing the Framework Document, Corporate and Business Plans in 1994 prior to the launch of the Public Trust Office as an Executive Agency, was £10,980. The cost of producing and publishing pamphlets in 1994 (including Charter Statements, explanatory booklets and leaflets sent to our customers) was £37,500. There have been no other promotional activities. Figures for each year since 1979 will have been subsumed within other budgets and the information required can only be provided at a disproportionate cost.
  The figures for 1994–95 are those quoted in the paragraph above. The cost of producing Corporate and Business Plans in 1995–96 is currently being researched but is not expected to exceed £5,000. The production and design of Charter Statements, explanatory booklets and leaflets for 1995–96 has yet to be tendered and the cost cannot, therefore, be quantified at present.

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 5 April 1995:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION: EXPENDITURE ON ADVERTISING
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply to your question relating to advertising by the Public Record Office.
  (a)/(b) The Public Record Office has not advertised on television or radio.

  The following table shows:

  (c) the amounts spent on newspaper advertising;

  (d) the approximate amounts spent on other promotional materials and activities;

  (e) the totals of (c) and (d);

  (f) the proportions of (e) spent on recruitment and advertising.

  Year

  (c) Newspaper advertising £

  (d) Promotional activities £

  (e) Total £

  (f) Recruitment proportion Per cent.

  1986–87

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1987–88

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1988–89

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1990–91

  28

  Nil

  28

  100

  1991–92

  20,666

  1,500

  22,166

  93

  1992–93

  10,326

  1,500

  11,826

  87

  1993–94

  77,392

  1,500

  78,892

  98

  Information for earlier years is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Our latest estimates for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  a) television

  nil

  nil

  b) radio

  nil

  nil

  1166

  1994–95

  1995–96

  c) newspaper

  £70,000

  £44,500

  d) other promotional

  £1,500

  £1,500

  e) totals

  £71,500

  £46,000

  f) recruitment proportion

  98 per cent.

  98 per cent.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 5 April 1995:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION: EXPENDITURE ON ADVERTISING IN HM LAND REGISTRY
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question concerning total expenditure by HM Land Registry on all forms of advertising for each year since 1979. I can provide the following information:

  a) television advertising—nil;

  b) radio advertising—nil;

  The following table answers your questions c), d), e) and f):

  Year

  Total advertising costs £

  Recruitment per cent.

  1979–80

  23,696

  48

  1980–81

  5,789

  37

  1981–82

  7,425

  46

  1982–83

  5,160

  49

  1983–84

  3,365

  36

  1984–85

  4,143

  43

  1985–86

  7,470

  43

  1986–87

  12,669

  90

  1987–88

  32,828

  99

  1988–89

  70,226

  99

  1989–90

  36,434

  95

  1990–91

  20,940

  96

  1991–92

  6,342

  66

  1992–93

  15,002

  1

  1993–94

  16,233

  0

  1994–95 (forecast)

  30,000

  0

  1995–96 (budget)

  35,000

  0

  The Registry's major expenditure on advertising has been for staff recruitment, particularly to meet the property boom of the late 1980's; for advertising in connection with the registration of high value transactions (until 1980); and to give effect to a continuing statutory requirement concerning the replacement of Land and Charge Certificates.

  The advertising costs shown in the table all relate to newspaper advertising apart from the years 1992–93 onwards where costs for staging exhibitions and displays are also included. These costs are subsumed within the total budget and cannot be separated.

  I do hope that this answers the points raised with the Parliamentary Secretary but please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

  Jury Service
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what legal grounds a person called for jury service may be excused from jury service; and if he will list the different categories of people who are automatically exempt from jury service. [17097]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Section 9 (1) of the Juries Act 1974 gives a person the right to be excused from jury service if they are among the persons listed in part III of schedule 1 to the Act. The schedule is a lengthy one and a copy will therefore be sent to the hon. Member. The jury summoning officer may also use discretion and excuse a person from jury service if, pursuant to section 9 (2) of
  1167
  the Act, they are able to show good cause as to why they should be excused.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people were called for jury service in each of the last 10 years at(a) the Central Criminal court, (b) Inner London Crown court, (c) Middlesex Crown court and (d) Harrow Crown court; and what percentage of these people were excused from jury service on each of the legal grounds available. [17101]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Number of Dissolutions

  150,477

  152,927

  158,301

  159,967

  164,556

  Adultery (per cent.)

  29.26

  28.80

  28.26

  27.59

  27.02

  Behaviour (per cent.)

  44.34

  45.37

  46.28

  46.20

  45.32

  Desertion (per cent.)

  0.74

  0.67

  0.68

  0.64

  0.68

  2 Year Separation with consent (per cent.)

  19.14

  18.77

  18.58

  19.38

  20.75

  5 Year Separation (per cent.)

  6.00

  5.86

  5.70

  5.74

  5.81

  Combination of Facts (per cent.)

  0.28

  0.27

  0.24

  0.22

  0.21

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what costings his Department has done on the introduction of a national mediation service; what savings he expects to make by funding mediation services for divorcing couples and their children rather than legal aid; and when he intends to publish these costings. [17102]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has no plans to establish a national mediation service. The Lord Chancellor is still examining possible arrangements for the funding of local mediation services in the context of his proposed Green Paper on publicly funded legal services, to be issued later in the spring.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) trained mediators and (b) mediation centres he estimates will be needed to provide the necessary assistance for divorcing couples and their children. [17103]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The decisions which are made about how best to encourage a wider use of family mediation during the divorce process will determine what assessments are made of the numbers of mediators and mediation centres required to meet any additional demand.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will outline the measures taken, facilities offered and adjustments made in his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to facilitate access for disabled people; what plans he has to improve access; and if he will make a statement. [18596]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In relation to the headquarters of the Lord Chancellor's Department and associated offices access and facilities for disabled people are continuously reviewed, and every effort is made to improve them as necessary. We will continue to build on this approach.

  Divorce
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many decrees absolute were granted in each of the last five years, and what percentage of them were made on each of the five legal grounds for divorce. [17099]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table gives the numbers of divorces in each year from 1989 to 1993, the latest year for which figures are available. It also gives the percentages of these divorces that were based on each of the five facts by which irretrievable breakdown of marriage can be demonstrated. A small proportion of petitions are based on a combination of facts, and this proportion is also shown.

  The Lord Chancellor has responsibility for the Court Service, the Public Trust Office, Her Majesty's Land Registry and the Public Record Office as executive agencies. As this question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executives are best placed to provide the answer, I have asked them to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 5 April 1995:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION: FACILITIES FOR THE DISABLED
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your question about facilities for the disabled.
  Newly built Crown, county and combined court centres comply with the requirements of Part M of the Building Regulations 1991, which lay down specific levels of access for disabled court users. The policy is that the design of buildings should enable disabled people to gain independent access into and within the building so that they can fulfil their role in the function of that building; this policy covers all building users—visiting public, jury, professionals and all staff engaged in the building.
  New court building schemes have a revised Crown Court layout which provides better access to and within a courtroom. A sound enhancement system for the hard of hearing is required as standard in one courtroom in every new building. This is generally provided as an infra-red system which preserves security.
  Appropriate facilities are provided for wheelchair users, the hard of hearing and people with impaired sight. These include parking facilities close to entrances, level or ramped approaches close to entrances, good acoustic environments, signage and infra-red hearing aid installations, good quality lighting, the avoidance of hazards along routes, clear layouts and back-up aural information.
  It will be necessary to review our estate in the light of the requirements of the Disabled Bill currently before Parliament and the Regulations to be made under it. There will also have to be discussions with disabled people and the organisations that represent them, to ensure that their views are taken into account and that they are informed of any problems there may be with particular buildings.
  The Department has some 450 buildings; about a third of these are listed or older buildings and it will not always be easy or even possible to arrange the kind of access that is required. Our managing agents have been instructed to review our Estate and to identify what

  1169
  needs to be done to improve access. On the basis of that information and as part of the ongoing refurbishment programme, every effort will be made, subject to resource and building constraints, to bring our buildings up to the required standard.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 5 April 1995:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION: ACCESS FOR DISABLED PEOPLE IN HM LAND REGISTRY
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question concerning the measures taken to facilitate access for disabled people in HM Land Registry. I can provide the following information:
  The Land Registry carried out a comprehensive review of all facilities offered for disabled people in 1988. A wide range of improvements, including better means of access, were subsequently carried out. These included the provision of dedicated car parking spaces, the building of ramps, and the installation of electronic doors. Where it was not possible to provide unaided wheelchair access, "service call" facilities were installed.
  A further review of facilities has recently been carried out as part of the Registry's response to the "Programme for Action to Achieve Equality of Opportunity in the Civil Service for Disabled People". While the great majority of Registry sites already meet the requirements indicated in the Access Checklist published in the Programme, an action plan is currently being prepared to enhance facilities where required.
  I do hope that this answers the points raised with the Parliamentary Secretary but please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

  Letter from S. Hutcheson to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 4 April 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Departments' response to your Parliamentary question concerning access for disabled people.
  Appropriate facilities are provided for wheelchair users which include ramps, handrails, parking facilities near to the entrance and toilets which are accessible to wheelchair users. We also have evacuation chairs for wheelchair users for emergencies such as a fire.
  The Public Trust Office is situated in an older building and as parts of it are refurbished we are increasing the numbers of toilets with disabled access.

  Letter from Duncan Simpson to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 4 April 1995:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION: FACILITIES FOR THE DISABLED
  In the absence of the Chief Executive, who is away on official business, I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply to your question relating to facilities for the disabled at the Public Record Office.
  The Kew building, which opened in 1977, incorporated several design features for the disabled. These are:

  a) a lift for disabled users;

  b) toilets for disabled users;

  c) a wheelchair access ramp leading to the public entrance;

  d) 5 parking bays for the disabled located at the point nearest to the public entrance;

  e) a visual alarm for the fire alarm system.

  An extension to the existing building, due for completion in 1995–96, will include the same facilities.
  The nineteenth-century Chancery Lane building has been adapted in recent years to improve facilities for disabled users and includes:

  a) two wheelchair lifts to allow access from street level to the ground floor;

  1170

  b) ramped access to the microform reading room;

  c) toilets for disabled users;

  d) parking for the disabled by prior arrangement

  In addition, there are special arrangements to make documents available to wheelchair users in the reading room which allows easiest access for them.
  Evacuation chairs are available on both sites for use in an emergency.
  The Public Record Office has appointed a Disabled Persons Officer, part of whose job is to ensure that action point in the Office's Equal Opportunities Policy relating to disabled facilities are followed. This includes ensuring that special equipment needs for staff are met.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) how many parliamentary questions to his Department in each year since 1979–80 requesting a priority written answer or answer on a named day, were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further five, 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18438]

  (2) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has written to a right hon. or hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question; [18440]

  (3) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report; [18439]

  (4) how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by his Department in each year since 1979–80; and how many such questions received a substantive answer within 10, 15, 20 days or longer.

  (5) how many parliamentary questions to his Department were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence; [18441]

  (6) how many parliamentary questions to his Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence. [18442]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is a matter of public record but it could be extracted only in the form requested at disproportionate cost.

  New Technology
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department to what extent new technology is being deployed to speed up court work. [18416]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the
  1171
  Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked him to reply direct.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 5 April 1995:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION: TECHNOLOGY USED TO SPEED UP COURT WORK
  You will know that it is the practice for Chief Executives of Agencies to reply direct to Members of Parliament who have tabled written Parliamentary Questions. As The Court Service became an Executive Agency on 3 April the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has therefore asked me to reply to your question about new technology in the courts.
  Several computer systems have been, or are being, introduced into the county courts to speed up court work. For example, the Summons Production Centre (SPC) and the County Court Bulk Centre (CCBC) deal with large quantities of summonses and post-issue process for major plaintiffs, such as the water industry and finance companies. The SPC issued 1.6 million default summonses for fixed amounts, in 1994 and is operated by only six staff. Both the SPC and CCBC are highly automated. As a result, we can guarantee that summonses will be issued and dispatched within 24–48 hours at the SPC and that judgments will be entered and warrants of execution issued within 48 hours at the CCBC.
  Electronic links between the CCBC and the 100 largest courts have recently been established. This allows warrant information to be transferred overnight from the CCBC to the local courts so that the warrant can be in the hands of the bailiff the next day.
  County Courts also have 'stand alone' computer systems to help with accounting functions for handling suitors' cash payments and for monitoring the progress of warrants. In addition, a new computer system, called CaseMan, is under development and is currently being installed at 6 pilot sites. CaseMan is a database system that will allow court records to be stored and documents to be produced electronically. In due course, CaseMan will be developed to support a wide range of functions including those carried ut by the stand alone systems mentioned earlier.
  Finally, in the Crown Court a strategic system was developed in 1989 and has progressively been installed in all Crown Court centres. All centres now have comprehensive support through the Crown Court Support System (CREST) for case progression, listing, accounting and payment of costs.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many public appointments, excluding judicial appointments, his Department has made in the last five years; what are the names and positions of the appointees; how many of the positions were advertised; how many of the appointees were on the list held by the Cabinet Office's public appointments unit; and how many of the appointments were made in consultation with(a) the Prime Minister and (b) the Government Chief Whip.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A complete answer could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Lord Chancellor makes over 1,800 non-judicial appointments to bodies for which he has ministerial responsibility. Of those appointments, over 900 were made in the last five years. The great majority of these were made to the advisory committees on justices of the peace where the appointments field largely consists of those who are already JPs, appointments for which are advertised. The table shows the non-judicial public bodies listed under this Department in the Office of Public Service and Science publication "Public Bodies". Of the appointments made in the last five years, 21 were 1172
  advertised. In addition, two vacancies for barristers on the Legal Aid Board were advertised in Bar News, a publication distributed to all subscribing members of the Bar. While we have no record of how many appointees were on the list held by PAU, six appointments were of people suggested by the PAU; four were made in consultation with the Prime Minister; and one in consultation with the Government Chief Whip.

  Entries in Public Bodies

  Members

  Executive Bodies

  Legal Aid Board

  14

  Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board (although it is now inactive)

  —

  Advisory Bodies

  Insolvency Rules Committee

  7

  County Court Rule Committee

  11

  Supreme Court Rule Committee

  12

  Land Registration Rule Committee

  5

  Family Proceedings Rule Committee

  11

  Crown Court Rule Committee

  11

  Advisory Committees on General Commissioners of Income Tax

  621

  Advisory Committees on JPs in England (excluding the Duchy of Lancaster) and Wales

  1,037

  Judicial Studies Board

  55

  Advisory Council on Public Records

  15

  Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct

  17

  Legal Aid Advisory Committee (since wound-up)

  10

  Council on Tribunals

  21

  Law Commission

  5

  Northern Ireland Court Service—Advisory Committees on General Commissioners of Income Tax (NI)

  15

  Advisory Committees on JPs in Northern Ireland

  56

  Advisory Committees on Juvenile Court Lay Panel

  11

  Legal Aid Advisory Committee (NI)

  10

  Green Policy
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will name the green Minister for his Department and list(a) the green initiatives taken by that Minister in respect of the Department's functions, (b) the representations made by the Minister in respect of the functions carried out by other Departments and (c) the input made by the Minister into consultations on the Environment Bill. [18642]

  Mr. John. M. Taylor
  I am the green Minister for the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  The initiatives taken by my Department relate mainly to its environmental impact as a consumer. The Department is continuing and intensifying its efforts to improve energy efficiency. It has an on-going programme to maintain and, where appropriate, upgrade the historic buildings on our estate. It has ensured that the design of new court buildings takes full account of environmental concerns and, in the procurement of goods and services, it takes all reasonable steps to maximise the use of recycled and renewable resources.

  I have regular discussions with other green Ministers on the ways of achieving the Government objectives in this area.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Royal Residences
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what were the costs for the last two years and what are the estimated costs for the current year and the next two years of(a) expenditure on palaces in occupation of Her Majesty and residences occupied by members of the royal family and (b) gentlemen at arms and yeomen of the guard. [18048]

  Mr. Sproat
  The total expenditure on the occupied royal palaces since 1992–93 has been:

  1992–93: £23.1 million

  1993–94: £19.8 million

  1994–95: £20.5 million

  Estimated expenditure for the next two years is as follows:

  1995–96: £20.7 million

  1996–97: £20.9 million

  Of these totals, expenditure on the gentleman at arms and yeomen of the guard has been or will be:

  1992–93: £39,000

  1993–94: £55,000

  1994–95: £68,000

  1995–96: £54,000

  1996–97: £55,000

  Arts Council
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if he will list all persons who have served on advisory panels to the Arts Council in each year for the last 10 years giving the bodies, institutions and/or organisations to which they were professionally attached;

  (2) if he will itemise all funds distributed by the Arts Council either by grant or as expenses which have gone to a member of any advisory panel, whether directly or to bodies, institutions or organisations with which they are associated, in each year during the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sproat
  Full lists of the membership of all the Arts Council's advisory panels and of the grants made are published each year in the council's annual report and accounts, copies of which are in the Library of the House. Historic information to allow cross referencing between the interests of panel members and grants to individual organisations is only available at disproportionate cost.

  The Arts Council has, throughout its history, operated an advisory structure which allows peer group review of the artistic output of the recipients of grants from the council. The arts funding system relies heavily on the advice, experience and expertise of those appointed to these advisory panels. Nominations for membership of panels are sought from a wide range of relevant professional and trade organisations, and the membership of all panels changes regularly. Panel members are not paid, and receive expenses only on a reimbursement basis. It is inevitable that in order to involve people with the requisite knowledge and experience, some panel members will be employed by, or work on a freelance basis for, organisations that receive funding from the Arts Council; the council's procedural and ethical code states:
  "Members of the Council, Boards, Panels and Committees and staff with any interest in, or whose partners have an interest in, an organisation subsidised by, or seeking subsidy from, the Council, should declare this interest whenever that organisation
  1174
  is the subject of discussion and ask the Chairman at what point it would be appropriate for them to leave the meeting".

  I understand that the code is rigorously applied. In line with the Government's code of practice for board members of executive non-departmental bodies, the Arts Council is revising its own code of practice from 1 April 1995. The new code contains a full statement of the responsibilities of members and provides for a register of members' interests.

  Conservation Areas
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what study he is making of the links between conservation area status and listed building status. [16542]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I announced in my speech to the Architects' Journal centenary dinner on 8 March that the heritage Green Paper I intend to publish later this year will consider the interaction between listing and other statutory controls, including those relating to conservation areas.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what study he is making of a more open listed buildings system; what sources of information are available to his Department; and what proposals he has to initiate information-gathering about listed buildings other than from English Heritage. [16544]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I recently announced that I was introducing public consultation on listing proposals for post-war buildings and those arising from other thematic studies carried out by English Heritage. The possibility of extending consultation to other types of listing will be discussed in a heritage Green Paper which I will publish later this year.

  Documentary information on buildings proposed for listing is available from a number of published sources including the national monuments record, and from inspections made by English Heritage. In deciding whether to list a building I take into account any information, from whatever source, which is relevant to the assessment of the building's architectural or historic interest. I hope that the new arrangements for public consultation will enable owners and members of the public to contribute to the process of appraisal.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what criteria he has for the commercial disposal of listed buildings; and what obligations apply in respect to the need to obtain the highest price. [16541]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The terms of disposal of listed buildings are ultimately a matter for the individual vendor. However, so far as the disposal of Government historic buildings is concerned, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 8 March Official Report, columns 174–75, in which I announced the publication of a new guidance note for Departments. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to introduce more flexibility into listings of grade II listed buildings. [16540]
  1175
  Mr. Dorrell
  I propose to publish a Green Paper later in the year which will invite public discussion of the need of greater flexibility. Among the possibilities which may be worth considering is a more selective approach to the listing of buildings already protected by conservation area designations; and a new power to list only the exteriors of certain buildings.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he hopes to legislate to require Departments to obtain consent from the local planning authority for the demolition or alteration of listed buildings, and for the demolition of unlisted buildings in conservation areas along the lines he announced at the centenary dinner of the Architects' Journal.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Legislation will be introduced at the earliest opportunity.

  Forth Rail Bridge
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are his Department's responsibilities in relation to the Forth rail bridge. [16543]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Questions relating to the Forth rail bridge's importance as a historic structure are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Canoeing and Angling
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate he has made of the grant available from the Sports Council and other public bodies in support for canoeing in the year 1993–94, expressed in terms per capita of those participating in this sport; and what are the corresponding figures for the sport of angling. [16859]

  Mr. Sproat
  In 1993–94, canoeing governing bodies received grants of £542,266 from the Sports Council, a sum of £5.42 on a per capita basis for the 100,000 people who take part in the sport. A further £16,875 was also provided in awards from Sportsmatch, a business sponsorship incentive scheme for sport launched by the Government in 1992 to increase the amount of business sponsorship going into grass roots sport and physical recreation. In 1993–94, Sports Council grants to the governing bodies of angling was £74,415, a sum of 2.8p on a per capita basis for the 2.7 million adults actively participating in the sport. In addition to this, £4,211.10 was provided in Sportswatch awards.

  Lottery Scratch Cards
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how he plans to compensate those charitable organisations which have lost funding previously raised through lottery or scratch card schemes as a result of competition from the national lottery. [18871]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Charitable, voluntary and benevolent organisations will be able to apply for funds from the National Lottery Charities Board, which will receive 20 per cent. of the national lottery's contribution to good causes. This could amount to more than £300 million a year when the lottery reaches it peak. In addition, many of the applicants for funds from the other lottery distribution bodies are themselves charities. I therefore expect that a high proportion of the money distributed from the lottery will go to the benefit of the charitable sector.

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list for 1992–93 and 1993–94, separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotional materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising; and what are his latest estimates for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17619]

  Mr. Dorrell:
  My Department's spend in the period 1992–95 for (a) to (c) was nil. Publicity expenditure for 1993–94 was £25,000 and £57,000 in 1994–95; the 1992–93 figure is not available. Publicity plans for 1995–96 have not been finalised.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will outline the measures taken, facilities offered and adjustments made in his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to facilitate access for disabled people; what plans he has to improve access; and if he will make a statement. [18594]

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department wishes to promote access for all people, including disabled people, to the whole range of the activities for which it is responsible. The Department has an equal opportunities policy which covers all staff including disabled people, and its buildings are accessible to wheelchair users and people with other disabilities.

  My Department's agencies have both taken positive action to help disabled people. The Historic Royal Palaces Agency has provided wheelchair access to the crown jewels, and additional lifts to all floors in Hampton court palace, where a wheelchair loan service is also available. The Royal Parks Agency is implementing long and short-term projects for improving access to its parks. These include the wheelchair loan service in Greenwich park and the special needs centre in Richmond park.

  The Department and its agencies will continue to build on this kind of approach.

  The Disability Discrimination Bill, which will apply to all Government Departments, contains new rights for disabled people in employment and creates rights of access to goods, facilities and services. It also establishes the National Disability Council to advise the Government on eliminating discrimination against disabled people.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have(a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared. [18330]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: In the past two years no jobs in my Department have been taken over by contractors and/or disappeared.

  Publicity
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the total expenditure on(a) all forms of publicity and (b) all publications and pamphlets produced for his Department and for all the

  1177
  agencies and public bodies for which his Department is responsible for each year since 1979, including the budgeted figure for 1995–96, (i) including and (ii) excluding privatisation-related expenditures and expressed in 1994 prices; and if he will supply information for the period from 1 April 1993 to 1 March 1995 showing (1) the nature and (2) the purpose of each publicity campaign and of each publication involving the expenditure of more than £50,000. [14594]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 17 March 1995]: Expenditure by the Department of National Heritage on publicity during 1993–94 was £25,000 and for 1994–95 was £57,000. Corresponding expenditure for these years by the Royal Parks Agency was £61,400 and £45,000, and by the Historic Palaces Agency £226,300 and £451,300.

  No privatisation-related expenditure has been incurred. The Historic Royal Palaces Agency produced one publicity campaign costing over £50,000, in respect of the launch and promotion of the new jewel house at the Tower of London in 1994.

  Budgets for 1995–96 are still being finalised. The other information requested could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on what dates he has met(a) the Library Association, (b) the Museums and Galleries Commission, (c) Equity, (d) the Musicians Union, (e) the Association of British Orchestras, (f) the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, (g) the Association of District Councils and (h) the Association of County Councils to discuss the work of his Department. [18149]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: Since my appointment I have held meetings with:

  i) the Library Association on 3 October 1994;

  ii) the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on 30 November 1994, 24 January 1995 and 8th March 1995;

  iii) the Association of County Councils on 28 September 1994.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on what dates he has met(a) the Art Council, (b) English Heritage, (c) the Crafts Council, (d) the Design Council, (e) the National Campaign for the Arts, (f) the Royal Institute of British Architects, (g) the Royal Society of Arts and (h) the regional arts boards to discuss the work of his Department. [18148]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: Since my appointment I have held meetings with representatives of:

  i) The Arts Council and individual Regional Arts Board (frequently);

  ii) English Heritage (frequently);

  iii) the Royal Institute of British Architects on 25 October 1994;

  iv) the National Campaign for the Arts on 3 October 1994;

  v) the Royal Society of Arts on 23 February 1995.

  Royal Residences
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the cost to his Department of maintenance and running costs of(a) Buckingham palace, (b) Windsor castle, (c) Kensington palace, (d) St. James's palace, (e) Balmoral and (f) Sandringham in each of the last five years including periods when they were
  1178
  unoccupied; and what proportion of these sums is represented by employees' salaries. [16920]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 28 March 1995]: The cost to my Department of maintenance and running costs of Buckingham palace, Windsor castle, Kensington palace, St. Jame's palace, Balmoral and Sandringham has been as follows:

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Buckingham palace

  7.53

  6.56

  5.47

  6.62

  Windsor castle

  11.05

  12.18

  9.75

  7.94

  Kensington palace

  0.84

  0.64

  1.11

  1.36

  St. James's palace

  3.23

  2.42

  2.04

  3.15

  Balmoral

  0.06

  0.05

  0.07

  0.06

  Sandringham

  0.07

  0.05

  0.07

  0.06

  Costs that are not attributable by location

  1.16

  1.26

  1.29

  1.35

  Total

  23.94

  23.16

  19.80

  20.54

  The expenditure for Sandringham and Balmoral comprised costs incurred when Her Majesty the Queen was in residence on official duties; these two properties are not maintained by my Department.

  Expenditure records are not available to my Department for the periods before 1991–92.

  Not all salary costs are attributable by individual location. The total salary costs across the whole estate expressed as a percentage of the total grant in aid were as follows:

  Per cent.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  7.7

  12.2

  16.2

  16.3

  The increase in salary costs between 1991–92 and 1992–93 reflects the transfer of staff from PSA to the new property section. The increase between 1992–93 and 1993–94 principally reflects the setting up of the fire, health and safety branch following the Windsor castle fire.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what targets he has for withdrawing regulations within his Department. [15550]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: A reply by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs in response to a similar question from my hon. Friend on 27 March, Official Report, column 473 sets out the targets across government. In my Department, our targets for deregulation include:
  to complete a review by 1995 of the Tourism (Sleeping Accommodation Price Display) Order 1977 and Hotel Proprietors' Act 1956;
  to complete a review by 1995, with a view to the abolition by 1996, of the requirements for television dealers both to register as such with the BBC and to hold a valid dealer demonstration licence;
  to bring forward proposals on media ownership rules;
  to commence reviews on sports ground safety legislation and the legal deposit arrangements for books published in the UK; and
  to continue to press its concerns on a number of regulations affecting the tourism industry.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what facilities in terms of(a) access to telephones, (b) use of equipment, (c) use of offices, (d) access to ministerial meetings, (e) sight of correspondence, (f) attendance at inter-departmental meetings and (g) access to civil servants are available to specialist advisers in his Department. [15618]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 27 March, Official Report, column 435.

  VE-day Commemorations
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if veterans from Caribbean countries have been invited to take part in VE-day celebrations. [18142]

  Mr. Soames
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government very much hope that those heads of state of Government from the Caribbean who have been invited to London for the VE-day commemorations, will be accompanied by second world war veterans from their countries. We have also contacted associations representing Caribbean veterans resident in the UK, and invited nominations to attend the various commemorative events. In addition, we envisage that veterans from the Caribbean will play a significant role in the commemorations to mark the 50th anniversary of VJ-day in August.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Arms Embargo
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will refer the conduct of the former directors of the British Manufacture and Research Company to the Director of Public Prosecutions for her to consider an investigation into possible breaches of arms embargo with Iran. [18611]

  The Attorney-General
  Investigation of possible breaches of export controls on arms is a matter for the commissioners of Customs and Excise to whom any information on alleged breaches should be passed.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will outline the measures taken, facilities offered and adjustments made in his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to facilitate access for disabled people; what plans he has to improve access; and if he will make a statement. [18586]

  The Attorney-General
  The equal opportunities policies of the Departments for which I am responsible support the provision of facilities for disabled members of staff and visitors. Wherever practicable, premises are made accessible to disabled people and their needs and comfort are taken into account. Measures taken and facilities offered include the provision of disabled toilet facilities and ramps to provide access to buildings. Where possible, car parking spaces have been designated. The 1180
  Department's policies will be reflected in the design specifications for new buildings.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Mining Subsidence
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the Coal Authority to discuss coal mining subsidence. [16454]

  Mr. Page
  My Department is in frequent contact with the Coal Authority about the range of issues within its responsibilities.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to bring forward legislation for the early ratification of the chemical weapons convention; and if he will make a statement. [16457]

  Mr. Taylor
  The legislation needed to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the chemical weapons convention will be introduced as soon as practicable. In judging when that may be, we shall, of course, take account of the offer of full co-operation made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) in business questions last week.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will initiate a league table for all Government Departments to show the number of rules or regulations which have been replaced on a monthly basis. [16458]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No. I do not think that this would be a helpful way of assessing progress, particularly given that the deregulation initiative goes wider than simple repeals.

  Cadbury Committee
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken to encourage the implementation of the Cadbury committee proposals. [16459]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My Department has consistently made clear its support for the Cadbury code to those responsible for its implementation.

  Business Links
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many business links have been established to date. [16460]

  Mr. Heseltine
  There are currently 75 business links operational and approval has been given for a further 146.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the network of business links to be completed. [16463]

  Mr. Heseltine
  There are currently 75 business links open, a further 146 have been approved and there remain only 17 areas to come forward to the national assessment panel.
  1181
  Progress has been good with over two thirds of the network now approved. By the end of 1995, there will be around 200 outlets operational and every firm in England should have access to a business link.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet the President of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss manufacturing industry. [16461]

  Mr. Heseltine
  I, and other DTI Ministers, regularly meet the Confederation of British Industry. The latest figures show manufacturing output up 4.3 per cent., productivity up 4.6 per cent. and exports up 14 per cent., on a year earlier.

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has for manufacturing growth in the east midlands. [16462]

  Mr. Page
  While my Department does not commission or produce such estimates, recent surveys by the CBI and other economic analysts show sustained growth in the region in 1994 and good prospects for 1995. For example, the latest economic survey by east midlands chambers of commerce and industry shows that in the last quarter of 1994, 51 per cent. of businesses experienced improved home orders, 42 per cent. showed improved export orders, 42 per cent. planned investment in new plant and machinery and 68 per cent. were confident of improved turnover in 1995.

  Telecommunications Companies
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with representatives of the United States Government about opportunities for British telecommunications companies to compete in the American market. [16465]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government strongly support the efforts of United Kingdom telecommunications companies to enter the United States and other markets, and we take every opportunity to press for their interests.

  My officials have regular contacts with United States regulatory authorities to pursue policy issues of interest to UK companies. Most recently, I spoke to the US Secretary of Commerce in the margins of the G7 conference in Brussels on 25 to 26 February to get across the need for the US to support worldwide liberalisation and removal of restrictions on foreign ownership of US telecommunications operators. I am pleased to say that, at that conference, Vice-President Gore confirmed that they would be pursuing both objectives.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent meetings he has had with R. J. Budge, chairman of RJB Mining, to discuss the closure of pits. [16466]

  Mr. Eggar
  My colleagues and I have had no meeting with Mr. Budge to discuss colliery closures.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of gross domestic product was 1182
  invested in United Kingdom manufacturing industry in 1993. [16467]

  Mr. Page
  Manufacturing investment was 2.3 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1993 and 10.2 per cent. of manufacturing output, when measured at 1990 prices.

  Industrial Ownership
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to retain the ownership of the British car, aerospace and telecommunications industries in United Kingdom hands. [16469]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department's objective is to increase the competitiveness of businesses in Britain, regardless of their ownership. We welcome overseas investment in these as in other industries. Any acquisitions in these sectors from UK or foreign companies are treated in exactly the same way under the merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the growth in imports of orimulsion and what assessment he has made of its consequences. [16470]

  Mr. Page
  Imports of orimulsion began in December 1990. There was strong growth in 1992, but imports have remained fairly stable since then. In 1994, imports were 1.2 million tonnes. Figures for use of orimulsion are published in "Energy Trends", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  The future use of orimulsion is a commercial matter for the companies concerned, which will have to comply with requirements of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Late Payment
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received from trade associations about the problem of late payment of invoices. [16468]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I am not aware of any recent representations from trade associations on the problems of late payment of invoices.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about his plans to deal with the problem of late payment. [16471]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Following consultation with the business community, the Government announced a package of new measures to address late payment in the May 1994 White Paper on competitiveness. Work on these continues.

  The Government also announced that they would re-examine the case for a statutory right to interest on overdue debts in two years if there has been no significant improvement.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to deal with the problem of late payments for businesses. [16433]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Following consultation with the business community, the Government announced a package of new measures to address late payment in the May 1994 in the White Paper on competitiveness. The measures include:
  1183
  Government Departments and their agencies to comply with the CBI prompt payers code, to state whether they have done so and publish their payment policies in their annual reports and to publicise their arrangements for handling complaints of late payment.

  streamlining of court procedures for debt recovery and a review of the limit for the informal small claims procedure;

  implementation of proposals to require public companies to state their payment policies in their director's reports;

  development of proposals for a British standard for prompt payment;

  work with trade associations, business links and others to improve credit management and debt collection skills in small firms.

  The Government also announced that they would re-examine the case for a statutory right to interest on overdue debts in two years if there has been no significant improvement.

  Export Promotion
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has had with his counterpart in the MOD concerning the promotion of British exports. [16472]

  Mr. Needham
  There is frequent contact at both ministerial and official level between my Department and the Defence Export Services Organisation, who work together closely on defence export issues.

  Industrial Development, Merseyside
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage the development of industry in Merseyside. [16473]

  Mr. Page
  We are continuing actively to encourage industrial development on Merseyside by working with local partners to attract new industry and to foster the growth and improve the competitiveness of indigenous enterprise.

  Firework-related Injuries
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many firework-related injuries were referred to hospitals in the period around 5 November 1994.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Accident and emergency units in hospitals in England, Wales and Scotland treated 1,574 people for injuries caused by fireworks. That is an increase over the total reported for 1993. An analysis of the figures for 1994 and for the previous four years will be placed today in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  It is of concern that firework injuries should have increased, that there were two accidental deaths, and that almost 500 of the injuries appear to have been due to illegal misuse.

  My Department is in touch with representatives of the fireworks industry and of enforcement authorities to discuss ways in which fireworks injuries can be reduced.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the latest statistics on firework incidents and injuries. [18975]

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins).

  Insolvency
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he intends to announce proposals for a revised company voluntary arrangements procedure following the consultation on the document "Company Voluntary Arrangements and Administration Orders" issued by the Insolvency Service in October 1993. [19212]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have today issued a further consultative document outlining proposals for a new company voluntary arrangement procedure which has been developed in the light of the first consultation exercise. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Our earlier consultation revealed a broad consensus that there should be a short moratorium to allow financially troubled companies a breathing space during which to put together a rescue plan. That view, however, was qualified by concerns about how to safeguard assets during that period.

  The scheme set out in this consultative document would allow companies a 28–day moratorium with the minimum of formality. This would give companies in financial difficulty temporary protection from their creditors during which they could put together a rescue plan for agreement by creditors. The scheme also proposes various safeguards to protect lenders and other creditors and to discourage abuse. Comments are sought by 31 July 1995.

  I am also arranging for a summary of the responses to the first consultative document to be published and copies will shortly be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The Government are still considering issues relating to the proposal for a debt equity mechanism and whether any other measures should be taken to facilitate administrations.

  Telecommunications Report
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet received a report by the Director General of Telecommunications for the year 1994, as required under section 55 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. [19213]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Yes. The 11th report by the Director General of Telecommunications is being published today. It covers the period 1 January to 31 December 1994. Copies of the report have been laid before each House of Parliament.

  Internet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the Internet electronic mail addresses of(a) his Department and (b) each Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement on his Department's approach to the information super-highway. [17733]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Some 2,000 of the Department's staff can currently be contacted via Internet/X400 service email. For this reason, it is not practicable to list all the addresses. This number will rise to 5,000 over the next 18 months as our office automation programme—OSPREY—is fully implemented. All Ministers will be added to OSPREY during this summer's recess. In the meantime, my own Internet account is taylor@mintech.demon.co.uk.
  1185
  I have instigated a programme to consider and develop the Department's usage from a strategic perspective, which will consider the potential for full Internet access from OSPREY workstations, along with the creation of a data server dedicated to supply departmental information to the Internet community.

  The Department's approach to the information super-highway has been set out in evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and in debates in the House, as well as in the Command Paper, dated November 1994 which is on the Internet at
  http://www.open.gov.uk/dti/broadband-comms/anx-9.htm.

  Raytheon Plant, Broughton
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he has taken to persuade the president of Raytheon to reconsider his decision to close the Raytheon plant in Broughton. [17836]

  Mr. Heseltine
  Ministers at the DTI and the Welsh Office have met the president of Raytheon and have written to the company. The UK work force at Raytheon and local interests at Broughton have been kept in touch.

  Privatised Utilities (Pay Increases)
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on pay increases for executives in privatised utilities since privatisation. [16448]

  Mr. Eggar
  Pay increases for executives in the privatised utilities are a matter for the companies and their shareholders and not for the Government.

  Coal Gasification
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support his Department is giving to research into the development of coal gasification for the purposes of power generation. [16858]

  Mr. Page
  My Department views the development of coal gasification for the purpose of power generation as a major element of its clean coal technology R and D programme, which was detailed in energy paper 63 last October. My Department encouraged the formation of an industry-led consortium known as the clean coal power generation group to take forward, with Government assistance, further activities in coal gasification. This consortium consist of GEC Alsthom subsidiaries European Gas Turbines, Stein Industrie and EVT together with PowerGen, Babcock Energy and British Coal's coal technology development division. The initial objective of this consortium is to take forward a power generation technology known as the air blown gasification cycle to a point where its individual components are fully developed. This technology is fully described in a brochure entitled "Towards Cleaner Coal Power Generation" which, along with energy paper 63, can be found in the Libraries of the House. There are currently in excess of 40 projects under way within this and related coal gasification initiatives to a total project value of over £74 million. The DTI contribution to this work is approximately £14 million.

  Green Policy
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will name the green Minister for his Department and list(a) the green initiatives taken by that Minister in respect of the Department's functions, (b) the representations made by the Minister in respect of functions carried out by other Departments and (c) the input made by the Minister into consultations on the Environment Bill. [18655]

  Mr. Page
  My right hon. Friend President of the Board of Trade has designated me as the Department's green Minister. The latest outline of the Department's environmental initiatives appear in the expenditure plans report for 1995, Cm 2804. There are close and frequent consultations between Departments on matters of common interest. Representations made by my Department on environmental matters, including the Environment Bill, are consistent with the Department's objectives of stimulating an effective business response to environmental developments and ensuring that the Government's overall environmental policy takes proper account of the impact on business.

  Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the expected role of the trading standards inspectors, with regard to enforcing the European Union EMC directive 89/336/EEC; and, in particular, what measures will be taken to ensure that the directive will not be enforced differently in different EU nations. [17417]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Local authority trading standards officers are the principal enforcement agents in the United Kingdom for the electromagnetic compatibility directive, 89/336/EEC. It is expected that they will follow a predominantly complaints-driven enforcement policy and that they will combine market surveillance under this directive with enforcement of other existing, related legislation, such as the low voltage directive, 73/23/EEC.

  Administrative co-operation between national enforcement agencies is being developed to facilitate consistency of application throughout the EU. My Department's single market compliance unit will advise and assist, where possible, UK businesses facing barriers to trade within the Union.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if a positive pre-compliance test would comply with the European Union EMC directive 89/336/EEC.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  It is for manufacturers to decided how best to comply with the electromagnetic compatibility regulations which implement the EMC directive. Pre-compliance, diagnostic, testing can give a manufacturer a degree of confidence that his product will not breach agreed levels of electromagnetic radiation but the manufacturer cannot be sure of complying with the law if he chooses not to test an example of the finished product. Harmonised European standards provide the clearest route by which a manufacturer can self-certify his products as complying with the essential protection requirements.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the expected total cost of implementing and subsequently enforcing European Union directive EMC 89/336/EEC(a) to Her Majesty's

  1187
  Government and (b) to United Kingdom industry and distribution; and what assistance United Kingdom industry and distribution can expect to help them to implement the new directive. [17418]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The cost to central and local government of implementing and enforcing the EMC regulations is expected to be low since enforcement will be undertaken by local authority trading standards officers, as part of their existing role concerning electrical safety.

  For manufacturers, it has been estimated that between 2 and 5 per cent. could be added to design costs, although the cost should decline as the proportion of designs taking account of EMC requirements from the outset increases. Technical assistance has been made available to industry via an extensive EMC awareness campaign, including oral advice; guidance publications; articles in technical and trade press; and the formation of 15 regional EMC clubs to help companies understand the legal, technical and business aspects of the directive.

  House Collapse, Kidsgrove
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will request the Coal Authority to investigate the causes of the house collapse on 28 March in Kidsgrove, Stoke on Trent; and if he will make a statement. [17787]

  Mr. Page
  The Coal Authority is currently investigating the cause of this occurrence.

  Privatised Utility Companies
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those privatised utilities which, according to the estimates of his Department, have been able to reduce bills to United Kingdom consumers as a result of overseas investment. [16234]

  Mr. Eggar
  Companies' revenues from any overseas activities are outside the regulated businesses. The money to develop foreign businesses comes from shareholders' funds, not those of UK customers; this means that overseas activities have no effect on UK prices and bills.

  Paper (Price)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on changes in the price of paper over the past 12 months; and what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that these are justified. [18560]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The price of paper is a matter for the commercial judgment of those concerned. I understand that the Director General of Fair Trading has recently considered price increases in the paper products market but has found no evidence to suggest that these were the result of anti-competitive practices. Any evidence of such practices should be brought to the attention of the DGFT.

  Nigeria (Visits)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list the exact dates of ministerial visits to Nigeria since June 1993 listing the Ministers and the reasons for the visit in each case; [17778]

  (2) if he will list the exact dates of visits by officials in his Department to Nigeria since June 1993 and the reason for the visit in each case. [17784]
  1188
  Mr. Needham
  In accordance with EU measures announced in 1993, there have been no visits by any Ministers from the Department of Trade and Industry during the period specified. Officials from the Department's overseas trade services division have, however, visited Nigeria since June 1993 and the specific dates where available are listed in the table. In each case, the visit was entirely for trade promotion purposes.

  Official

  Number of visits

  Period

  Export Promoter

  5

  25 January–4 February 1994

  14 February–18 February 1994

  9 May–13 May 1994

  27 November–7 December 1994

  19 February–25 February 1995

  Grade 7

  2

  October 1993

  February 1994

  HEO

  8

  September 1993

  November 1993

  April 1994

  June 1994

  September 1994

  25 November–3 December 1994

  26 January–3 February 1995 (with successor)

  EO

  1

  26 January–9 February 1995

  Precious Metals (Marking)
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if has changed his policy in respect of resistance to moves to permit manufacturers' self-certification under the EU draft directive on the marking of precious metal articles. [17439]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 31 March 1995]: There has been no change of policy. The Government believe that manufacturers' self-certification offers a lower form of guarantee to consumers than independent marking of precious metal articles, as practised by the United Kingdom assay offices. This was made clear in the Council of Ministers' meeting on March 30, when the current draft directive was not accepted.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what procedures Her Majesty's Government will be implementing to ensure that all future transfers of military, security and police equipment, including dual-use technologies, will comply with the resolution passed by the European Parliament on 19 January in respect of bringing all such transfers within the scope of European export controls and making all such transfers apparent; and if he will make a statement. [17140]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 30 March 1995]: European Parliament resolutions are not binding on either individual member states or on the Council, although its views are noted. Decisions on arms exports remain a national responsibility.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what procedures his Department will be implementing to
  1189
  ensure that all future transfers of military, security and police equipment, including dual-use technologies, will comply with the European Parliament resolution passed on 19 January. [17786]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok, (Mr. Dunnachie).

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the values of loan guarantees of British arms exports in each of the last 10 years. [17525]

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 31 March 1995]: ECGD support for defence business over the last 10 years is as follows:

  Financial year

  Value of defence business (£ million)

  1985–86

  208

  1986–87

  446

  1987–88

  197

  1988–89

  707

  1989–90

  378

  1990–91

  640

  1991–92

  276

  1992–93

  1,591

  1993–94

  1,973

  1994–95

  623

  The figures for 1994–95 are provisional pending the publication of ECGD's 1994–95 trading accounts.

PRIME MINISTER

  Parliamentary Delegations
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the "Information Bulletin" on the activities of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union for the period July 1994 to February 1995, which has been sent to him. [19215]

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today.

  Mr. Nicholas Ingram
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to the US state of Georgia regarding the proposed electrocution of a British subject, Nicky Ingram; and if he will make a statement. [17774]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 31 March 1995]: My sympathy is with any family who find themselves in this difficult position. My own views on capital punishment are well known. However, after careful consideration, I am advised that there are no proper grounds for the British Government to intervene. I have therefore not made any representations on Mr. Ingram's behalf.

  Ministers (Car Hire)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the rules concerning the use by members of the Government in their official capacity of 1190
  cars hired from the private sector; and if he will make a statement. [17702]

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government car service may provide private car hire facilities for members of the Government where a Government car service car and driver are not available.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, what has been the cost of cars hired from the private sector for the transport of members of the Government for each year from 1987 to date. [17702]

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information as requested is not available.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government will hold discussions with the British relatives of Lockerbie victims before taking action on any decision of the United Nations to implement wider oil sanctions against Libya and other actions as a result of the meeting of the American Lockerbie relatives with White House officials. [17857]

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  We shall keep representatives of the British relatives of the Lockerbie victims informed of developments at the United Nations concerning sanctions against Libya and continue to take their views into account in considering how to ensure that those responsible for the bombing are brought to justice.

EDUCATION

  Microscopes
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what response she is sending to the Royal Microscopical Society in respect of its proposal that there should be a microscope in every school. [16375]

  Mr. Forth
  Officials replied to the Royal Microscopical Society's proposal on 2 March 1995. The reply welcomed the society's initiative and wished it well, while making it clear that it is for schools and local authorities to decide what equipment they need to meet the requirements of the national curriculum. A copy of the reply has been placed in the Library.

  Medical Schools
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what specific financial arrangements are in place to assist medical students; and if she will make a statement. [17709]

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 4 April.

  Pupils
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils there were in(a) local education authorities and (b) grant-maintained schools in each local authority area at January. [18345]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested for 1994, the latest date for which information is available, is shown in the table.
  1191

  Numbers of pupils1 in maintained schools in each local education authority area in England (January 1994)

  LEA maintained schools

  Grant-maintained schools

  Corporation of London

  214

  0

  Camden

  19,610

  2,381

  Greenwich

  36,441

  0

  Hackney

  25,049

  0

  Hammersmith

  14,573

  1,237

  Islington

  23,517

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  8,967

  944

  Lambeth

  21,864

  4,593

  Lewisham

  32,007

  421

  Southwark

  28,775

  4,133

  Tower Hamlets

  33,954

  891

  Wandsworth

  20,241

  7,181

  Westminster

  17,033

  0

  Barking

  26,030

  0

  Barnet

  33,906

  9,769

  Bexley

  31,055

  3,287

  Brent

  26,718

  8,997

  Bromley

  28,160

  11,803

  Croydon

  38,213

  4,680

  Ealing

  32,664

  7,408

  Enfield

  36,327

  5,791

  Haringey

  29,608

  0

  Harrow

  27,374

  528

  Havering

  31,341

  3,877

  Hillingdon

  20,043

  15,171

  Hounslow

  32,403

  2,123

  Kingston upon Thames

  15,863

  3,149

  Merton

  23,232

  0

  Newham

  40,255

  582

  Redbridge

  34,393

  1,125

  Richmond upon Thames

  19,038

  0

  Sutton

  17,750

  7,572

  Waltham Forest

  30,642

  2,099

  Birmingham

  163,079

  14,802

  Coventry

  49,913

  0

  Dudley

  43,366

  5,054

  Sandwell

  51,108

  653

  Solihull

  33,368

  559

  Walsall

  43,020

  6,366

  Wolverhampton

  40,552

  2,404

  Knowsley

  27,992

  731

  Liverpool

  81,934

  2,366

  St. Helens

  29,946

  0

  Sefton

  47,168

  0

  Wirral

  51,857

  2,107

  Bolton

  42,429

  3,261

  Bury

  27,814

  232

  Manchester

  70,796

  0

  Oldham

  41,653

  0

  Rochdale

  34,020

  2,010

  Salford

  35,883

  430

  Stockport

  42,970

  0

  Tameside

  35,107

  2,371

  Trafford

  29,833

  3,083

  Wigan

  50,621

  0

  Barnsley

  34,578

  0

  Doncaster

  52,032

  0

  Rotherham

  44,190

  0

  Sheffield

  70,775

  2,505

  Bradford

  83,406

  5,565

  Calderdale

  28,728

  4,709

  Kirklees

  62,567

  1,267

  Leeds

  113,062

  1,184

  Wakefield

  51,922

  0

  Gateshead

  30,558

  0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  40,749

  0

  North Tyneside

  31,660

  0

  1192

  Numbers of pupils1 in maintained schools in each local education authority area in England (January 1994)

  LEA maintained schools

  Grant-maintained schools

  South Tyneside

  26,397

  0

  Sunderland

  51,321

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  291

  0

  Avon

  137,357

  1,710

  Bedfordshire

  81,360

  9,567

  Berkshire

  103,502

  9,833

  Buckinghamshire

  90,109

  11,653

  Cambridgeshire

  84,515

  17,274

  Cheshire

  153,008

  2,927

  Cleveland

  103,146

  0

  Cornwall

  69,977

  0

  Cumbria

  65,372

  9,773

  Derbyshire

  128,591

  17,272

  Devon

  136,651

  4,983

  Dorset

  78,626

  9,591

  Durham

  97,711

  0

  East Sussex

  88,025

  0

  Essex

  146,390

  76,532

  Gloucestershire

  56,666

  21,714

  Hampshire

  201,345

  19,180

  Hereford and Worcester

  94,445

  3,643

  Hertfordshire

  137,829

  19,099

  Humberside

  143,600

  341

  Isle of Wight

  17,955

  0

  Kent

  183,670

  51,103

  Lancashire

  214,486

  7,103

  Leicestershire

  138,347

  3,270

  Lincolnshire

  66,722

  22,410

  Norfolk

  93,702

  11,347

  North Yorkshire

  104,727

  0

  Northamptonshire

  85,417

  12,466

  Northumberland

  51,019

  650

  Nottinghamshire

  156,816

  1,837

  Oxfordshire

  78,400

  81

  Shropshire

  57,984

  3,989

  Somerset

  64,487

  631

  Staffordshire

  163,143

  4,470

  Suffolk

  93,282

  0

  Surrey

  107,933

  13,139

  Warwickshire

  68,726

  4,783

  West Sussex

  94,854

  0

  Wiltshire

  70,552

  12,927

  England

  6,764,552

  556,699

  1 Head count of pupils of all ages.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many three and four-year-olds in each local education authority were(a) in maintained nursery classes and (b) in maintained primary schools in each year since 1990; what percentage of the relevant population each figure represents; and what was the percentage change on the previous year in each case. [18625]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the changes to the funding of each post-16 college between 1994–95 and 1995–96; and what changes are forecast for each college in future years. [18348]

  Mr. Boswell
  Details of the allocation of funding to colleges are matters for the Further Education Funding Council. I am therefore asking the council's chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Funding Councils
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what was the cost of abolishing the Universities Funding Council; [18604]

  (2) what was the cost of abolishing the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council; [18603]

  (3) what was the cost of establishing the Higher Education Funding Council. [18606]

  Mr. Boswell
  There were no direct costs in abolishing the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and the Universities Funding Council. The two councils occupied the same building in Bristol and were already operating as a joint executive before they were dissolved on 31 March 1993 and re-formed on 1 April 1993 as the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The only direct costs of establishing the Higher Education Funding Council were the £500,000 running costs grant paid in 1992–93 to run the new council alongside those it was to replace.

  Office for Standards in Education
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the costs of establishing Ofsted. [18608]

  Mr. Boswell
  The establishment of Ofsted was contained within the existing departmental provision for running costs, and was not separately identified. In 1992–93, DFE transferred £8.225 million to the vote of the newly created Ofsted. This covered setting up and running costs from formation on 1 September 1992 until the end of the financial year 1992–93.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will outline the measures taken, facilities offered and adjustments made in her Department and agencies for which she is responsible to facilitate access for disabled people; what plans she has to improve access; and if she will make a statement. [18592]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has staff in London and Darlington. The Teachers Pensions Agency occupies specific areas on the Mowden hall site in Darlington, its accommodation being provided by the Department.

  Sanctuary buildings in London was designed to be fully accessible to the disabled. The entrance allows for easy access by wheelchair and there are a limited number of parking spaces in the basement for disabled staff. There are lifts to all floors of the building including the basement for use of the car park. There are male and female toilets for the disabled on every floor. The staff training centre at Park gate in Tothill street is housed on a single floor of an older building. A ramp is available to allow for wheelchair access.

  The main Darlington office is at Mowden hall. There is level access to the building. Access for disabled people has been improved over the years to provide:
  parking spaces specifically for disabled people;
  ramps both portable and static where necessary on site;
  a reception desk which has been lowered to make it more user friendly;
  1194
  lifts which are available from the reception area to all floors of the main building;
  toilets for the disabled which are fitted with emergency alarms;
  and emergency flashing lights are provided for staff with hearing difficulties.

  The staff training centre at Enterprise house in Darlington offers access by a stairmatic chair. There are plans to relocate the staff training centre to the main Mowden hall site by the end of 1995 making it more accessible.

  Evacu-chairs are provided on all sites to assist with the evacuation of disabled staff in emergencies.

  The Department will he considering what further action could be taken to improve physical access and facilities for disabled staff, as part of its action plan to achieve equality of opportunity for staff with disabilities.

  School Curriculum and Assessment Authority
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of establishing the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority. [18602]

  Mr. Forth
  The estimated total cost of establishing the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, including the cost of winding up the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council, is £4.2 million. These costs will be more than offset by recurrent savings on running costs as a result of replacing two bodies with one. Running costs are estimated at £9.4 million in 1994–95 for SCAA, the first full year of its operation, as against £11.3 million for NCC and SEAC in 1992–93, the last full year of their operation.

  National Youth Agency
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what was the cost of abolishing the National Youth Bureau; [18610]

  (2) what was the cost of establishing the National Youth Agency. [18609]

  Mr. Boswell
  No specific cost resulted from the abolition of the National Youth Bureau, as its staff and functions were taken over by the National Youth Agency on its establishment in April 1991. The grant previously paid to the five national youth service bodies including the National Youth Bureau was channelled through the NYA.

  In 1990–91, DFE grant to the national youth service bodies was £1.067 million. In 1991–92, DFE grant to the agency was £1.345 million, which comprised a core grant of £1.165 million and additional grant of £0.180 million. The additional grant included funding for initial start-up costs of the agency.

  Green Policy
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will name the green Minister for her Department and list(a) the green initiatives taken by that Minister in respect of the Department's functions, (b) the representations made by the Minister in respect of functions carried out by other Departments and (c) the input made by the Minister into consultations on the Environment Bill. [18643]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I am the Department's Minister with responsibility for green matters.
  1195
  The Department works closely with other partners in the education system on environmental matters within school education, teacher training, further and higher education and the management of premises. The revised national curriculum, which will come into force for most pupils in September 1995, requires extensive coverage of environmental matters, particularly through scientific and geographical aspects. Recently the Department, jointly with the Department of the Environment, organised a conference on education about the environment which focused on the effective teaching of the environmental aspects of the national curriculum. In the last six months, the Department has issued guidance for schools on solar energy and on energy-saving measures, while guidance on the schools environmental assessment method is in preparation.

  In 1993, the Department drew to the attention of further and higher education institutions the report of the committee set up with the Welsh Office to review the state of environmental education in further and higher education in England and Wales. Implementation of the report's recommendations is largely for the institutions themselves, but the Department is currently considering the proposal for monitoring progress nationally.

  "Education Means Business—Private Finance in England"
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what the costs of(a) publication and (b) distribution of her Department's 1994 publication "Education Means Business—Private Finance in England" were; and how many copies were issued and to whom. [18601]

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 3 April,Official Report, column 921.

  Further Education Funding Council
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of establishing the Further Education Funding Council. [18605]

  Mr. Boswell
  The running cost expenditure of the council for 1992–93, the period in which it was established, was £24.4 million, most of which expenditure was devoted to preparing colleges for incorporation. The council's running cost for 1993–94, which related principally to the administration of the new sector, was £18.8 million. In both periods, the process of establishing the council was assisted by the work of officials within my Department. Figures disaggregating the cost of their contributions to the establishment of the council are not available.

  Teacher Training Agency
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of establishing the Teacher Training Agency. [18607]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department for Eduction spent £67,849 on establishing the Teacher Training Agency. This figure does not include the time spent by officials working on what is now the Education Act 1994. In addition, the Department made available £1,472,151 to the agency in the 1994–95 financial year, which covered 1196
  further setting up costs as well as the agency's administration.

  Education and Youth Ministers Councils
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the outcomes of the Councils of Education Ministers and of Youth Ministers held on 31 March 1995. [19121]

  Mr. Boswell
  On 31 March, the Council of Education Ministers adopted a resolution on improving and diversifying language learning and teaching within the education systems on the European Union, and reached political agreement to the Council's common position on the Commission proposal to make 1996 the European Year of Lifelong Education and Training.

  The Council of Youth Ministers, held on the same day, adopted a resolution on co-operation in the field of youth information and studies concerning youth.

  School Finances
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many school governing bodies have set deficit budgets in the current year. [18400]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list by education authority the total unspent balances in schools at the conclusions of each of the last three financial years. [18554]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  For the financial year 1993–94, the information requested may be found in the answer given on 1 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie),Official Report, columns 614–16. The requisite information for 1992–93 is at present being collated by the Department from the local management of schools outturn statements published by local education authorities for that year, and I will write to my hon. Friend when this work is complete. For 1994–95, the information is not yet available.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many parliamentary questions to her Department were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which she has responsibility in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence; [18540]

  (2) how many parliamentary questions to her Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which she has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence. [18539]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is a matter of public record, but it could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by her Department in each year since 1979–80; and how
  1197
  many such questions received a substantive answer within 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18535]

  (2) how many parliamentary questions to her Department requesting a priority written answer or answer on a named day, were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further five, 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18536]

  (3) how many times in each year since 1979–80 her Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report; [18537]

  (4) how many times in each year since 1979–80 her Department has written to a right hon. or hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question. [18538]

  Mr. Boswell
  Neither the Department nor the House of Commons POLIS unit collects information in the form requested.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list by education authority the cash balances held at the conclusion of each of the last three financial years. [18553]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information will take a few days to gather. I will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if she will list by education authority in descending order the cash sum per pupil represented by the top slice percentage of the common funding formula. [18069]

  (2) if she will list by education authority in descending order the common funding formula top slice percentages. [18068]

  (3) if she will list by education authority the amounts agreed by her Department as expenses to be deducted from each local education budget before calculating amounts due to grant-maintained schools under the headings (a) corporate management, (b) service strategy and regulation, (c) premature retirement compensation costs of local education authorities' school staff, (d) other, and (e) the total for (i) 1994–95 and (ii) 1995–96. [18070]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list each non-departmental body and agency for which she has responsibility and, for each, list separate figures for the spending by that body or agency on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotion materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising for each year since 1979–80 or for each year of its existence if it has been created since 1979–80; and what are her latest estimates of (a) to (f) for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17604]

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has responsibility for the following non-departmental public bodies:

  Centre for Information on Language, Teaching and Research;

  1198

  Education Assets Board:

  Funding Agency for Schools;

  Further Education Funding Council;

  Further Education Unit—to 31 March 1995;

  Higher Education Funding Council for England;

  National Council for Educational Technology;

  National Youth Agency;

  School Curriculum and Assessment Authority;

  Special Educational Needs Tribunal;

  Teacher Training Agency.

  The Department has one next steps agency, the Teachers Pensions Agency.

  Operational and managerial matters are the responsibility of the individual body concerned. I have therefore asked the chairman or chief executive of each body to write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Letter from Geoffrey Parker to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 5 April 1995:
  I am writing at the request of Tim Boswell, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education, with information you requested in your recent Parliamentary Question about NDPB expenditure.
  The Teacher Training Agency was established last September so the figures below represent the estimated outturn for the period from September 1994 to March 1995. We do not have firm estimates for these items for 1995–96.

  Expenditure 1994–95

  £000s

  (a) Television advertising

  Nil

  (b) Radio advertising

  Nil

  (c) Newspaper advertising

  44

  (d) Other promotion materials and activities

  39

  (e) Total (a to d)

  83

  (f) Proportion of (e) spent on recruitment advertising

  53 per cent.

  I hope this information is helpful.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Computer Pornography
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 488, when he expects to receive the report from CCTA on pornography on the Internet; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [17897]

  Mr. Horam
  I expect to receive a report from CCTA examining all the ethical issues of the Internet, which includes, but also ranges more widely than, pornography, in July. I will place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many parliamentary questions to his Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence. [18466]

  Mr. David Hunt
  Since my Department was formed in May 1992, there have been no such instances.
  1199
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many parliamentary questions to his Department were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence. [18465]

  Mr. David Hunt
  Since my Department was formed in May 1992, a total of six questions have been transferred for answer to the chief executives of the agencies of which I am responsible. The figure can be broken down as follows:

  1992–93: 2

  1993–94: 0

  1994–95: 4

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has written to a right hon. or hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question; [18464]

  (2) how many parliamentary questions to his Department in each year since 1979–80 requesting a priority written answer or answer on a named day, were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further five, 10, 15, 20 days or longer. [18462]

  (3) how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by his Department in each year since 1979–80; and how many such questions received a substantive answer within 10, 15, 20 days or longer. [18461]

  (4) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report. [18463]

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is a matter of public record, but it could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will outline the measures taken, facilities offered and adjustments made in his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to facilitate access for disabled people; what plans he has to improve access; and if he will make a statement. [18591]

  Mr. Horam
  The Cabinet Office, the Central Office of Information and Her Majesty's Stationery Office have all appointed departmental disabled persons' officers, DDPOs. The DDPOs each work closely with their respective accommodation services to ensure that they are aware of the needs of disabled staff and visitors.

  The London estate of the Cabinet Office consists, largely, of historic listed buildings which were not designed with the needs of disabled people in mind. In the light of this the Cabinet Office has commissioned an "access survey" for its London buildings to determine how they can he made more accessible within the constraints imposed by listed building regulations

  For each of my Department's buildings, for which we are the major occupier, a number of measures have been taken to improve access and facilities for the disabled
  1200
  within the rolling programmes of building works and refurbishment. These include: provision of designated car parking spaces where car parks exist; introduction of braille buttons in lifts; provision of toilets for the disabled wherever possible within constraints of building lay-out and lease provisions; access ramps to entrances where practical, and availability of escorts within buildings to help visitors who are visually impaired.

  We will continue to build on this approach.

  Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans the Medical Research Council has to initiate research into hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; and if he will make a statement. [17705]

  Mr. Horam
  The Medical Research Council supports an extensive portfolio of basic and applied research in cardiovascular disease, much of which has direct relevance to the problem of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. However, none of this is specifically addressing the disease as such.

  Although there are currently no plans to initiate research specifically into hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, the MRC is happy to consider applications in this field.

  Coronary Diseases
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the coronary diseases researched by the Medical Research Council and the amount spent on each, for the last year for which figures are available. [17706]

  Mr. Horam
  Following is a list of the cardiovascular diseases researched by the Medical Research Council:

  Arrhythmia

  Atherosclerosis

  Atheroma

  Cardiomyopathy

  Heart failure

  Hypercholesterolaemia

  Hyperlipidaemia

  Hypertension

  Ischaemia

  Thrombosis

  Owing to the significant overlap of funding covering these diseases, and to the interrelation between the above categories, it is impossible to provide specific figures covering each of the diseases. However, in the last financial year for which figures are available, 1993–94, the MRC spent over £6 million directly on cardiovascular research, and over £16 million on research which may have some relevance to the condition.

  Executive Agencies
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for this year and each of the past five years, how many employees in (i) his Department and (ii) all executive agencies for which his Department is responsible who have been employed on temporary contracts of(a) 51 weeks; or (b) less than 51 weeks duration are re-employed in the same or similar position at a later date.

  Mr. Horam
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 March 1995 c. 620–21]: The figure for the number of people employed

  1201
  by the COI on contracts of less than 51 weeks is 17–3.4 per cent.—and not zero as originally stated.

  Green Policy
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will name the green Minister for his Department and list(a) the green initiatives taken by that Minister in respect of the Department's functions, (b) the representations made by the Minister in respect of functions carried out by other Departments and (c) the input made by the Minister into consultations on the Environment Bill. [18653]

  Mr. Horam
  I am the green Minister for the Cabinet Office, including the Office of Public Service and Science, its executive agencies, and HMSO and the Central Office of Information. My Department has an environmental strategy and has updated its supporting action plan for 1995; my Department's non-departmental public bodies have also been invited to support energy savings policies. Details of specific actions taken in support of the Department's strategy are given in the Government expenditure plans for the Cabinet Office, Cm 2820, published on 1 March 1995. My Department is involved in discussions on a number of other environmental issues.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's position in negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty in relation to nuclear tests carried out for safety and reliability purposes. [18112]

  Mr. David Davis
  We are committed to negotiating a comprehensive test ban treaty with an effective verification system and which commands universal adherence. We are studying how best to meet the continuing need to assure the safety and reliability of our deterrent.

  Inhumane Weapons Convention
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent proposals he has received from other states with regard to the review conference of the inhumane weapons convention. [18114]

  Mr. David Davis
  There is a wide measure of agreement among our NATO allies, EU partners and others on proposals for strengthening protocol II of the convention concerning anti-personnel landmines. These include the extension of the scope of the protocol to non-international armed conflict; new provisions on self-destructing mechanisms, detectable mines and the marking and mapping of minefields, as well as the protection of humanitarian workers in mined areas; and the inclusion of restrictions on transfers in the protocol.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those states that have ratified the 1981 inhumane weapons convention. [18113]

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs.1202
  Clwyd) on 27 March, Official Report, column 442. The United States of America has now also ratified the convention.

  Royal Visits (Costs)
  Mr. Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the costs for the last two years and what are the estimated costs for the current year and the next two years of(a) the Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps and (b) royal overseas visits at the request of Government Departments. [18051]

  Mr. Baldry
  The costs borne by my Department are:(a) Marshall of the Diplomatic Corps

  1992–93: £67,552

  1993–94: £67,806

  1994–95: £63,101 Estimate

  1995–96: £68,848 Estimate

  1996–97: £71,742 Estimate

  (b) Royal visits overseas at the request of Government Departments

  1992–93: £455,695

  1993–94: £491,845

  1994–95: £560,000 Estimate

  1995–96: £477,000 Estimate

  1996–97: £489,000 Estimate

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the King of Morocco on Libya sanctions. [18092]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs nor I have had recent discussions about Libya with the King of Morocco.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with President Nelson Mandela and other South African leaders about a rapprochement between Libya and the west. [18091]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had discussions with a number of South African leaders during Her Majesty the Queen's recent state visit to South Africa. The South African Government share our concern that Libya should comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions without further delay.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with President Mitterand the implications of the agreement for large-scale oil exploration rights between the Government of Libya and the French Company Totale for the imposition of United Nations sanctions against Libya. [18199]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 9, if he will enter into discussions with Djibouti and Morocco on their abstention over sanctions against Libya. [18201]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 8, following the emergence of new information about the Lockerbie crime, if he will pursue the Lockerbie investigation further with the Government of Finland. [18205]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 9, if he will specify what the unwarranted criticisms were to which he referred, with regard to the German authorities and the Scottish police in relation to Lockerbie. [18203]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It was reported in the press and media, wrongly, that the German authorities had released Abdul Fatah Ghadanfar before the Scottish police were given an opportunity to interview him and that the Scottish police had not made any efforts to interview him, or his associate Haj Hafez Dalkamouni, in connection with the Lockerbie bombing.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 9, if the concerns of Her Majesty's Government about Abdul Ghadanfar were known to the German police before his release from arrest. [18191]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Member on 6 March.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 6, regarding the possible involvement of officials of countries other than Libya in the Lockerbie bombing, if he will name the countries, the possible involvement of whose nationals have been very closely investigated. [18193]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 6, regarding the possible involvement of officials of countries other than Libya in the Lockerbie bombing if he will make available all available evidence which supports charges to the Government of Germany. [18195]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations Security Council has endorsed our demand that Libya make the two accused available for trial in Scotland or the United States. It would not be appropriate to disclose the contents of confidential communications with the prosecuting or judicial authorities of other countries.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 5, if he will specify what were the differences in detail to which he referred, between the story in relation to which Air Malta brought the action and those contained in the warrants for the arrest of the two accused Libyans. [18197]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Member on 6 March.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has conveyed to the German authorities details of the suitcase of white powder, handled by Mr. Wilson, farmer of Tundergarth Farm near Lockerbie in December 1988, about which 1204
  information was conveyed to him in a letter of 9 February from the Rev. John Mosey. [18183]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No significant quantities of drugs were recovered in the course of the Lockerbie investigation, although some small "user" amounts of cannabis were found. Allegations that a quantity of white powder drugs were found in a suitcase recovered at Tundergarth Mains farm were investigated some years ago in the early stages of the investigation. There was no substance to the allegations and nothing to be conveyed to the German authorities.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 6, what action he has taken to offer Volke Rath, state prosecutor at Frankfurt, additional evidence against two accused Libyans, to enable him to bring proceedings in Germany. [18184]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations Security Council has endorsed our demand that Libya make the two accused available for trial in Scotland or the United States. It would not be appropriate to disclose the contents of confidential communications with the prosecuting or judicial authorities of other countries.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 7, whether the Scottish police asked or suggested to the Bundeskriminalamt or Verfassungschutz that they could directly question Mr. Ghadanfar and Mr. Dalkamouni. [18185]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Member on 6 March.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 9, if he will enter into discussions with Egypt and Sudan about Lockerbie and their opposition to sanctions against Libya. [18202]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have regular contacts with the Governments of both countries on a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 6, on the consideration of evidence of the involvement of officials of countries other than Libya in the Lockerbie bombing, what new information has been considered since 6 March. [18192]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 6 March.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet Esmat Abdul Meguid and the Arab League on the issue of Libya's position in relation to Lockerbie in the next three months. [18194]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I hope to meet Dr. Meguid in London today.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 6, when he estimates that the issue of the United States decision that the Montreal convention, requiring attempts at conciliation and arbitration, should not be applied in relation to Pan Am 103 and Lockerbie will be heard before the International Court of Justice; and if he will outline the position of Her Majesty's Government. [18196]
  1205
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The timing of any hearing is a matter for the International Court of Justice. The United Kingdom does not accept that Libya enjoys rights under the Montreal convention in relation to the sabotage of Pan Am 103.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation have been made to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by Professor Dr. John Buontempo, former Maltese ambassador to Arab countries, in connection with the Lockerbie bombing. [18198]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Professor Buontempo has explained to Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials his personal view that the trial of the two Libyans accused of the Lockerbie bombing should be held in Malta.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's ambassador in Cairo last had discussions with Dr. Meguid, Secretary General of the Arab League, on Lockerbie; and what was the result. [18200]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Her Majesty's ambassador at Cairo has had a number of discussions on Lockerbie with the Secretary General of the Arab League. Dr. Meguid shares our concern that the issue should be resolved urgently, in accordance with the Security Council resolutions.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 8, if he will support the proposal by the hon. Member for Eastwood, (Mr. Stewart) to allow the Scottish courts to operate outside Scotland. [18204]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no need for Scottish courts to operate outside Scotland. There are arrangements which allow the evidence of witnesses who are abroad to be taken before a local judge or relayed by direct television link to the courts in Scotland. We have no reason to believe that the Libyans will surrender the two accused for trial before a Scottish court sitting aboard. The Scottish lawyer representing the two accused has most recently suggested trial by a panel of judges headed by a Scottish judge. This is simply the latest in a long line of inappropriate and often contradictory proposals, none of which satisfies the requirement of the Security Council that the accused be produced for trial in Scotland or the United States.

  Green Policy
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will name the green Minister for his Department and list(a) the green initiatives taken by that Minister in respect of the Department's functions, (b) the representations made by the Minister in respect of functions carried out by other Departments and (c) the input made by the Minister into consultations on the Environment Bill. [18654]

  Mr. Baldry
  I am the FCO green Minister for both the diplomatic and development wings.

  I have set up an environmental management committee to produce a departmental action plan on green issues affecting the domestic arrangements of the FCO.

  Through officials, I have been concerned with reaching an acceptable procedure with the Department of Trade
  1206
  and Industry and Department of Environment for trying to ensure that timber and timber products are purchased from sustainably managed sources.

  I have also, through officials, been actively involved in the consultation process with other Government Departments about the Environment Bill.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline the measures taken, facilities offered and adjustments made in his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to facilitate access for disabled people; what plans he has to improve access; and if he will make a statement. [18598]

  Mr. Goodlad
  This Department ensures that all new refurbishment projects build in access and facilities for disabled people, apart from areas which are protected on heritage grounds. Disabled staff and visitors have access to all floors of the FCO's main building. There is a wheelchair access to the FCO's only public office in London. Car parking for disabled people is also available.

  When planning new building work overseas, the FCO complies with UK and EU building regulations which require disabled access to non-domestic buildings. Where the local standard is higher, the FCO meets local requirements.

  The Overseas Development Administration's sites in London and East Kilbride provide disabled access to the buildings, including lifts to all floors. The ODA is considering the installations of stairlifts to two areas of the London office currently inaccessible to wheelchair users.

  The Natural Resources Institute's accommodation was checked and approved by the Department of Employment's disablement advisory service in the late 1980s.

  Nigeria (Visits)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the exact dates of ministerial visits to Nigeria since June 1993, listing the Ministers and the reason for the visit in each case. [17779]

  Mr. Baldry
  There has been no ministerial visit to Nigeria since my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey last visited in January 1993.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the exact dates of visits by officials in his Department to Nigeria since June 1993 and the reason for the visit in each case. [17783]

  Mr. Baldry
  Details of such visits are not held centrally and could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  Burundi
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Burundi. [17825]

  Mr. Baldry
  The security situation in Burundi remains volatile. We are deeply concerned about developments and will continue to monitor events closely. We are working with the international community—and with the Secretary General's special representative, Mr. Ould
  1207
  Abdallah, in particular—to support the moderates from all sides in the Government who have agreed to work towards restoring public confidence and consolidate national reconciliation and democracy.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made to whether the Government in Ethiopia is breaching human rights; and if he will make a statement. [15332]

  Mr. Baldry
  We are concerned about the human rights situation in Ethiopia and take every opportunity to stress to the transitional Government the importance of making real progress in this area.

HEALTH

  NHS Executive Publications
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pamphlets the national health service executive has published since April 1991; if she will list for each publication the number published, the title, the recipients and the cost; and what was the total cost. [16167]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the right hon. Member to the replies I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 25 February 1993, columns 668–71, and on 21 October 1993, columns 311–14, and to the reply that my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Health gave the hon. Member for Brightside on 28 March 1994, columns 595–96, for information about pamphlets, leaflets and brochures issued by the national health service executive between April 1991 and March 1994. In 1993–94, seven further publications were issued. These were:

  Title

  Grassroots Issues 1–6

  cost £3,814

  Issued to Mental Health Carers and Professionals

  Creating Compatible Careers

  cost £2,350

  Issued to reference/nursing libraries, female health professionals on management programmes.

  A list of pamphlets and brochures issued in 1994–95 will be placed in the Library shortly.

  As a major employer, with responsibility for running a service used by the public, it is important that the NHS should give better information about the range of services it provides.

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list each non-departmental public body and agency for which she has responsibility and, for each, list separate figures for the spending by that body or agency on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotional materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment
  1208
  advertising for each year sine 1979–80 or for each year of its existence if it has been created since 1979–80; and what are her latest estimates of (a) to (f) for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17634]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested for the Department's non-departmental public bodies could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The chief executives of the Department's four agencies have been asked to reply to the hon. Member on those parts which fall within their areas of responsibility.

  Letter from K. Jones To Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 31 March 1995:

  EXPENDITURE ON ADVERTISING
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question, about expenditure on advertising, as part of it falls within my area of responsibility.
  The Medicines Control Agency has not carried out any advertising using television, radio and newspapers. Nor has it produced any promotional materials beyond those relating to the Agency's statutory functions. The Medicines Control Agency was established in June 1991 and figures relating to the expenditure on recruitment advertising are available from 1992.
  The sums involved are:

  1992/93: £14,800

  1993/94: £27,701

  1994/95: £36,326

  1995/96: £45,000 (forecast)

  Letter from Alan Kent to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 5 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Health has asked me to reply for the Medical Devices Agency (MDA) to your recent Parliamentary Question about expenditure on advertising and promotional materials and activities.
  The MDA was launched on 27 September 1994. Prior to that publicity services were paid for as part of the Department's overall expenditure. Since then MDA has spent £40k on newspaper advertising, to recruit 9 staff. There was no expenditure in this period on television or radio advertising for any purpose.
  Spending on promotional materials and activities was £105k in the same period, including publicity material connected with the launch; none was for recruitment purposes.
  We are in discussion with the Department about transferring a publicity budget to the Agency for 1995–96, based on last year's spend.

  Letter from John Locke to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 5 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question, as part of it falls within my area of responsibility.
  NHS Estates was launched as an executive Agency of the Department of Health in April 1991. In response to your question:

  a) and b) No expenditure has been incurred in television advertising or radio advertising.

  c) Newspaper advertising spending to date from April 1991 totals £24,500. Totals spent in each year are as follows:

  1991/92: not available

  1992/93: not available

  1993/94: not available

  1994/95: £24,5000

  1995/96: £12,000 (budgeted)

  d) Spending on promotional materials and activities to date totals £693,978.14. Totals spent in each year are as follows:

  1991/92: £275,000

  1992/93: £164,000

  1993/94: £114,450

  1994/95: £140,528.24

  1995/96: £52,000 (budgeted)

  All newspaper expenditure relates to recruitment advertising. Annual recruitment advertising information is only available from

  1209
  April 1994. Prior to this services were provided by the Department of Health. None of the spending on promotional material and activities relate to recruitment.

  Letter from A. F. Cowan to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 5 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Health has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as part of it falls within my area of responsibility.
  The only publicity undertaken by the Agency relates to the NHS Pension Scheme and is directed to NHS staff and employers. We do not advertise on television, radio or in newspapers. Promotional activities undertaken during 1994–95 and 1995–96 were:
  representation at 5 NHS Conferences at a total cost of £10,044.00;
  the insertion of information about the NHS Pension Scheme in the National Association of Health Authorities & Trusts (NAHAT's) diary at a total cost of £1,327.75;
  seminars held in England and Wales and booklets printed for all NHS employees about changes to the NHS Pension Scheme Regulations at a total cost of £75,234.32.
  We did not engage in recruitment advertising.

  NHS Accountability
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she will take to improve democratic accountability in the national health service; and if she will make a statement. [177881]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) on 17 January, columns 440–42.

  Baby Milk Manufacturers
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what regulations exist in the NHS on sponsorship by(a) manufacturers of infant formula milk, (b) distributors of infant formula milk and (c) Bounty Services Ltd.; and to what extent these regulations vary between trust and non-trust hospitals; [18399]

  (2) if she will list the occurrences in the past 10 years of sponsorship in the NHS by (a) manufacturers of infant formula milk, (b) distributors of infant formula milk and (c) Bounty Services Ltd. [18398]

  Mr. Sackville
  Advice on commercial sponsorship in the national health service does not distinguish between that provided by the baby milk industry and that provided by other commercial sponsors. No information is available centrally on the sponsorship provided by the baby milk industry to health authorities and trusts.

  General advice is contained in "Income Generation: A Guide to Local Initiative", issued under cover of HN(89)9. Advice on commercial sponsorship of posts and of attendance by staff at relevant conferences, courses and other events is contained in HSG(93)5, "Standards of business conduct for NHS staff'. Copies of both documents are available in the Library.

  Section 64 Grants
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the grants given under section 64 for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96. [18409]

  Mr. Bowis
  Grants totaling£ 19.663 million were awarded to 369 voluntary organisations in England under the section 64 general scheme during 1994–95. Details have been placed in the Library. Information on grants 1210
  given during 1995–96 will be made available at the end of that financial year in the usual way.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the National Drugs Advisory Committee working party report on solvent abuse is to be published. [18208]

  Mr. Bowis
  Shortly.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what authority the salaries of practice managers in general practitioner fundholding are paid. [18914]

  Mr. Malone
  General practitioners are independent self-employed contractors to the national health service and, as employers, are responsible for the salaries of their staff, including practice managers.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of fundholding practices whose patients are currently not being admitted to hospital for elective surgery because the practices have reached their financial limits; and if she will make a statement. [18257]

  Mr. Malone
  All national health service purchasers—district health authorities and fundholding general practitioners—are responsible for managing resources, to best meet the health needs of patients. Within this, all emergency cases are seen immediately, urgent cases are placed on a common waiting list and for non-urgent cases, national or local patients charter standards apply.

  Listeriosis
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of listeriosis were recorded in each of the past five years; and what were the main causes. [18918]

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of cases of systemic listeriosis reported to the public health laboratory service in England and Wales in the last five years is as follows:

  1990: 115

  1991: 127

  1992: 106

  1993: 102

  1994: 115

  The main cause of infection in these cases is unknown.

  The report of the World Health Organisation informal working group on foodborne listeriosis, concluded that the primary means of transmission of listeria monocytogenes to humans is through contamination of foodstuffs. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library.

  Social Services
  Mr. David Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is made available via the Liverpool standard spending assessment per child at risk; and what are the figures for(a) Birmingham, (b) Manchester, (c) Wandsworth, (d) Westminster and (e) the English average. [18949]

  Mr. Bowis
  The figures for the children's social services standard spending assessment per child at risk for 1995–96 are as follows:

  England: £15,548

  Liverpool: £13,622

  Birmingham: £17,285

  1211

  Manchester: £15,828

  Wandsworth: £27,369

  Westminster: £31,293

  The variation in the figure mainly reflects the variation in the proportion of residents under 18 years in non-white ethnic groups in each of the authorities.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects the work that she has commissioned into the children's social services standard spending assessments to be completed; if it will be ready for incorporation into the 1996–97 provisional standard spending assessments settlement; how many people are working on the study; if its findings will be retrospective; and what particular consideration is being given to the Liverpool children's social services standard spending assessments. [18933]

  Mr. Bowis
  Some exploratory work has been commissioned and shall be completed in May. The timing of any further research depends on the findings of the exploratory work but it is not expected that the research will affect standard spending assessments for 1996–97. One person is currently working part-time on the research. Any findings will not be applied retrospectively. No particular consideration is being given to any single local authority's children's social services standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account she takes of the economic index in determining Liverpool's social services standard spending assessment; what significance she attaches to ethnicity in determining the unit cost in relation to social services care; and what weight is given to economic factors in comparison to ethnicity in deciding the social services standard spending assessment. [18948]

  Mr. Bowis
  Neither the economic index nor any general economic factors are used in the calculation of social services standard spending assessments. An ethnicity factor is included as it has been shown to be related to the unit cost of children's services.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to announce the Government's plans for the future of the general dental service following the consultation of the Green Paper "Improving NHS Dentistry." [19125]

  Mr. Malone
  I am today writing to all dentists in England setting out the Government's proposals for the future of national health service dentistry. Ministers in the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices are writing in similar terms to the dentists in their countries.

  I am outlining a package of reform that will ensure access to high quality oral health care for the patient, stability for the dental profession and value for money for the taxpayer. These reforms will ensure that the oral health of the nation's children continues to improve. All treatment which is clinically essential will continue to be available in the national health service, as it is now.

  As set out in "Improving NHS Dentistry", all present exemptions and remissions from patient dental charges are to remain unchanged. This announcement does not include any changes to the structure or level of dental charges.
  1212
  "Improving NHS Dentistry" drew on Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's review of dental remuneration and the Health Select Committee's report on dental services. It set out two options for short-term reform of the current system of paying dentists. The first was a system of sessional fees which would reward dentists for the time spent treating NHS patients. This system will not be pursued as a short-term option.

  The other option was to reform the current fee-based system of paying dentists and I am today announcing a package of reforms which will achieve this. The package has five components:

  (1) The Government's highest priority is to sustain and develop the improvements in child oral health. We therefore intend to improve the capitation system currently in place for the care of children by relating payments to dentists to disease levels in children most in need. Details will be discussed with the profession.

  (2) In adult care, we will introduce more rigorous prior approval procedures for monitoring treatment to ensure that the general dental service provides only those treatments which are clinically essential and for which there is no clinically acceptable, less costly, alternative.

  (3) We also wish to reform the system of continuing care payments which dentists receive for adults on their lists to ensure better value for taxpayers' money. The continuing care relationship between dentists and patients will remain. We will discuss changes with the profession. If reform proves not to be possible, the Government will reconsider the future of these payments.

  (4) We intend to develop the role of the community dental service to meet the needs of patients in areas of the country where there is difficulty obtaining NHS treatment under the general dental service. This will include, subject to Parliamentary approval and the passage in due course of any necessary legislation, allowing the community dental service to levy charges. All charge exemption and remission arrangements that apply in the general dental service will apply equally in the community dental service.

  (5) The Government also intend to discuss with the profession the issue of past overpayments under the previous remuneration system and how we can together ensure financial stability in the general dental service. Providing satisfactory progress is made in the fundamental review of dental remuneration, the Government will not rule out waivers of past overpayments.

  I reaffirm the Government's aim of introducing a system of local contracts between health authorities and dental practices similar to that which operates elsewhere in the health service. "Improving NHS Dentistry", our Green Paper published last year, noted that such a system would need careful piloting and evaluation before any decision were taken on nationwide introduction. Primary legislation is required to set up pilots. Over one third of local dental committees said that they were prepared to take part in pilot schemes. The Government therefore intend to seek an appropriate opportunity, in due course, for the necessary legislation. Meanwhile, we are keen to work with the profession and other interested groups to develop the proposals further. The system of paying dentists through sessional payments, set out as an option in the Green Paper, can be tested as a part of this pilot scheme.

  The Government remain committed to an accessible, high quality NHS dental service and believe that the measures now proposed will provide stability and security for NHS dentistry. They will ensure the correct balance between the prevention and treatment of disease, deliver increased quality of care for patients and promote better use of resources by targeting areas of greatest need.
  1213
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were deregistered by family health services authority area for the periods (i) 2 July 1992 to 31 March 1993, (ii) 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994 and (iii) since 1 April 1994. [18575]

  Mr. Malone
  This information will he placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in each family health service authority area, and in total, requested help in finding a dentist (i) between 2 July 1992 and 31 March 1993, (ii) between 1 April 1993 and 31 March 1994 and (iii) since 1 April 1994. [18576]

  Mr. Malone
  This information will be placed in the Library. Family health services authorities consistently report that they can help patients to find national health service dentists.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to include mental illness in the list of medical conditions which confer exemption from prescription charges; and if she will make a statement. [17714]

  Mr. Malone
  None. The list of exempt conditions was, and still is, limited to those which"need continuous medication for"
  life
  "long periods and which admit no discretion"
  by doctors
  "as to identification of individuals".

  The list has been reviewed a number of times since 1968.

  No changes have been made.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total(a) amount raised from prescription charges (b) the expenditure on the system of NHS prescriptions for medication within the NHS and (c) the difference between (a) and (b) for each financial year since 1979–80. [18252]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table.

  Total (a) annual income from prescription charges collected by community pharmacists, appliance contractors and dispensing doctors and from the sale of prepayment certificates by family health service authorities; (b) annual expenditure on the family health services drugs bill and dispensing fees; and (c) the difference between (a) and (b) in England 1979–80 to 1993–94

  £ million

  Year

  (a) Income from prescription charges and prepayment certificates

  (b) Expenditure on FHS drugs bill and dispensing fees1

  (c) Difference between (a) and (b)

  1979–80

  39

  790

  751

  1980–81

  71

  974

  903

  1981–82

  87

  1,125

  1,038

  1982–83

  103

  1,290

  1,187

  1983–84

  110

  1,431

  1,321

  1984–85

  121

  1,551

  1,430

  1985–86

  128

  1,657

  1,529

  1986–87

  148

  1,787

  1,639

  1987–88

  158

  1,972

  1,814

  1988–89

  177

  2,236

  2,059

  1989–90

  189

  2,461

  2,272

  1990–91

  206

  2,640

  2,434

  1214

  Total (a) annual income from prescription charges collected by community pharmacists, appliance contractors and dispensing doctors and from the sale of prepayment certificates by family health service authorities; (b) annual expenditure on the family health services drugs bill and dispensing fees; and (c) the difference between (a) and (b) in England 1979–80 to 1993–94

  £ million

  Year

  (a) Income from prescription charges and prepayment certificates

  (b) Expenditure on FHS drugs bill and dispensing fees1

  (c) Difference between (a)
  and (b)

  1991–92

  215

  2,920

  2,705

  1992–93

  242

  3,299

  3,057

  1993–94

  265

  3,628

  3,363

  Note:

  1 Includes the cost of prescriptions written by general medical practitioners and general dental practitioners and the remuneration paid to community pharmacists, appliance contractors and dispensing doctors for dispensing them. Excludes the cost of prescriptions written by hospitals for out-patients and dispensed by community pharmacists.

  NHS Executive Business Plan, 1995–96
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is available about the role of the NHS executive and its main objectives and tasks in the coming year. [19336]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The national health service executive has produced a business plan for 1995–96 which describes the executive's role, its principal objectives and tasks and the context in which these objectives will be carried out. Copies of the plan will be placed in the Library.

  Caller Line Identification
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which ambulance services have access to caller line identification; which have plans for its introduction; which have requested caller line identification but have been denied access; and if she will make a statement. [17707]

  Mr. Sackville
  Caller line identification is not yet available to ambulance services.

  NHS Pension Scheme
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to change the regulations concerning women doctors and the NHS pension scheme; and if she will make a statement. [17710]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Out-Patient Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the NHS in England of the non-attenders to out-patient appointments in 1993–94. [17711]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated number of people over 17 years of age with glaucoma in the United Kingdom. [17872]
  1215
  Mr. Sackville
  It is estimated that in England for all ages there were 101,000 patients suffering from glaucoma who consulted a general practitioner during 1991–92. Less than 0.5 per cent. of these were under 24 years of age. Source: Morbidity Statistics from General Practice, Fourth national Study.

  Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has had from the British Medical Association and the Association of Optometrists on the effect of eye examination charges on those aged over 65 years. [18258]

  Mr. Malone
  The Association of Optometrists and the British Medical Association have written to me with a copy of their joint document, "Free Eye Examinations for the over 65s", which we are studying.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to assess the effect on the elderly of charges for eye examinations; and if she will make a statement. [18170]

  Mr. Malone
  None. Elderly people who are in receipt of income support, family credit or disability working allowance are entitled to a free national health service sight test, and those in receipt of a low income who have difficulty in paying for their optical costs, can claim help under the NHS low-income scheme.

  Occupational Health
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will indicate the measures her Department undertakes to address occupational health; and if she will make a statement. [18256]

  Mr. Sackville
  "The Health of the Nation" White Paper, Cm 1986, identified the workplace as an important setting for the promotion of good health. The Department has set up a multi-disciplinary steering group to devise a practical means of encouraging employers to undertake voluntary health promotion activities. In addition, the health at work in the national health service programme has been running successfully now for nearly three years.

  Guidance on "Occupational Health Services for NHS Staff' HSG(94)51 was issued to NHS employers on 6 December 1994, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research into myalgic encephalomyelitis has been conducted in each of the last five years; and at what cost. [18573]

  Mr. Sackville
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The MRC has been funding a study at the Institute of Psychiatry, the estimated cost of which is £91,000, to investigate chronic fatigue in general 1216
  practitioners' attenders. The researchers at the institute are attempting to find ways to help people with chronic fatigue cope with their disease and regain their health. The MRC is always willing to receive and consider soundly based research proposals in competition with other applications.

  Additionally, there is much basic science which is relevant to identifying and understanding possible mechanisms of chronic fatigue syndrome, such as neurotransmitters, immunology, which is taking place but which is not necessarily directly identified as related to CFS. The Department of Health also keeps in touch with research being funded by bodies such as the Linbury Trust.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the incidence and causes of, and departmental policy towards, myalgic encephalomyelitis. [18574]

  Mr. Sackville
  We recognise what is increasingly being referred to as chronic fatigue syndrome as a potentially debilitating and distressing complex. Unfortunately, the causes of CFS are not understood, nor is there a generally agreed method of treatment. While a number of definitions, disease descriptions or diagnostic criteria have been proposed, there is still no general consensus amongst the medical professions or among patient groups as to which should be used. This hampers research, and studies on the prevalence of the condition. There is no diagnostic test for CFS and diagnosis depends upon the patients symptoms/signs falling into one of these disease descriptions. Until these matters are resolved, there is no possibility of establishing the true incidence of CFS.

  The national task force on CFS, PVFS—post viral fatigue syndrome—and ME has produced a report; the task force is autonomous of the Department. With a view to securing progress and promoting the development of a professional consensus, the chief medical officer has invited the Conference of Colleges to consider the report. The views of the Conference of Colleges will be of much assistance to the Department in helping to determine the best way forward.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will outline the measures taken, facilities offered and adjustments made in her Department and agencies for which she is responsible to facilitate access for disabled people; what plans she has to improve access; and if she will make a statement. [18587]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health is clearly committed to improving access for disabled people to all departmental buildings. For example, we are currently considering the recommendations of an independent access audit report which we commissioned on Richmond house. We are also mindful of the need to consider wider access issues, including the availability of information and publicity material.

  Green Policy
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will name the green Minister for her Department and list(a) the green initiatives taken by that Minister in respect of the Department's functions, (b) the

  1217
  representations made by the Minister in respect of functions carried out by other Departments and (c) the input made by the Minister into consultations on the Environment Bill. [18641]

  Mr. Sackville
  The green Minister for my Department is the Baroness Cumberledge, the Under-Secretary of State.

  My Department is committed to sound environmental stewardship and its significant achievements over the past year are listed in paragraph 5.92 of the departmental report 1995, Cm 2812, copies of which are available in the Library.

  My Department has contributed to the digest on green housekeeping in Government Departments which is being prepared for publication by the Department of the Environment.

  The Government have recently published an account of its achievements in "This Common Inheritance 1995" Cm 2822.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Agency Medical Service
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many qualified doctors were employed three years ago and currently by the Benefits Agency medical service; and how many more he expects to employ to cope with the introduction of incapacity benefit. [17721]

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of the Benefits Agency medical service is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 5 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about doctors employed by the Benefits Agency Medical Services.
  All the doctors employed by Medical Services are fully qualified registered medical practitioners who have several years experience. Three years ago (1992) the Department of Social Security employed 211 Medical Officers. As at January 1995 the Benefits Agency employed 182 Medical Advisers (previously known as Medical Officers).
  The Benefits Agency Medical Services has already recruited 91 additional doctors for Incapacity Benefit and is expecting to recruit a further 60 from a second recruitment exercise which has just been completed, making a total of 151. The additional 151 doctors have been recruited initially on two year fixed term appointments.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of the Benefits Agency medical service(a) three years ago and (b) currently; and what estimates have been made of costs over the next three years. [17720]

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of the Benefits Agency medical service 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. Donald Dewar, dated 5 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the cost of the Benefits Agency Medical Services.
  1218
  The internal record of Medical Services show costs in the year 1991/92 were £60m.
  It should be noted that three years ago the costs of Medical Services were included in Benefits Agency central budgets. Not all the costs of the Medical Services were separated from the costs of other Benefits Agency Directorates. For example, this figure does not include accommodation costs, administrative staff costs, bulk purchased supplies, support services etc. It does however include costs of medical evidence obtained in connection with Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and War Pensions which have since been re-allocated to the appropriate directorate or Agency.
  The cost of the Benefits Agency Medical Services for the current year is £38m. The drop in the costs is as a result of the devolution of costs of medical evidence in connection with Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and War Pensions to the appropriate directorate or Agency.
  The estimated cost for the year 1995/96 is £60m. This figure includes the re-allocation of administrative support costs into Medical Services from elsewhere in the Benefits Agency; the costs of the additional volume of claims being reviewed for the new Incapacity Benefit; and the additional volume of claims expected for disability benefits.
  It is projected that the costs of the Benefits Agency Medical Services over the following two years will be £70m per year. The projected rise takes into account the increased volumes of claims being reviewed for Incapacity Benefit.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a regional and national breakdown of the sums of money recovered by the compensation recovery unit accompanied by a breakdown of the distribution of amounts of money recovered. [17812]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This 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. Tony Worthington, dated 5 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for a breakdown of the sums of money recovered and distributed by the Compensation Recovery Unit.
  Information relating to regions could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.
  I have provided, at Annex A, a national breakdown by benefit of the monies recovered and allocated in respect of the various benefits during the 1994/95 financial year.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefit

  Amount recovered and reallocated £000s

  Percentage of total amount

  Invalidity Benefit (IVB)

  51,912

  47.1

  Statutory Sick Pay (SSP)

  17,270

  15.7

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB)

  12,511

  11.4

  Income Support (IS)

  7,999

  7.2

  Disability Living Allowance (DLA)

  6,601

  5.9

  Reduced Earnings Allowance (REA)

  5,237

  4.7

  Sickness Benefit (SB)

  4,391

  3.9

  Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA)

  1,520

  1.4

  Mobility Allowance (MobA)

  1,039

  0.9

  Attendance Allowance (AA)

  876

  0.8

  1219

  Benifit

  Amount recovered and reallocated £000s

  Percentage of total amount

  Unemployment Benefit (UB)

  355

  0.3

  Constant Attendance Allowance (CAA)

  245

  0.2

  Exceptionally Severe Disablement Allowance (ESDA)

  62

  0.05

  Disablement Working Allowance (DWA)

  54

  0.04

  Retirement Allowance (RA)

  5

  0.004

  Family Credit (FAMC)

  0.6

  0.0005

  Total

  110,081

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of all statistics collected on the work of the compensation recovery unit. [17813]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Statistics for the 1994–95 year will be placed in the Library today. Thereafter, statistics collated on a quarterly basis will be placed in the Library regularly.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when Mr. Barry Natton of Nab Wood, Noctorum road, Birkenhead, will receive a reply from the disability living allowance centre in Blackpool to a letter he wrote on 10 March 1994 and on which he sent reminder letters on 6 September 1994 and 5 January 1995. [18577]

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Frank Field, dated 5 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding correspondence from Mr Barry Natton to the Disability Benefits Unit.
  Unfortunately we have not been able to find any trace of the specific correspondence referred to within the Parliamentary Question despite extensive searches.
  I am concerned that there is an outstanding issue still to be resolved with the Benefits Agency. I have therefore arranged for a member of staff to visit Mr. Natton at his home to afford him opportunity to discuss any aspect of the case.
  I am sorry that my reply cannot be more helpful.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women aged 60 years or more residing in the Clyde coast and Cowal area have had their invalidity benefit payments suspended while Commissioner Skinner's decision has been pronounced upon by the English law courts and the European Court of Justice. [16699]

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of invalidity 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.
  1220
  Letter from Michael Bichard to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 4 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about suspensions of Invalidity Benefit (IVB) payments in the Clyde Coast and Cowal area.
  Information has been provided relating to those customers resident in the area administered by the offices of the Benefits Agency's Clyde Coast and Cowal District, which does not necessarily correspond with county or borough boundaries.
  The latest information available is based on the number of cases identified at 31 March 1994. At that date 480 IVB cases had payment suspended in whole or in part.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of Social Security how many women aged 60 years or more residing in(a) the Clyde coast and Cowal area of Scotland and (b) the rest of Scotland, England and Wales have had the suspension of invalidity benefit set aside on the grounds of hardship. [16700]

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of invalidity 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 Dr. Norman Godman, dated 4 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about suspensions of Invalidity Benefit payments in the Clyde Coast and Cowal and other areas of Scotland; in England, and in Wales.
  Information has been provided relating to those customers resident in the area administered by the offices of the Benefits Agency's Clyde Coast and Cowal District, which does not necessarily correspond with county or borough boundaries.
  The numbers of customers who have had suspensions of IVB lifted in the areas in question are as follows:

  Area

  Number

  Clyde Coast and Cowal Area

  15

  Rest of Scotland

  249

  Wales

  26

  England

  704

  The figures were obtained from a clerical count of affected cases maintained by BA offices within each area. The information provided is the latest available and is based on the position at 31 March 1994.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were in receipt of invalidity benefit in each of the area directorates of the Benefits Agency and in each Benefits Agency district in each area, at the latest date for which figures are available. [17719]

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of invalidity 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. Donald Dewar, dated 4 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Invalidity Benefit (IVB) recipients.
  The information requested is provided in the tables attached at Appendices 1–4, copies of which have been placed in the Library.
  The statistics relating to numbers of recipients were obtained from a 100% clerical count of cases within the offices of each BA District at 28 February 1995, and represent the latest information available.

  1221
  The figures include a very small number of customers who are entitled to IVB but are not actually receiving the benefit; for example, because they are receiving an overlapping benefit payable at a higher rate.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Income Support
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing, for each year since 1987(a) the total amount of cash losses due to irrecovable payments of pensions, etc., income support and family benefits recorded during the year, (b) the total amount of errors in benefit payments recorded and (c) the total savings for the year from anti-fraud initiatives.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [pursuant to his reply 16 December 1994, Official Report, col 933–36]. I am advised that Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, is writing again to clarify his reply. I am arranging for a copy of the letter to be placed in the Library together with any additional information.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 4 April 1995:
  I am writing to clarify the information provided to you in my letter of 16 December 1994 in response to your Parliamentary Question of 8 December in which you asked for information about benefits cash losses, errors, and savings from anti-fraud initiatives.
  Unfortunately, erroneous information was included in the table attached to my reply as Appendix A. The discrepancies relate to the details given on losses due to irrecoverable payments of supplementary benefit/income support for the years 1992/93 and 1993/94. I have attached a revised table giving the corrected figures.
  I am sorry that my reply contained erroneous information and for the fact that it has taken so long to identify this. I apologise for any confusion this may have caused.

  Appendix A—corrected Losses due to irrecoverable and unrecovered overpayments of income support and family benefits

  Year

  Supplementary benefit/income support £000s

  Family benefits £000s

  1986–87

  31,987

  3,234

  1987–88

  32,024

  2,718

  1988–89

  41,112

  3,333

  1989–90

  40,211

  3,901

  1990–91

  28,608

  3,417

  1991–92

  32,974

  3,908

  1992–93

  46,612

  4,073

  1993–94

  55,821

  3,730

  Total

  309,349

  28,314

  Source:

  1986–1991: vote 2 Supplementary benefits/income support.

  1986–1991: vote 3 Family benefits. 1991–1994: vote 1 Amalgamated pension benefits/income support/family benefits.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will consider issuing new guidelines to benefit offices for use when they process an application

  Table 1 Estimated cost of National Insurance benefits

  (£ billion at 1994–95) prices)

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  2040–41

  2050–51

  EXISTING SCHEME

  Retirement pensions:

  Basic pension

  29.8

  33.7

  39.8

  46.9

  48.2

  46.6

  Earnings-related pension

  4.2

  9.2

  14.5

  18.7

  19.5

  19.3

  1222
  from a 16 or 17–year-old claiming estrangement from his or her parents; [16878]

  (2) what is his Department's policy of ensuring that steps are taken to contact parents if a 16 or 17-year-old claims income support claiming estrangement from his or her parents; [16880]

  (3) if it is his Department's practice to require benefit offices to inform parents of the reasons given by a 16 or 17-year-old child when claiming estrangement in pursuit of a claim for income support. [16879]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We will be issuing an amendment to the guidelines on claims for income support under the severe hardship provision. Claims to income support are confidential, but benefit offices should ask young people to provide evidence in support of their claim where they say they are estranged. Offices should make careful inquiry into the circumstances and seek to contact the parents direct if such action would be appropriate. If the young person declines to co-operate, the office should consider whether it has enough evidence on which to make a judgment as to the existence or otherwise of severe hardship.

  Pensions Bill
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes the amendments made to the Pensions Bill[Lords] in another place have made to the figures in tables 1, "Estimated Cost of National Insurance Benefit", and table 2, "Estimated Financial Effect on the National Insurance Fund" of the proposed changes which appear in the Government Actuary's Report on the Pensions Bill [Lords] (Cm 2714); and if he will publish amended tables. [17723]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The main effects on the national insurance fund of the Pensions Bill[Lords] and amendments to it in another place were set out in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill published on 21 March 1995.

  The estimated expenditure effects of the amendments to paragraph 5 of schedule 4 assume that "the best 44 years" rule in the calculation of SERPS is intended to operate in the same way as the original "best 20 years" rule. This amendment would have no effect on the national insurance fund before 2022. Thereafter, costs would rise to reach around £1 billion in 2030, £1.9 billion in 2040 and £2.5 billion in 2050. Versions of tables 1 and 2 from the Govnerment Actuary's report on the Bill allowing for this amendment are given in the table.

  As drafted, the actual effect of the clauses providing for the treatment of pension rights on divorce would depend on how they are interpreted by the courts. The estimate of £25 million in 2010–11 given in the financial memorandum to the Bill represents the maximum possible increase in the cost of NI benefits resulting from these amendments. Given this uncertainty, the figure is not included in the table.
  1223

  Table 1 Estimated cost of National Insurance benefits

  (£ billion at 1994–95 prices)

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  2040–41

  2050–51

  Widows' benefits:

  Flat-rate

  0.7

  0.6

  0.6

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  Earnings-related

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  Incapacity benefits:

  Flat-rate

  5.1

  6.2

  6.6

  6.3

  5.9

  6.0

  Earnings-related

  0.6

  0.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other benefits

  1.7

  1.7

  1.8

  1.8

  1.8

  1.8

  Total

  42.2

  51.7

  63.4

  74.2

  76.0

  74.2

  AFTER PROPOSED CHANGES

  Retirement pensions:

  Basic Pension

  29.8

  33.6

  35.2

  41.9

  44.5

  42.3

  Earnings-related pension

  4.2

  8.4

  10.9

  13.0

  12.1

  12.4

  Widows' benefits:

  Flat-rate

  0.7

  0.6

  1.2

  1.1

  0.9

  1.0

  Earnings-related

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  Incapacity benefits:

  Flat-rate

  5.1

  6.2

  7.2

  6.9

  6.4

  6.5

  Earnings-related

  0.6

  0.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other benefits

  1.7

  1.7

  1.8

  1.8

  1.8

  1.8

  Total

  42.2

  50.8

  56.4

  64.8

  65.8

  64.2

  Note:

  Individual components may not sum to totals due to rounding.

  Table 2 Estimated financial effect on the National Insurance Fund of the proposed changes

  (£ billion at 1994–95) prices

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  2040–41

  2050–51

  Benefit changes

  Changes to state pension age:

  Basic retirement pension

  —

  -0.2

  -4.7

  -5.0

  -3.9

  -4.3

  SERPS

  —

  -0.03

  -1.7

  -1.9

  -1.8

  -2.6

  Widow's pension

  —

  +0.02

  +0.6

  +0.6

  +0.5

  +0.5

  Incapacity benefit

  —

  +0.03

  +0.6

  +0.6

  +0.5

  +0.6

  Other NI benefits

  —

  0.0

  +0.1

  +0.1

  +0.1

  +0.1

  Changes to graduated retirement benefit increments and dependency conditions

  —

  0.0

  +0.1

  +0.1

  +0.1

  +0.1

  Inclusion of family credit and disability working allowance in earnings factors

  0.0

  0.0

  +0.01

  +0.06

  +0.1

  +0.1

  Changes to SERPS calculation

  0.0

  -0.6

  -1.3

  -1.5

  -1.0

  -0.2

  Changes to contracting out SERPS expenditure

  0.0

  -0.1

  -0.7

  -2.4

  -4.7

  -4.2

  NI contribution changes

  SPA change

  —

  0.0

  -0.1

  -0.1

  -0.1

  -0.1

  Changes to contracting out:

  assuming 4.6 per cent. rebate

  +0.4

  +0.6

  -0.1

  -0.8

  -1.1

  -1.1

  assuming 4.95 per cent. rebate

  +0.9

  +1.1

  +0.4

  -0.3

  -0.6

  -0.6

  Notes:

  1. The above figures break down the total change in benefit expenditure shown in Table 1 into the effect of each separate proposal in the Bill. The sum of these changes may not agree with the total change in Table 1 due to rounding.

  2. Positive figures denote higher expenditure or lower contribution income. Negative figures denote lower expenditure or higher income. The estimates therefore show the effect on the financial position of the National Insurance Fund.

  3. All figures for future years should be read in conjunction with paragraphs 32 to 33 of the Government Actuary's Report regarding uncertainty.
  1224

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, for 1992–93 and 1993–94, separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotion materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising; and what are his latest estimates for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17611]

  Mr. Hague
  The available information for expenditure by this Department, other than that incurred by the Department's agencies and other non-departmental public bodies, is as follows:

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  (a) TV Advertising

  1,355,000

  2,486,000

  (b) Radio Advertising

  322,000

  Nil

  (c) Press Advertising

  2,194,168

  2,510,139

  (d) Other Promotional Activities

  9,204,000

  7,723,000

  (e)

  13,075,168

  12,719,139

  (f)

  0.5 per cent.

  0.2 per cent.

  1994–95 estimates

  1995–96 estimates

  All advertising including recruitment advertising

  7,924,752

  7,815,000

  Proportion for recruitment

  1 per cent.

  Estimate not available

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of people who will cease to receive incapacity benefit because they have reached state pension age during the first year of operation of invalidity benefit. [18072]

  Mr. Hague
  In the first year of operation, it is estimated that around 100,000 people will cease to receive incapacity benefit on reaching state pension age.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, (1) pursuant to his answer of 28 March,Official Report, column 559, relating to unemployment benefit, for what reasons a local councillor is regarded as being unavailable for paid work within social security regulations; [17956]

  (2) on what grounds (a) convicted criminals who are subject to community service orders are deemed to be available for work and (b) elected local councillors who are registered as unemployed are deemed unavailable for work for the purposes of receiving unemployment benefit. [18283]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There are no deeming provisions which relate specifically to convicted criminals who are subject to community service orders or to elected local councillors.

  Questions of doubt regarding a claimant's availability are referred to an adjudication officer.

  Guidance on the determination of these questions is contained in the "Adjudication Officers Guide" volume 10, paragraphs 86030 et seq, a copy of which is in the Library. Specific reference is made to councillors and convicted criminals at paragraphs 86083 and 86087.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to prevent the avoidance of national insurance by payment of salaries in the form of antiques and works of art. [17830]

  Mr. Lilley
  I shall act whenever necessary where there is evidence of devious practice whose main objective is to avoid national insurance contributions.

  I have today laid regulations—SI 1995/1003—which, by using existing powers, adds to schedule 1A of the Social Security (Contributions) Regulations 1979 payments by way of assets including vouchers for which trading arrangements exist and vouchers for those assets. The regulations also provide for the valuing of these items. These changes come into effect from 6 April.

  In this way I am removing from the list of exclusions from NI contributions a range of schemes by which employers may have attempted to avoid payment. I have asked the Contributions Agency to continue to monitor closely any further efforts to develop practices whose main aim is to avoid NI contributions.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has written to a right hon. or hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question; [18514]

  (2) how many parliamentary questions to his Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence; [18516]

  (3) how many parliamentary questions to his Department in each year since 1979–80 requesting a priority written answer or answer on a named day, were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further five, 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18512]

  (4) How many parliamentary questions to his Department were transferred to answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence; [18515]

  (5) how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by his Department in each year since 1979–80; and how many such questions received a substantive answer within 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18511]

  (6) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report. [18513]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is a matter of public record but could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost. The available information for the years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95 is as follows:
  1227

  Pursuant letter sent to Member to correct an answer to a parliamentary question

  Session

  Number sent

  1992–93

  19

  1993–94

  21

  1994–95 (up to Tuesday 4 April)

  7

  Holding replies sent

  Session

  Number sent

  1992–93

  44

  1993–94

  37

  1994–95 (up to Tuesday 4 April)

  35

  Parliamentary questions answered

  Session

  Named day (or priority)

  Ordinary

  1992–93

  1,574

  1,731

  1993–94

  933

  1,432

  1994–95 (up to Tuesday 4 April)

  620

  710

  "I will write" answers to questions placed in the Library rather than in the Official Report—that is, when it is too late for answers to be provided before the summer recess or prorogation:

  Session

  Number

  1992–93:

  22

  1993–94:

  17

  1994–95:

  NIL

  A small proportion of questions have also been placed in the Library in each parliamentary Session because the answer was too long to be printed in the Official Report.

  Written questions referred to Next Steps Agencies

  Session

  Number

  1992–93:

  3591

  1993–94:

  3331

  1994–95:

  1501

  Note

  1 These figures have been provided using the POLIS database. It is not possible to guarantee that this is a truly comprehensive answer.

  Fraud
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases of fraudulent claims for one-parent benefit were discovered for each year since one-parent benefit was introduced. [18266]

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available.

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time taken for the winding up of an occupational pension scheme to be completed. [18552]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information requested is not available, but it is not uncommon for the process to take at least two years and it can exceptionally take up to 10 years.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many occupational pension schemes are currently involved in a winding up process. [18551]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Information is available only in respect of Inland Revenue tax approved occupational pension schemes with at least two members. As at 3 April 1228
  1995, approximately 4,760 occupational pension schemes were in the process of winding up.

  Source: Pension Schemes Registry.

  "Living Together" Rule
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what criteria are applied when assessing benefit entitlement to define whether a man and woman are living together as husband and wife with regard to(a) definition of a stable relationship, (b) financial support, (c) sexual relationship, (d) presence of children and (e) public acknowledgement of their relationship. [18267]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Decisions about benefit entitlement are made by adjudication officers. Where necessary, this incudes decisions about whether a man and a woman are living together as an unmarried couple. Guidance on the factors to be taken into account is issued by the chief adjudication officer. The adjudication officer will normally consider whether the alleged couple share normal household tasks, how long the couple have been together, whether they share bills and other household expenses, if other people regard them as a couple, and whether there are children of their union or they share responsibility for child care. Information about a sexual relationship is not requested, but, if volunteered, will also be taken into consideration.

  Decisions are made on the facts of the individual case. The criteria do not represent a rigid formula, and the presence or absence of any single factor will not by itself determine the decision.

  Social Fund
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has received the Social Security Advisory Committee's report on his proposals for changes to the social fund funeral payments scheme; and if he will make a statement. [19209]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We are now considering the Social Security Advisory Committee's report. On the basis of the recommendations in it, we propose to introduce a social fund funeral payments scheme which specifies necessary disbursements and covers their reasonable costs. We are also proposing a ceiling on the amount payable for funeral directors' charges. The precise specification of the eligible funeral directors' charges is currently under discussion with interested outside organisations. We will lay the SSAC report before the House along with our detailed response and the necessary amending regulations in due course. In the meantime, the current social fund provision for help with a simple dignified funeral for people in receipt of a qualifying benefit will remain in force.

  Green Policy
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will name the green Minister for his Department and list(a) the green initiatives taken by that Minister in respect of the Department's functions, (b) the representations made by the Minister in respect of functions carried out by other Departments and (c) the input made by the Minister into consultations on the Environment Bill. [18649]

  Mr. Burt
  My appointment as the Minister with responsibility for green issues within the Department took place in the autumn of 1994.
  1229
  I have recently instructed the Benefits Agency to set up a pilot environment management scheme to promote good practice throughout the Department.

  I attended a meeting of Green Ministers in December 1994 and discussed issues which included; sustainable development, the Rural White Paper, transport and green housekeeping.

  I have not provided a direct input to consultations on the Environment Bill.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will outline the measures taken, facilities offered and adjustments made in his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to facilitate access for disabled people; what plans he has to improve access; and if he will make a statement. [18590]

  Mr. Hague
  The Department has an on-going programme to ensure that disabled customers and staff have access to our buildings and services. A wide range of measures have already been taken to improve access, including surveys, building adaptations and the provision of equipment and services. The Department is also committed to providing access to information in a format which suits the customer, for example, in braille, tape or video. We will continue to build on this approach.

  The Disability Discrimination Bill, which will apply to all Government Departments, contains new rights for disabled people in employment and creates a right of access to goods, facilities and services. It also establishes the National Disability Council to advise the Government on eliminating discrimination against disabled people.

  Disability Discrimination Bill
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 20 March to the hon. Member for Ealing, North, (Mr. Greenway)Official Report, column 66, if he will list those organisations of and for the disabled and any other organisations which have made representations on the questions of disability legislation, and the number of letters received from the public and hon. Members on the subject; and what is the proportion in each category which supports the Disability Discrimination Bill. [18626]

  Mr. Hague
  I have received a wide range of representations on the question of disability legislation expressing a range of views, including support for and opposition to the Government's proposals. A detailed analysis of the correspondence could be carried out only at disproportionate cost.

  An analysis of the content of those letters which were specifically responses to the Government's consultation document "Disability on the Agenda" is available in the Library.

  War Widows
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the annual cost of paying war widows a pension for life regardless of their marital status and other income or savings. [18155]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It is estimated that the additional gross cost would be about £220 million in a full year. That 1230
  estimate does not take into account savings in other benefits which would normally be offset against the war widow's pension.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fire Officers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fire officers are employed full and part time in the Home Office; who pays for them; what is the cost to public funds; what has been the cost to public funds, with particular reference to the palace and its estate, of the work of these fire officers in the Palace of Westminster; and how many officers are deputed to oversee the Palace of Westminster. [18087]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Twenty-six staff, all of them former or serving members of the United Kingdom fire service, are currently employed in the Crown premises inspection group of Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate. They are all employed full time. Their duties are to inspect all Crown-owned or Crown-occupied premises in England and Wales which may need to be certified under the requirements of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and to issue fire certificates where appropriate. They are paid by the Home Office. Their total salary cost is £693,000 at 1994–95 prices. The fire service inspector who is head of the group is responsible for the necessary certification of the Palace of Westminster, but he has been assisted with this work by other members of the group.

  Certification however deals only with those specific fire safety matters which are within the scope of the Fire Precaution Act 1971. Other fire safety matters generally are overseen by the fire safety manager appointed by the palace.

  The Crown premises inspection group has been involved with work connected to the certification of the Palace of Westminster over a number of years and I regret that it is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of the total cost of the work.

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to establish extradition relations with Libya. [18429]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Government have no plans at present to establish extradition arrangements with Libya.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will outline the measures taken, facilities offered and adjustments made in his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to facilitate access for disabled people; what plans he has to improve access; and if he will make a statement. [18584].

  Mr. Howard
  The Department has a continuing commitment to meet the needs of its disabled staff, customers and visitors. In doing so, it takes into account the programme for action to achieve equality of opportunity in the civil service for disabled people; many of the measures taken to improve access for staff also benefit disabled customers and visitors.
  1231
  Measures over recent years have included the installation of a ramp in a listed building with steps to the main entrance and a survey to identify further areas where accessibility could be improved; wherever feasible action was taken. An audit of facilities for disabled people in central London buildings has also been carried out. The majority of buildings in the Home Office estate have toilets accessible to wheelchair users and car parking spaces reserved for disabled drivers. Access for disabled people is taken into account in the design stage of new buildings and renovations.

  Induction loops are available for use in the public enquiry office in the immigration and nationality department, in all United Kingdom passport offices, and a further two induction loops are currently being purchased for use in conference rooms in the central London estate. Accommodation staff in IND have participated in accessibility training at the centre for accessible environments. An information pack on disability has been made widely available to staff in the Department.

  Disability awareness seminars have been run for staff, covering such matters as access, equipment, disability etiquette, management of disabled staff and awareness of the social context of disability.

  Continuing consideration is being given to producing information in accessible formats. Arrangements are in place across the Department to translate material into braille and large print. The UK Passport Agency has staff trained to use sign language in all its regional offices, and the use of minicoms with the "Typetalk" service is also available.

  The needs of disabled staff and visitors are kept under regular review through departmental action groups. Future plans include the provision of leaflets listing facilities for disabled people in the main London buildings.

  Green Policies
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will name the green Minister for his Department and list(a) the green initiatives taken by that Minister in respect of the Department's functions, (b) the representations made by the Minister in respect of functions carried out by other Departments and (c) the input made by the Minister into consultations on the Environment Bill. [18640]

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Baroness Blatch succeeded my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) as Home Office green Minister in June 1994.

  The Home Office green Minister sponsors the Home Office green housekeeping strategy which sets out the Department's policy on conserving natural resources and reducing environmental pollution. The strategy is supported by action plans incorporating recycling and energy efficiency schemes and a range of other green housekeeping initiatives.

  The Home Office green Minister has corresponded with the Secretary of State for the Environment on matters relevant to this remit.

  Home Office input to the Environment Bill is confined to criminal policy issues and will be made by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean).

  Mr. Raghbir Singh
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will place in the Library and make available to the hon. Member for Walsall, North the full documentary reasons for deportation proceedings against Mr. Singh; [18712]

  (2) if he will set out the reasons that deportation proceedings are being taken against Mr. Raghbir Singh Johal; [18696]

  (3) what account was taken as to whether anything in the journal edited by Mr. Raghbir Singh Johal could be constructed as incitement to criminality in the United Kingdom when the decision was taken to deport him. [18697]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Mr. Raghbir Singh was detained on 29 March following a decision to deport him for reasons of national security and other reasons of a political nature, namely the fight against international terrorism. It would not be appropriate to comment further on the grounds for deportation.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been made to him over the deportation proceedings against Mr. Raghbir Singh Johal. [18717]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Three representations have been received on Mr. Raghbir Singh's behalf.

  Horserace Totalisator Board
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are the duties, hours of work and salary of each member of the Horserace Totalisator Board; [18771]

  (2) if he will review the salary, terms and conditions of the chairman of the Horserace Totalisator Board. [18772]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Board members of the Horserace Totaliser Board are part-time public appointments for which the renumeration is £8,085. The post of chairman of the Tote is full time; the current salary for this post is £97,735 a year. The duties of board members include attending regular board meetings and Tote functions, advising on and participating in the board's policy and commercial decision-making process.

  My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 28 February, Official Report, column 547, that Lord Wyatt would be reappointed, on the same conditions, for a further two-year term. At the same time, a review will be conducted of the Tote's future status.

  Mr. Tarsend Singh Purewal
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been held and questioned by the authorities over the murder of Mr. Tarsend Singh Purewal. [18698]

  Mr. Maclean
  Seven suspects were arrested on 29 and 30 March. Following questioning, six of these have been released on police bail and a seventh has been served with a deportation order. Two other suspects were arrested on 24 January and released shortly afterwards.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those held and questioned by the authorities over the murder of Mr. Tarsend Singh Purewal were(a) United Kingdom citizens and (b) Indian citizens lawfully resident in the United

  1233
  Kingdom; and how many of those are now subject to deportation. [18716]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Four were British citizens and three were Indian nationals, against one of whom deportation action is being taken.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects charges to be brought in the case of the murder of Mr. Tarsend Singh Purewal; and if he will make a statement. [18711]

  Mr. Maclean
  A major police investigation into the murder of Mr. Tarsend Singh Purewal is continuing. The bringing of charges is a matter for the police in the light of that investigation.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department into which parliamentary constituency each of the successful bids under the CCTV challenge scheme falls. [18710]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is contained in the table.

  List of winning bids by constituency

  Constituency

  Bid

  Tynemouth

  Whitley Bay town centre

  Tyne Bridge

  Team Valley Industrial Estate, Gateshead

  Tyne Bridge

  Gateshead town centre

  Durham North

  Chester-le-Street town centre

  Bishop Auckland

  Bishop Auckland town centre

  Redcar

  Skippers Lane Industrial Estate, Cleveland

  Stockton North

  Mill Lane Primary School and Community Centre, Stockton

  Blackpool North; and Blackpool South;

  Blackpool town centre

  Penrith and the Border

  Penrith town centre

  Stalybridge and Hyde

  Hyde town centre, Tameside

  Rochdale

  Rochdale town centre

  Denton and Reddish

  Tameside Business Development Centre

  City of Chester

  Chester city centre extension

  Wigan

  Wigan town centre

  Carlisle

  Carlisle town centre

  Ribble Valley

  Clitheroe town centre, Lancashire

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  Neston town centre, Cheshire

  Bury North

  Bury town centre

  Lancaster

  Lancaster city centre

  Morecambe and Lunesdale

  Morecambe town centre

  Harrogate

  Harrogate town centre

  Wakefield

  Outwood Grange School, Wakefield

  Don Valley

  Balby Street School, Doncaster

  Don Valley

  Lower Don Valley Industrial Estates, Sheffield

  Bridlington

  Driffield town centre, Humberside

  Keighley

  Keighley town centre, Yorkshire

  Scarborough

  Scarborough town centre, car parks and beach

  Kingston upon Hull East

  Sutton Fields Industrial Estate, Hull

  York

  York city centre

  Doncaster Central

  Scawsby Community Centre and Playing Field, Doncaster

  Skipton and Ripon

  Boroughbridge town centre, North Yorkshire

  Brigg and Cleethorpes

  Brigg town centre, Humberside

  Harrow East; and Harrow West

  Harrow town centre

  Havant

  Havant town centre

  Wycombe

  High Wycombe town centre

  Rugby and Kenilworth

  Rugby town centre

  1234

  List of winning bids by constituency

  Constituency

  Bid

  Hereford

  Hereford city centre

  Solihull

  Solihull town centre and car parks

  Mid-Staffordshire

  Lichfield town centre and car parks

  Leominster

  Ledbury High Street, Worcestershire

  Worcester

  Worcester city centre

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  Shrewsbury town centre

  Staffordshire South East

  Tamworth town centre

  Stratford on Avon

  Stratford upon Avon town centre

  Chelmsford

  Chelmsford town centre

  Cambridgeshire North East

  Ely town centre

  Peterborough

  Peterborough town centre

  Stevenage

  Stevenage town centre and car parks

  Kettering

  Kettering town centre

  Hertfordshire North

  Hitchin town centre and Letchworth business area

  Harlow

  Harlow town centre

  Norfolk South West

  Thetford town centre

  Suffolk South

  Hadleigh and Sudbury town centres

  Holland with Boston

  Boston town centre

  Holland with Boston

  Kirton town centre, near Boston

  Erewash

  Ilkeston town centre, Derbyshire

  Leicestershire North West

  Moira town centre, North-West Leicestershire

  Holland with Boston

  Donington town centre, Lincolnshire

  Loughborough

  Loughborough town centre

  Uxbridge

  Hillingdon shopping area

  Spelthorne

  Sunbury Cross Shopping Centre and car park, Spelthorne

  Islington North; and Islington South and Finsbury

  Islington car parks and entrance to Underground

  Brentford and Isleworth

  Hounslow town centre

  Erith and Crayford

  Erith town centre, Kent

  Walthamstow

  North Walthamstow Industrial Estates

  Richmond and Barnes

  Richmond town centre, Surrey

  Knowsley North

  Kirkby Railway Station, Merseyside

  Lewes

  Newhaven town centre, East Sussex

  Surrey North West

  Egham town centre, Surrey

  Eastbourne

  Eastbourne town centre, Sussex

  Thanet South

  Sandwich town centre, Kent

  Medway

  Rochester Industrial Business Estate, Kent

  Dartford

  Dartford town centre, Kent

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  Tonbridge and Mailing town centres, Kent

  Chertsey and Walton

  Addlestone town centre

  Banbury

  Banbury railway station, arts centre and sports centre

  Wokingham

  Wokingham town centre

  Basingstoke

  Basingstoke town centre

  Chesham and Amersham

  Chesham town centre

  Portsmouth South

  Fawcett Road Shopping Area, Portsmouth

  Ashford

  Ashford town centre, Kent

  Dover

  Dover town centre

  Folkestone and Hythe

  Folkestone town centre and residential areas

  Maidstone

  Maidstone town centre

  Mansfield

  Mansfield shopping centre

  Harborough

  Market Harborough town centre

  Gainsborough and Horncastle

  Gainsborough industrial estates

  Cornwall North

  Bodmin town centre

  Cirencester and Tewkesbury

  Cirencester market place, car parks and bus station

  Falmouth and Camborne

  Falmouth town centre

  Cornwall North

  Newquay tourism areas

  Truro and St. Austell

  Truro town centre

  Salisbury

  Salisbury town centre

  1235

  List of winning bids by constituency

  Constituency

  Bid

  Torbay

  Torquay town centre

  Westbury

  West Wiltshire mobile CCTV system

  Gloucester

  Gloucester city centre

  Tiverton

  Tiverton Business Park

  Tiverton

  Tiverton town centre

  Woodspring

  Crown Glass Shopping Centre, Nailsea, Bristol

  Bournemouth East

  Boscombe shopping area, Bournemouth

  Bristol West

  Clifton car parks and shopping centre, Bristol

  Clwyd North West

  Colwyn Bay town centre

  Torfaen

  Cwmbran town centre

  Swansea East: Neath; Aberavon; Gower; and Swansea West

  West Glamorgan mobile CCTV system

  Rhondda

  Ystrad residential area, Rhondda

  Pembroke

  Haverfordwest town centre

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation for the statutory regulation of closed circuit television systems; and if he will make a statement. [18140]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no plans to do so.

  Criminal Justice Units
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects every police division in London to have a criminal justice unit. [18709]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that he expects criminal justice units to be in place for every police division within this financial year.

  Police Stations (Access)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many London police stations are wheelchair accessible; and what proportion this is of the total. [18707]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that 79 police stations within the Metropolitan police district are accessible by wheelchair, 43 per cent. of the total.

  Senior Police Officers
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if police officers holding the ranks of assistant chief constable and chief constable on 1 April will be entitled to transfer to fixed-term appointments on or after that date if they wish to. [18978]

  Mr. Howard
  The Police (Amendment) Regulations 1995 provide for the conditions of service of officers in this position to be varied by agreement between the officer concerned and his or her police authority. I hope that police authorities will be ready to agree to a variation in all cases where such an officer seeks to transfer to a fixed-term appointment.

  Immigration (Complaints Audit Committee)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the first annual 1236
  report by the complaints audit committee of the immigration and nationality department; and if he will make a statement. [19123]

  Mr. Howard
  A copy of the report has been placed in the Library. It is a helpful document and I welcome the committee's findings and conclusions. All 14 recommendations will be carefully considered. Some have already been implemented.

  Interception of Communications Tribunal
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the appointment of the President of the Interception of Communications Tribunal. [19124]

  Mr. Howard
  Her Majesty has been pleased to reappoint the hon. Mr. Justice Macpherson of Cluny as president of the tribunal established under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 for a period of five years.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many parliamentary questions to his Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence; [18498]

  (2) how many parliamentary questions to his Department in each year since 1979–80 requesting a priority written answer or answer on a named day, were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further 5, 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18494]

  (3) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has written to a right hon. or hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question; [18496]

  (4) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report; [18495]

  (5) how many parliamentary questions to his Department were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence. [18497]

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is a matter of public record, but it could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by his Department in each year since 1979–80; and how many such questions received a substantive answer within 10, 15, 20 days or longer. [18493]

  Mr. Howard
  The number of parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer received by this Department in each year since 1979–80 are given.
  1237

  Parliamentary year

  Number of questions

  1979–80

  2,039

  1980–81

  1,092

  1981–82

  1,098

  1982–83

  855

  1983–84

  1,817

  1984–85

  1,584

  1985–86

  1,430

  1986–87

  812

  1987–88

  1,730

  1988–89

  1,525

  1989–90

  1,455

  1990–91

  1,273

  1991–92

  700

  1992–93

  2,526

  1993–94

  2,255

  1994–4 April 1995

  1,113

  The further information requested is a matter of public record, but could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors underlie the recent rise in the number of women prisoners; and what types of crimes these women have committed. [18215]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Both the male and female prison populations have risen since 1993 and the same broad factors have contributed to the increased numbers of both men and women in prison. These factors are a rise in the numbers sentenced to custody by the Crown court; a rise in the numbers sentenced to custody by magistrates courts; and a rise in the remand population. In part, the increase in the numbers of offenders sentenced to custody can be attributed to the implementation of the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1993 in August 1993 which amended the sentencing framework established by the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  The table sets out details of the sentenced female prison population by broad category of offence for 30 June 1993 and 28 February 1995:

  Type of offence

  30 June 1993

  28 February 1995

  Violence against the person

  216

  270

  Sexual

  15

  10

  Burglary

  39

  50

  Robbery

  77

  90

  Theft and handling

  207

  250

  Fraud and forgery

  64

  90

  Drugs

  308

  330

  Other

  125

  130

  Offence not recorded

  74

  160

  Total

  1,125

  1,380

  In addition, on 28 February there were 10 females in prison for fine default, 26 in prison for non-criminal offences and 511 on remand. This compares with 24 fine defaulters, 29 non-criminal prisoners and 402 remand prisoners on 30 June 1993.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to gauge opinion on the introduction of a national identity card scheme. [18427]
  1238
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We intend publishing, later in the spring, a Green Paper on identity cards which will canvass views on possible options for a national identity card scheme and will serve as a way of assessing the level of public support for the introduction of identity cards.

  Croydon Magistrates Court
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many cases of common assault Mrs. Jean Pearch, JP, has heard at Croydon magistrates court(a) in the last 12 months and (b) since she was appointed to the court; and how many have resulted in an imprisonment sentence for a first-time offender; [18213]

  (2) how many cases of common assault have been heard by Croydon magistrates court in the last 12 months; and how many have resulted in imprisonment sentences for first time offenders. [18210]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information is not collected centrally, by this Department, on the number of cases heard by individual magistrates.

  According to information held centrally by this Department, of the 122 defendants proceeded against for the offence of common assault at Croydon magistrates court in 1993—latest available—82 were convicted, of which one received a custodial sentence.

  The 1994 data will not be available until the autumn 1995.

  Transfer Grant
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what evidence he based his decision to withdraw the right of same-gender partnerships to permanent transfer grant as outlined in the Home Office staff handbook; and if he will place copies of this evidence in the Library. [18144]

  Mr. Howard
  The transfer manual made no such change. There never was such a right.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the asylum applications determined during the year 1994 how many were applications made(a) before and (b) after the coming into force of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993; and for each of these categories, how many applications were (a) granted refugee status, (b) granted exceptional leave to remain and (c) refused. [18233]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  Decisions in 1994, excluding dependants, on applications for asylum(1) made before and after the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 (26 July 1993)

  Number of principal applicants

  Pre-Act applications

  Post-Act applications

  Total

  Total decision2

  43,560

  4 14,445

  20,990

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  275

  550

  825

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain(3)

  1,165

  2,495

  3,660

  Total refusals

  (4)2,120

  (4)11,400

  16,505

  1239

  Decisions in 1994, excluding dependants, on applications for
  asylum(1) made before and after the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 (26 July 1993)

  Number of principal applicants

  Pre-Act applications

  Post-Act applications

  Total

  Refused asylum and ELR after full consideration

  2,120

  10,535

  12,655

  Refused on safe third country grounds

  —

  865

  865

  Refused under para. 180F of the immigration rules(4)

  —

  —

  2,985

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  2 Figures exclude information on applications made overseas.

  3 Usually granted for a year in the first instance, subject then to further review.

  4 Figures for refusals under para 180F—failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim—are not available split between pre and post-Act cases.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what preventive measures he is proposing to reduce(a) the number of people entering prisons and (b) the number of prisoners re-entering the prison system. [18214]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Within the legislative framework provided by Parliament, it is for the courts to decide which individuals should be remanded into custody and which should be given custodial sentences. The Government do not believe that the courts should be prevented from sending to prison those who in their view ought to be there.

  Two of the six gaols in the Prison Service three-year corporate plan relate to rehabilitation. These are to provide positive regimes which help prisoners address their offending behaviour and allow them as full and responsible a life as possible; and to help prisoners prepare for their return to the community. In working to achieve these goals, the Prison Service provides inmate development and pre-release training; sex offender treatment programmes; a more general programme addressing offending behaviour; jobsearch preparation courses and prison jobclubs; training for a wide range of national vocational qualifications; other constructive activities in prison workshops; and opportunities for work experience through the pre-release employment scheme.

  Detainees
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) males and (b) females whose identity is in doubt are currently being detained at Campsfield house; and what is the longest current period of detention. [18071]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  There are currently detained at Campsfield house(a) one male and (b) one female whose identities are in doubt. The longest current period of detention of such a person is six months and two weeks.

  Boot Camps
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the visit sponsored by his Department to the United States in May 1240
  1994 to look at boot camps; when he intends to publish the findings and conclusions; and what response he has made. [17985]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The total cost of the visit by prison officials and a social services inspector was £16,443. The findings and conclusions were presented to Ministers as advice and it is not proposed to publish them. I have asked the Prison Service to bring forward proposals for a pilot regime to be set up in a young offender institution in this country, based on the more positive aspects of boot camps and on approaches that are known to be successful with young offenders. When my right hon. and learned Friend and I have received and considered them and agreed the way forward, an announcement will be made.

  Internet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Internet electronic mail addresses of(a) his Department and (b) each Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement on his Department's approach to the information super-highway. [17727]

  Mr. Howard
  We appreciate the potential benefits of electronic mail and the information super-highway, and we are investigating how the Home Office's business activities might be enhanced by exploiting these technologies. Home Office Ministers do not yet have Internet addresses, and only a few members of staff in the scientific specialisms currently use Internet e-mail in their work. However, testing is in hand to widen access to Internet facilities, and some Home Office statistical information has already been made available to the entire Internet community via the CCTA government information service—www.open.gov.uk. The publication of Home Office e-mail addresses on the Internet is dependent on the outcome of current development work.

  Repatriation Assistance
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have made inquiries to the international social service about applying for financial assistance to return to their country of origin, in each year since inception; if he will break down these figures by age, gender and intended country of destination; what proportion of actual applications were accepted by the ISS; and how much on average was paid to each applicant, in each year since inception. [17715]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The international social service of the United Kingdom operates, on behalf of the Home Office, the voluntary repatriation scheme established under section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971. Grants are not paid to applicants. Assistance is given in the form of payment of fares and incidental expenses including the transport of a small amount of personal effects.

  The following table shows the number of inquiries to ISS about assistance to return to country of origin, in each year since its inception to the end of March 1995, with the proportion of applications accepted and the average amount of financial assistance in relation to each successful applicant:
  1241

  Number of inquires, successful application and amount of financial assistance pre applicant: 1972 to 1995

  Year

  Enquiries

  Proportion of accepted applications Per cent.

  Average financial assistance £

  1972–73

  57

  14

  1,535

  1973–74

  271

  28

  1,666

  1974–75

  245

  32

  1,386

  1975–76

  274

  42

  1,441

  1976–77

  520

  24

  1,138

  1977–78

  493

  29

  1,542

  1978–79

  435

  32

  1,910

  1979–80

  273

  48

  1,535

  1980–81

  266

  40

  1,678

  1981–82

  901

  20

  1,848

  1982–83

  575

  27

  1,379

  1983–84

  420

  44

  1,422

  1984–85

  430

  23

  1,350

  1985–86

  407

  29

  1,176

  1986–87

  306

  29

  1,316

  1987–88

  250

  43

  1,364

  1988–89

  174

  49

  1,034

  1989–90

  153

  61

  1,126

  1990–91

  137

  61

  1,029

  1991–92

  140

  68

  1,390

  1992–93

  159

  57

  1,370

  1993–94

  278

  37

  1,850

  1994–95

  226

  68

  1,711

  The information requested on age, gender and the intended country of destination of people making enquiries to ISS is not routinely recorded and such data that survives could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  However, the following table provides a breakdown of the country of destination of those receiving assistance under the scheme:

  Number and country of destination of those given assistance: 1972 to 1995

  Country

  Number

  Algeria

  5

  Antigua

  2

  Argentina

  7

  Aruba

  1

  Australia

  32

  Bangaladesh

  34

  Barbados

  79

  Belize

  2

  Bolivia

  1

  Canada

  15

  Chile

  8

  China

  3

  Dominica

  43

  Egypt

  6

  Fiji

  12

  Gambia

  5

  Ghana

  50

  Grenada

  43

  Guyana

  51

  India

  83

  Iran

  1

  Jamaica

  1,356

  Kenya

  17

  Malaysia

  10

  Malawi

  3

  Mauritius

  42

  Morocco

  5

  New Zealand

  4

  Nigeria

  148

  1242

  Numbers and country of destination of those given assistance: 1972 to 1995

  Country

  Number

  Oman

  2

  Pakistan

  37

  St. Kitts

  2

  St. Lucia

  29

  St. Vincent

  25

  Seychelles

  20

  Sierra Leone

  7

  Somalia

  7

  South Africa

  26

  Sri Lanka

  12

  Sudan

  1

  Tanzania

  3

  Trinidad

  64

  Turkey

  1

  Uganda

  132

  USA

  9

  West Samoa

  6

  Yemen

  2

  Zanzibar

  3

  Zimbabwe

  89

  Police Funding
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what allowance is contained in the police funding formula for the abnormal costs in Gloucestershire as a result of the Frederick West investigation and the cost of policing royal households. [17646]

  Mr. Maclean
  The formula was never intended to take account of specific, large-scale criminal investigations in individual police force areas. If the impact of a particular operation looks likely to threaten the efficiency of a force, consideration can be given to special grant. Protection commitments are taken account of in the formula both by the element for existing police establishments which is included, and by an additional allocation for certain security-related commitments.

  Community Sentences
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his definition of a soft option; and, based on his definition, what percentage of community sentences are based on this option. [17503]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  A community sentence is a soft option if it does not provide sufficient punishment for the offence committed. The 1995 national standards published on 9 March should ensure that no community sentences provide soft options.

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for 1992–93 and 1993–94, separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotions materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising; and what are his latest estimates for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17623]

  Mr. Howard
  Spending by the Home Office on advertising has been as follows:
  1243

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  (a) Television advertising

  4,156,322

  7,347,834

  (b) Radio advertising

  210,420

  261,878

  (c) Newspaper advertising

  1,122,620

  602,966

  (d) Other promotions including outdoor and cinema advertising

  1,855,273

  1,132,518

  (e) Totals

  7,344,635

  9,345,196

  (f) Of these totals, the amount spent each year on recruitment advertising was:

  1992–93–1,386,787

  1993–94–1,590,980

  1994–95–2,904,999

  The latest estimates for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are as follows:

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  (a) Television advertising

  6,237,727

  5,000,000

  (b) Radio advertising

  303,998

  200,000

  (c) Newspaper advertising

  3,094,264

  2,000,000

  (d) Other promotions including outdoor and cinema advertising

  576,140

  Nil

  (e) Totals

  10,212,129

  7,200,000

  (f) The proportion of the total estimated for 1995–96 spent on recruitment is £2,000,000.

  Terrorism, India
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals, have been(a) arrested, (b) charged, (c) convicted and (d) acquitted over offences relating to the funding of terrorism in India in each year since 1992. [17304]

  Mr. Howard
  Information is not held centrally in the form requested, but I am not aware of any cases in these categories.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the investigations carried out on behalf of the charity commissioners, in each of the past three years, into complaints of the irregular expenditure of funds by organisations registered by the Sikh community living in the United Kingdom, in respect of which the charity commissioners have concluded that the irregular expenditure was directed to the funding of terrorism in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) India. [17241]

  Mr. Howard
  In the past three years, no investigation carried out by the Charity Commission or anyone acting on its behalf has resulted in this conclusion.

  Miss Phillipa Drew
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons Ms Phillipa Drew, director of custody, will leave her post later this year; and to what extent her departure relates to the transfer of Mr. Marriott, former governor of Parkhurst prison. [17214]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  1244
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Janet Anderson, dated 5 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Miss Phillipa Drew's transfer within the Home Office.
  In line with plans developed last year this is a routine career development move for Miss Drew, who by the Summer will have spent three and a half years int he Prison Service. The move is entirely unrelated to any decision in respect of Mr. Marriott.

  Havelock Road, Southall Gurdwara
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what findings the charity commissioners have made in respect of irregular expenditure of funds held by the Havelock road, Southall Gurdwara; over what period; and in respect of which individuals. [17244]

  Mr. Howard
  Havelock road, Southall Gurdwara is the property of a registered charity called Sri Guru Singh Sabha. The commission has no evidence to substantiate any allegations of irregular expenditure.

  Prison Officers' Shopping Visits
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of shopping visits made by prison officers on behalf of prison inmates during the week of 19 March. [17231]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 5 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about shopping trips by prison officers for prison inmates.
  The situation has not changed since my recent reply to your Question of 23 January (col. 48). The practice of prison officers undertaking private shopping trips at the behest of prisoners was stopped last year. I have no evidence of any such shopping trips taking place in the week beginning 19 March.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total expenditure of his Department on hospitality since his appointment; and what were the figures for each of the previous five years. [16763]

  Mr. Howard
  The provisional figure for expenditure on hospitality by my Department, including its executive agencies, from 1 April 1993 until 28 February 1995, which includes the period since my appointment to this office on 27 May 1993, is £88,044. Expenditure on hospitality in each of the previous five years was as follows:

  1992–93: £55,651

  1991–92: £28,094

  1990–91: £30,080

  1989–90: £28,630

  1988–89: £26,192

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1985 the number of Metropolitan police officers who were charged with disciplinary offences following a successful civil action against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for a wrongful act by an officer; and, in respect of each charge, whether the offence was proved and what punishment was imposed.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 9 March 1995]: From 1988 to 1994 the numbers of disciplinary charges following successful civil actions where the damages or settlement sum was in excess of £10,000 were as follows:

  Year of successful civil action

  Number of cases

  1988

  0

  1989

  1

  1990

  2

  1991

  0

  1992

  3

  1993

  1

  1994

  1

  Total

  8

  The breakdown of cases is as follows:

  Number of officers

  Substantiated/Not substantiated

  Outcome

  Case 1 (Includes one case from 1989 and one associated case from 1990) Eight officers involved in action, five had criminal proceedings brought against them

  Three officers

  Substantiated

  Dismissed

  Two officers

  Ancillary matter Substantiated

  Dismissed

  Three officers

  Not Substantiated

  Case 2 1990

  One officer

  Ancillary matter Substantiated

  Reprimanded

  Case 3 1992

  One officer

  Substantiated by PCA Tribunal

  Reprimanded

  Case 4 (Involves one case from 1992 and an associated case from 1994)

  Seven officers

  Substantiated

  Dismissed

  Case 5 1992 (three officers involved, one subject to formal disciplinary action)

  Cost to establish £

  Cost to operate £

  Cost to publicise £

  Calls received

  Date began

  Queen Ann's Gate

  2,000

  103,000 per annum

  Nil

  No record is kept

  1976

  Prison Service:

  (i) victim helpline

  8,400

  1,000 per annum

  Nil

  27 per month

  5 December 1994

  (ii) prisoner location service

  n/a

  5,700 per month

  Nil

  5,000 per months

  pre 1970

  Passport Agency offices (6)

  200,000

  1,000,000 per annum

  25,000 per annum

  2,100,000 per annum

  pre 1970

  Immigration and Nationality Department (3)

  93,500

  543,000

  Nil

  3,800,000 (since points established)

  since 1988

  Notes:

  1. The costs for establishing the enquiry points relate to current equipment.

  2. The figure of operating costs for the Prison Service's victim helpline reflects estimated monthly expenditure from mid-April onwards. [The scope for publicising the service is under consideration.]

  The Department considers these inquiry points to be essential for the provision of information to the public. The scope for improving the service provided is kept under review.
  1246

  The breakdown of cases is as follows:

  Number of officers

  Substantiated/Not substantiated

  Outcome

  One officer

  Substantiated

  Dismissed

  Case 6 1993

  One officer

  Substantiated

  Fined

  One officer

  Substantiated

  Cautioned

  Information prior to 1988 or where the settlement sum was less than £10,000 is not available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Custodial Sentences
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to reduce the number of refusals by courts to impose prison sentences because of the danger of exposure to illegal drugs in prison by convicted criminals. [18158]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: Sentencing is a matter for the courts in each case. The statutory criteria for passing a custodial sentence do not require the courts to form a judgment on reports of conditions in particular prisons. Decisions on where a prisoner should serve his sentence are taken by the Prison Service, and take account so far as possible of the circumstances of the prisoner and his or her offence. Reducing drug misuse is one of the Prison Service's key priorities. A new Prison Service drugs strategy will shortly be issued to all establishments.

  Public Information Telephone Service
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the public information telephone inquiry lines operated by his Department, in each case indicating the costs of establishing, operating, and publicising these lines and the number of calls made to them up until this point; when they were established; and what assessment his Department had made of their effectiveness. [17453]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: There are 12 public inquiry points within the Home Office, including two in the Prison Service and six in the UK Passport Agency. The information available from existing records is as follows:

  Belmarsh Prison
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners at Her Majesty's
  1247
  prison, Belmarsh have been denied recreation facilities and association rights; and how many prisoners are protesting at their conditions. [17665]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Max Madden, dated 5 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many prisoners at Belmarsh prison have been denied recreation facilities and association rights; and how many prisoners are protesting at the conditions.
  No prisoners have been denied recreation facilities or association rights, other than those subject to disciplinary sanctions on Rule 43 and two prisoners who escaped from Whitemoor.
  Prisoners who have escaped or attempted to escape are required to wear prison clothing that has yellow patches on the jacket and yellow stripes on the trousers, to make them more readily identifiable. Two of the Whitemoor escapees are refusing to wear this clothing when out of their cells, at which time they will only wear a blanket. While they insist on taking this action they cannot be given access to normal recreation facilities or association.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have(a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared. [18327]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: Some 545 posts in the Prison Service have been, or are in the process of being, contracted out. These are mainly involved in court escort work. No posts in the other executive agencies have been contracted out in this period.

  The number of staff in the Prison Service and the Forensic Science Service has increased over the last two years. The number of staff in the Fire Service college has fallen from 202.5 in March 1993 to 188.5 in March 1995. In the case of the UK Passport Agency, the number of full-time permanent staff has decreased from 1,292 to 1,263 but permanent part-year appointments have increased from 120 to 190.

  Fingerprints
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police authorities have decided to withdraw the automatic fingerprint recognition system; how many of these authorities no longer keep paper records and now have no way of checking fingerprints; and if he will make a statement on the implications for public safety. [18150]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: The AFR consortium, which represents 36 police forces in England and Wales, has decided to terminate its existing contract for the provision of automated fingerprint recognition facilities and to make new arrangements. All the police forces concerned retain paper records. My Department is monitoring the implications of these developments for the effectiveness of the police service in consultation with the AFR consortium.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take regarding the future organisation and level of criminal injuries compensation.

  Mr. Howard
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 March 1995, c. 443]: The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords delivered its judgment today.

  We are naturally disappointed at the judgment, which we are studying carefully. However, we will, of course, act in accordance with the law as determined by their Lordships.

  The judgment relates to the method of introduction of the tariff scheme, not its merits. The Government remain firmly committed to the tariff approach. They believe a tariff scheme is the only sure way to bring the costs of the scheme under control and to provide a better service to the blameless victims of violent crime.

  We therefore intend to introduce as soon as practicable a Bill inviting Parliament to give statutory force to a new tariff scheme as quickly a possible.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will outline the measures taken, facilities offered and adjustments made by the Church Commissioners to facilitate access for disabled people; what plans the Commissioners have to improve access; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners recognise the need to facilitate access for the disabled and we have made a number of improvements to our main office premises, namely No. 1 Millbank, SW1—built in 1906 and listed Grade II*. These include the provision of an invalid WC suitable for wheelchair use, ramps within the building where a change of level occurs and handrails where necessary. All internal doors can accommodate wheelchairs. The entrance to our office is staffed at all times and the needs of disabled visitors can be attended to immediately.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cross-border Co-operation
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) relationships, (b) joint bodies and (c) contacts presently exist on (i) an all-Ireland, (ii) cross-border, and (iii) a north-south basis through (1) the Department of Environment and (2) any of its agencies. [17056]

  Mr. Moss
  A copy of a list of north-south economic co-operation projects involving the Department of the Environment and its agencies is available in the Library.

  The Department and its agencies also liaise informally and co-operate with various bodies in the Republic of Ireland on a wide variety of issues of mutual interest.
  1249
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) relationships, (b) joint bodies and (c) contacts presently exist on (i) an all-Ireland, (ii) cross-border, and (iii) a north-south basis through (1) the Department of Health and Social Services and (2) any of its agencies. [17054]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department and the Social Security Agency maintain regular contact with officials in the Departments of Health and of Social Welfare in the Republic of Ireland on a range of issues of mutual interests. Also, cross-border co-operation is on-going between health boards in the border areas. Regular bilateral meetings take place on a north-south basis between Health Ministers in both jurisdictions and from time to time social security matters will also be the subject of discussion at ministerial level.

  A list of north-south economic co-operation contacts and projects involving the Department of Health and Social Services and its agencies has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) relationships, (b) joint bodies and (c) contacts presently exist on (i) an all-Ireland, (ii) cross-border, and (iii) a north-south basis through (1) the Department of Economic Development and (2) any of its agencies. [17055]

  Mr. Ancram
  A list of cross-border projects involving the Department of Economic Development and its agencies is available in the Library.

  In addition, officials of the Department and its agencies liaise informally with a number of bodies in the Republic of Ireland on a range of matters of mutual interest.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) relationships, (b) joint bodies and (c) contacts presently exist on (i) an all-Ireland, (ii) cross-border, and (iii) a north-south basis through (1) the Department of Agriculture and (2) any of its agencies. [17057]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland formally co-operates with the Republic of Ireland in the administration of the Foyle Fisheries Commission, in the operation and maintenance of the Shannon-Erne waterway, and is formally represented on the Advisory Board of the International Fund for Ireland, the Interreg Monitoring Committee, and liaises on rural development matters.

  There are regular, on-going contacts between the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland and corresponding Irish Departments on matters of mutual interest. In addition, a list of north-south economic co-operation projects involving the Department is available in the Library.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) relationships, (b) joint bodies and (c) contacts presently exist on (i) an all-Ireland basis, (ii) cross border and (iii) a north-south basis through (1) the Department of Finance and Personnel and (2) any of its agencies. [17058]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Department of Finance and Personnel jointly administers the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland Interreg programme with the Department of Finance, Dublin. Occasional contacts are also made between the two Departments on civil service personnel management issues. A list of cross-border 1250
  projects involving the Department and its agencies is available in the Library.

  In addition, the International Fund for Ireland was established jointly by the British and Irish Governments in 1986 as an independent international organisation with the objective of promoting economic and social advance and encouraging dialogue between unionists and nationalists throughout Ireland. The fund has a variety of programmes which it operates and administers on a cross-border basis.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) relationships, (b) joint bodies and (c) contacts presently exist on (i) an all-Ireland, (ii) cross-border; and (iii) a north-south basis through (1) the Department of Education; and (2) any of its agencies. [17059]

  Mr. Ancram
  A curriculum development project—the European studies project—was set up in 1986 by the Departments of Education in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and England. The project, which embraces over 300 schools in 14 European jurisdictions, is now funded jointly by the Departments of Education in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. Regular liaison takes place between the two Departments on all aspects of the project.

  A list of cross-border projects involving the Department of Education and its agencies is available in the Library.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) relationships, (b) joint bodies and (c) contacts presently exist on (i) an all-Ireland, (ii) cross-border; and (iii) a north-south basis through (1) the Northern Ireland Office and (2) any of its agencies. [17060]

  Mr. Ancram
  Article 2 (a) of the Anglo-Irish agreement established an intergovernmental conference, which is supported by a joint secretariat and which deals, among other matters, with the promotion of cross-border co-operation. A range of contacts on matters of mutual interest take place, at the appropriate level and as the need arises, between Ministers and officials of the NIO and of the Irish Government.

  Other contacts with Irish Government officials may be established at various levels as the need arises: the Northern Ireland Forensic Science Laboratory, when investigating cases with a cross-border element, and the emergency planning branch, on issues relating to disasters and civil emergencies, have such contacts from time to time.

  Drugs
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 665, on drugs, if he will list the number of occasions and dates when meetings took place between (a) Northern Ireland Housing Executive senior executive and appropriate RUC level, (b) Northern Ireland Housing Executive regional level and appropriate RUC level and (c) Northern Ireland Housing Executive district level and appropriate RUC level on this matter; and what was the outcome of these discussions. [17642]

  Sir John Wheeler
  There is regular and effective liaison between the RUC and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive at all appropriate levels; this is not restricted to drug investigations.
  1251
  Local liaison is in response to all relevant issues and problems as they arise and the arrangements are not structured as asked. There is no central record of the contacts. The sub-divisional commanders in the respective operational areas are the primary point of contact.

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for 1992–93 and 1993–94, separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotion materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising; and what are his latest estimates for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17605]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list each non-departmental public body and agency for which he has responsibility and, for each, list separate figures for the spending by that body or agency on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotion materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising for each year since 1979–80 or for each year of its existence if it has been created since 1979–80; and what are his latest estimates of (a) to (f) for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17606]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested on non-departmental public bodies is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  The administration of the next steps agencies is a matter for the chief executive of each agency. The Social Security Agency cannot identify separate SSA costs from the Department of Health and Social Services total. I have asked the remaining chief executives to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from D. A. Stanley to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 30 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply, on behalf of the Compensation Agency, to your recent Question regarding the advertising.
  The Compensation Agency has not incurred expenditure on advertising or other promotional materials and activities in any year since its creation on 1 April 1992. It is not anticipated that any expenditure will be incurred in the years 1994–95 or 1995–96.

  Letter from P. Devlin to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 31 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your question about spending by NDPBs and Agencies on advertising and other promotion materials and activities.
  Since its inception in April 1993 the NI Child Support Agency has spent a total of £10,294.27 on advertising and other promotion materials and activities. The information requested in relation to the specific categories is as follows:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Television Advertising

  Nil

  Nil

  Radio Advertising

  Nil

  Nil

  Newspaper Advertising

  £2,974.85

  £1,391.80

  Other Promotion

  Nil

  Nil

  Materials and Activities

  £5,927.62

  Nil

  Total

  £8,902.47

  £1,391.80

  1252

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Proportion of total spent on Recruitment Advertising

  33 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  The Agency has at present no plans to spend monies on advertising or other promotional activities in 1995–96.

  I hope you find this information useful.

  Letter from J. B. Watson to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 30 March 1995:
  I am responding to your recent parliamentary question in which you asked for spending on various forms of advertising and other promotion materials and activities.
  The Agency has not advertised on television or radio. The table below shows actual and estimated expenditure on other activities since the Agency was established in April 1992.

  (Figures in £000)

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95 (estimate)

  1995–96 (estimate)

  Newspaper Advertising

  10

  3

  7

  10

  Other promotional material and activities

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Total

  10

  3

  8

  12

  Costs for recruitment advertising are not met by the Agency.

  Letter from Brendan Magee to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 31 March 1995:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary question about advertising and promotional materials costs incurred by this Agency, Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland.
  The Agency was established on 2 August 1993. Since then the only advertising costs incurred have been:

  £

  1993/94

  Newspaper Advertising

  325.20

  Total for 1993/94

  325.20

  1994/95

  Newspaper Advertising

  1,071.21

  Campaign against Vehicle Excise Duty Evasion

  15,000.0

  Publicity for DVLNI Information Line

  15,000.0

  Total for 1994–95

  16,071.21

  No recruitment advertising costs were incurred during the period and we have no plans for any advertising expenditure for 1995/96.

  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Letter from D. W. Gallagher to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 31 March 1995:

  ADVERTISING AND PUBLICITY (WRITTEN PQ No. 509): THE RATE COLLECTION AGENCY
  Further to your recent Parliamentary Question, I have been asked to provide relevant information relating to the Northern Ireland Rate Collection Agency. For ease of reference I have outlined the details on the attached schedule and have commented briefly below.
  The Rate Collection Agency was established in April 1991 as a Next Steps Agency within the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. The Agency is responsible for the collection of rates in Northern Ireland, and the administration of the Housing

  1253
  Benefit scheme for owner-occupiers. Expenditure on advertising and publicity in both 1990/91 and 1991/92 related to promotional materials designed to mark the launch of the Agency and increase awareness of the activities of the new body among both Agency staff and the general public. The expenditure in subsequent years was associated with the RCA contribution towards a publicity campaign to promote public awareness and uptake of Housing Benefit. No expenditure on advertising and publicity was incurred during 1994/95. However, extensive newspaper advertising will be required during 1995/96 to advise the public of the reorganisation of the local office structure of the Rate Collection Agency.

  I hope that you will find this information helpful.

  Expenditure on advertising and publicity—RCA

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Promotion materials and activities

  7,100

  2,800

  1,600

  —

  —

  Radio and television advertising

  —

  —

  3,000

  4,000

  —

  Letter from J. F. Codd to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 30 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked the Chief Executive to reply to your Question about spending by Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland on advertising since 1979/80. In the absence of the Chief Executive I am replying on his behalf.
  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland was launched as a Next Steps Agency on 1 April 1992 and we have no financial information for the years prior to that date. The figures for spending in the years

  Year

  Television advertising

  Radio advertising

  Newspaper advertising

  Promotional material and activities

  Total

  1990–91

  183,780

  —

  210,055

  226,539

  620,374

  1991–92

  48,815

  —

  115,781

  178,282

  342,878

  1992–93

  120,480

  15,000

  240,500

  292,076

  668,056

  1993–94

  43,175

  16,218

  142,234

  292,164

  493,791

  1994–95 (actual)

  181,254

  13,919

  137,816

  282,477

  615,466

  1995–96 (estimate)

  182,365

  13,978

  138,652

  284,222

  619,217

  Recruitment advertising is a matter for the Civil Service Commission and is not delegated to the Agency.

  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many parliamentary questions to his Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence; [18534]

  (2) how many parliamentary questions to his Department were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence. [18533]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is a matter of public record but it could be extracted in the form requested at only disproportionate cost.
  1254
  1992/93 and 1993/94 and the estimated figures for 1994/95 and 1995/96 are as follows:

  1992/93

  1993/94

  1994/95

  1995/96

  a.

  None

  None

  None

  None

  b.

  None

  None

  None

  None

  c.

  None

  None

  None

  None

  d.

  £1,100

  £2,500

  £3,250

  £3,500

  e.

  £1,100

  £2,500

  £3,250

  £3,500

  f.

  None

  None

  None

  None

  Letter from D. J. Bell to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 31 March 1995:

  REFERENCE: RECENTLY TABLED PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION FOR ANSWER ON 5 APRIL 1995
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question relating to expenditure by the Valuation and Lands Agency on television, radio or newspaper advertising or other promotional materials since 1979–80.
  The Valuation and Lands Agency and its predecessors the Valuation and Lands Office and the Valuation Office have not incurred any expenditure within the period since 1979–80 on advertising or promotional materials.
  I trust this information is sufficient for your purposes however if I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 4 April 1995:
  Your recent parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland regarding expenditure on advertising has been passed to me for reply on behalf of the Training and Employment Agency.
  The breakdown of figures you requested is as follows:

  Abortion
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the abortion rate for residents of(a) Greater Belfast and (b) Northern Ireland during each of the years 1990 to 1994; and were the comparable figures for England, Wales and Scotland. [18617]

  Mr David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many abortions(a) paid for and (b) not paid for by the NHS were carried out on residents of Northern Ireland in premises in England and Wales in each year since 1990. [18866]

  Mr. Moss
  I shall write to the right hon. and hon. Members as soon as possible.

  Industrial Development, South Devon
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what progress has been made on the identification of sites for industrial development in South
  1255
  Down by the Industrial Development Board and the Department of the Environment and Planning Service. [18555]

  Mr. Ancram
  Ten sites have been identified as having potential suitability for industrial development in Downpatrick. Two are being surveyed to determine their suitability as Industrial Development Board industrial estates. The reports are expected at the end of May.

  Roads
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial allocations have been made from EC structural funds, 1994–99 towards new roads infrastructure in the Downpatrick and Craigavon divisions; and if he will make a statement. [18556]

  Mr. Moss
  No financial allocations have been made from EC structural funds 1994–99 in respect of roads infrastructure in the Downpatrick division. In the Craigavon division, grant of £1,845,000 from the EC structural funds 1994–99 has, to date, been paid in respect of work on the Newry by-pass stage II.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the projects in the major road works programme with the appropriate costings for the 1995–98 period which was recently approved; and if he will make a statement. [18558]

  Mr Moss
  The major works programme for roads is reviewed annually and the latest programme, covering the period April 1995 to March 2000, is as follows:

  Total estimated cost £ million

  New starts in 1995–96

  Purdysburn Road, Belfast: stages 1B and 2

  2.1

  Ballymaconaghy Road, Belfast: stage 2

  0.6

  A5 Maheramason

  0.9

  Omagh Through-pass: stage 2B

  2.3

  Motorway Emergency Telephone System

  5.3

  A5 Burndennett

  1.3

  Church Street/Scotch Street, Downpatrick

  1.7

  New starts in 1996–97

  Anne Street/Thomas Street, Dungannon

  0.8

  Balmoral Avenue/Malone Road, Belfast

  0.4

  Northern Distributor, Ballymena

  2.2

  A29 Carland Bridge, Dungannon

  2.2

  A26 Antrim/Ballymena Dualling: stage 2

  2.7

  A5 Leckpatrick

  0.8

  Balloo Road, Bangor

  0.5

  New starts in 1997–98

  Comber By-pass: stage 2

  2.9

  Belfast Inner Ring Road (Southern Section)

  2.5

  A5 Garvaghy

  0.4

  Strand Road, Londonderry: stage 2

  1.8

  A2 Limavady By-pass: stage 1 (Earthworks)

  2.5

  A8 Belfast-Larne Road Dualling: stage 1

  2.5

  A2 Shore Road, University of Ulster/Ravenhill

  3.8

  No schemes are programmed to start during 1998–1999

  New starts in 1999–2000

  A6 Toome By-pass

  1.4

  Belfast Inner Ring Road (South/West Section)

  4.0

  Limavady By-pass: stage 2 (Bridgeworks)

  2.2

  A26 Windyhall Dualling Coleraine

  0.6

  Northway, Portadown

  0.8

  1256

  Total estimated cost £ million

  A1 Fourmile/Buskshill Dualling, Newry

  3.3

  Comber Road/Portaferry Road; Newtownards

  0.6

  A5 Bready

  0.4

  A5 Ballyfatton

  0.2

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions have taken place with representatives of the EC task force and the European Commissioner responsible for the peace and reconciliation fund about the allocation of funding towards roads infrastructure in Craigavon and Downpatrick roads division; and if he will make a statement. [18559]

  Mr. Moss
  None. There will be an opportunity to consider specific projects when the programme has been agreed with Brussels.

  Carlingford Lough Ferry Project
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards funding the Carlingford lough ferry project; and if he will make a statement. [18557]

  Mr. Moss
  The east border region committee, which is sponsoring the scheme, has been advised to apply for assistance from the EC under the Interreg initiative.

  The Commission has just recently approved the joint Interreg programme for 1994–99. Application forms for assistance should be issued soon.

  Cattle Plague
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of cattle plague were reported in each year since 1985. [18612]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Young Offenders Centre, Millisle
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total cost of the clothes provided for the inmates at the young offenders centre in Millisle for each of the last five years. [18618]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The cost per year to provide clothing for the young people at Lisnevin was as follows:

  Financial year

  Amount £

  1989–90

  6,843

  1990–91

  5,995

  1991–92

  10,464

  1992–93

  10,029

  1993–94

  9,614

  Total

  42,945

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will break down the repair costs for the young offenders centre at Millisle in each of the last five years. [18620]
  1257
  Sir John Wheeler
  The costs of repairs on-going maintenance at Lisnevin training school over the period 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1994 are as follows:

  Financial year

  Cost of repairs/maintenance £

  1989–90

  5,706

  1990–91

  1,781

  1991–92

  114,167

  1992–93

  5,167

  1993–94

  217,421

  Grand total

  44,242

  1 Includes the cost of removing two temporary building.2 Includes the cost of laying flags around dormitories and installing fans in common rooms.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of the repairs required to the young offenders centre in Millisle after the latest disturbance at the centre. [18621]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The latest disturbance at Lisnevin occurred on 23 November 1994. The following schedule sets out the cost of repairing damage following that disturbance:

  £

  Building

  962

  Plumbing

  2,207

  Electrical

  113

  Carpet

  2,157

  Furniture

  1,175

  Fire Alarm System

  308

  Painting

  450

  Total

  7,372

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to build a swimming pool at the young offenders centre in Millisle; and what is the estimated cost. [18621]

  Sir John Wheeler
  There are no plans at present to construct a swimming pool at Lisnevin training school.

  Out-patient Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost to the NHS in Northern Ireland of the non-attenders to out-patient appointments in 1993–94. [17713]

  Mr. Moss
  Information is not available in the form requested. It is normal practice to allow for non-attendance in the number of appointments made, and consequently the costs incurred in providing clinics are fully utilised. Any remaining issues concerning continuing treatment of non-attenders are addressed by the consultant responsible.

  Green Policy
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will name the green Minister for his Department and list(a) the green initiatives taken by that Minister in respect of the Department's functions, (b) the representations made by the Minister in respect of the functions carried out by other Departments and (c) the
  1258
  input by the Minister into consultations on the Environment Bill. [18648]

  Mr. Moss
  I am green Minister for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments, but all my ministerial colleagues share our common objective of promoting sustainable development in all areas of national life.

  "Sustainable Development: the UK Strategy", CM 2426, presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister in January 1994, set out our overall approach and targets. Progress on these has been reported on more recently in "This Common Inheritance 1995", CM 2822, report which was published last month. Commitments 554 to 613 relate specifically to Northern Ireland and are listed towards the end of the report, which outlines progress and further action for 1995 and beyond.

  The whole Government are committed to the objective of sustainable development, and I am in regular contact with all ministerial colleagues in the NIO, as well as other green Ministers.

  While I am taking a keen interest in the Environment Bill, its provisions do not relate to Northern Ireland.

  Arable Area Payments
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many claims were made in Northern Ireland (1) for set-aside and (2) in total under the arable area payments scheme in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) in 1994–95 of(a) between £0 and £5,000, (b) between £5,001 and £10,000, (c) between £10,001 and £15,000, (d) between £15,001 and £20,000, (e) between £20,001 and £25,000, (f) between £25,001 and £50,000, (g) between £50,001 and £75,000, (h) between £75,001 and £100,000, (i) between £100,001 and £150,000, (j) between £150,001 and £200,000, (k) between £200,001 and £1 million and (l) over £1 million; and what is his latest estimate of the number of claims that will be made in 1995–96 in each value band. [18629]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Set-aside scheme—Northern Ireland

  Set-aside

  Arable area payments

  £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 (Est.) £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  11995–96 (Est.) £

  0–5,000

  112

  194

  200

  2,971

  2,767

  2,800

  5,001–10,000

  7

  16

  15

  57

  96

  100

  10,001–15,000

  —

  —

  —

  23

  47

  50

  15,001–20,000

  —

  —

  —

  5

  10

  10

  20,001–25,000

  —

  —

  —

  2

  6

  10

  25,001–50,000

  —

  —

  —

  9

  8

  10

  50,001 upwards

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Final figures will not be available until after 15 May 1995.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many hectares of land were set aside under the arable area payments scheme in Northern Ireland in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and what is his estimate of the number of hectares of land that will be set aside in 1995–96. [18627]

  Mr. Ancram
  Some 1,231.02 hectares were set aside in 1993–94 and 2,062 hectares in 1994–95.

  It is not possible to estimate the number of hectares of land that will be set aside in 1995–96 until after 15 May, which is the closing date for the integrated administration

  1259
  and control system applications on which farmers make their claims for arable area payments.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of payments under the arable area payments scheme in each Northern Ireland area in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; what is his estimate of the cost of payments in 1995–96; and how much in each year represent payments for set aside. [18628]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  County

  1993–94 payments £

  of which set aside £

  1994–95 payments £

  of which set aside £

  Antrim

  673,272

  14,744

  912,248

  42,835

  Armagh

  313,822

  17,933

  397,127

  31,407

  Down

  1,756,480

  137,475

  2,552,338

  275,465

  Fermanagh

  1,136

  —

  1,565

  —

  Londonderry

  924,525

  57,244

  1,329,571

  136,736

  Tyrone

  342,716

  10,256

  414,999

  23,294

  4,011,951

  237,652

  5,607,848

  509,737

  It is not possible to estimate cost of payments in 1995–96 until after 15 May, which is the closing date for integrated administration and control system applications on which farmers make their claims for arable area payments.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will outline the measures taken, facilities offered and adjustments made in his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to facilitate access for disabled people; what plans he has to improve access; and if he will make a statement. [18589]

  Mr. Moss
  The Northern Ireland civil service and its agencies are aware of the problems associated with access for disabled people. To that end, all new Northern Ireland civil service general office premises are constructed in conformity with the requirements of the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) which govern the provision of access, wheelchair space and toilet facilities for disabled persons. In leased properties, such facilities are provided so far as the physical constraints of the premises permit.

  Additionally, over the last three years, work has been undertaken to have similar facilities installed, again so far as physical constraints permit, in existing buildings whether owned or leased. Most major existing premises have now been modified.

  Funding is also provided to Disability Action, a local voluntary organisation to enable it to employ four access officers specifically recruited to work to improve access for disabled people.

  Door-to-door transport schemes are provided for disabled people in Belfast and Londonderry.

  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has provided direct entrance facilities suitable for wheelchair users and unassisted entry through the installation of ramps and wider doors where possible. Where this has not been possible, all security and reception staff have been trained to assist people who have a disability.
  1260
  The Housing Executive has also made special provision for the access and employment of people with disabilities. It continues to review these services and consults Disability Action as appropriate.

  Harland and Wolff
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans exist to restructure loan stock introduced by Government in 1989 as part of the privatisation arrangements of Harland and Wolff Holdings plc. [19248]

  Mr. Ancram
  Arrangements have been made to replace the Government's existing £60 million unsecured interest-free loan stock repayable by 2019 in the company with a commercially based, interest-bearing and partly secured stock of £6.6 million repayable half-yearly over 10 years. This amount represents the discounted value of £60 million. The arrangements have been concluded following lengthy and detailed negotiation with the company after an approach from the directors, who sought a restructuring of the existing stock on the grounds that this was unduly constraining the commercial, operational and financial freedom of the company in the private sector. Adequate legal safeguards continue to be retained by the Government within the revised convenants and other material conditions of the new stock in relation to the company's continuing commitment to shipbuilding and the provision of employment opportunities in Northern Ireland.

  Agencies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have(a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared. [18331]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: None of the jobs in the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments that have been transferred to agencies in the past two years have been taken over by contractors; 349 have however disappeared. The breakdown is as follows:

  Agency

  Jobs disappeared

  Training and Employment Agency

  302

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  28

  Ordnance Survey for NI

  19

  Public Information Telephone Service
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the public information telephone inquiry lines operated by his Department, in each case indicating the costs of establishing, operating, and publicising these lines and the number of calls made to them up until this point; when they were established; and what assessment his Department has made of their effectiveness. [17748]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

SCOTLAND

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the average and maximum weekly number of hours on duty and on call for junior hospital doctors. [17385]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The standard working week for junior hospital doctors is 40 hours. The majority of them also contract for a number of additional duty hours, which vary according to their contract of employment.

  The maximum weekly hours of duty for junior hospital doctors including additional duty hours, are laid down in the "New Deal". From 1 January, these are 56 hours and 64 hours for those contracted to work full and partial shifts respectively, 72 hours for those contracted for on-call rotas in hard-pressed posts and 83 for those on on-call rotas in non hard-pressed posts. From 1 January, no junior doctor should actually work more than 56 hours a week regardless of their contracted hours.

  The census in Scotland on juniors' hours as at 31 December 1994 shows that the average contracted hours of full-time juniors who contract for additional duty hours was 71 hours a week. The maximum contracted hours was 108. The maximum contracted hours shown was 108, but this figure relates to posts in remote areas where the actual working hours are less than 56 hours per week.

  Average hours of work, as opposed to contracted hours, are not held centrally. However, the 23rd report of the Review Body on Doctors and Dentists Remuneration, a copy of which is in the Library, contained the results of an independent survey of junior doctors and dentists in Britain which indicates that average hours of work were, in October 1993, 53.4 a week.

  Internet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the Internet electronic mail addresses of(a) his Department and (b) each Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement on his Department's approach to the information super-highway. [17736]

  Mr. Lang
  External electronic mail can be sent to and from the Scottish Office using the international X.400

  Disabled facilities

  Independent access to

  Sheriff Courts

  Public offices

  Toilets

  At least one courtroom

  Restaurant

  Sound enhancement

  Induction loops

  Aberdeen

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Airdrie

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Alloa

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Arbroath

  *

  *

  Ayr

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Banff

  *

  Campbeltown

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Cupar

  *

  Dingwall

  Dornoch

  Dumbarton

  *

  *

  *

  Dumfries

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Dundee

  *

  Dunfermline

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  1262
  service, to which there are many subscribers in the United Kingdom. All ministerial private offices have access to this service. My Department is investigating linking its existing internal electronic mail system to the Internet to allow Internet electronic mail access. It already uses the Internet to disseminate information about educational research in Scotland, and is investigating making available a wider range of information using CCTA's world wide web server. In addition, a number of officials in my Department access the Internet to obtain information on a variety of subjects in support of their business. My Department is co-operating with other Departments and agencies to investigate the use of broadband interactive communications for the delivery of more effective and efficient public services in Scotland, and to help ensure that businesses in Scotland are aware of the commercial opportunities arising from the use of these services.

  Disabled People
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what proposals he has to improve the adaptability of existing district and sheriff courts in relation to the needs of people with disabilities; and if he will make a statement; [18042]

  (2) if he will list the sheriff courts which provide independent access for disabled citizens both in terms of access and egress and freedom of movement within such buildings; and if he will make a statement; [18040]

  (3) if he will list the sheriff courts which have (a) sound enhancement systems for those citizens with impaired hearing, (b) lavatories for disabled people and (c) accessible refreshment facilities for disabled people; and if he will make a statement; [18043]

  (4) if he will list the sheriff courts which do not comply with those building regulations which determine access and freedom of movement criteria for people with disabilities; and if he will make a statement. [18041]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The detailed information requested is shown in the table. District courts are the responsibility of the district and island councils.

  All new sheriff court houses are designed to ensure that disabled people have access to all public areas. A long-term programme of building improvements is being implemented, a major purpose of which is to improve access and facilities for the disabled at existing court houses.
  1263

  Disabled facilities

  Independent access to

  Sheriff Courts

  Public offices

  Toilets

  At least one courtroom

  Restaurant

  Sound enhancement

  Induction loops

  Dunoon

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Duns

  Edinburgh

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Elgin

  *

  *

  *

  Falkirk

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Forfar

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Fort William

  Glasgow

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Greenock

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Haddington

  Hamilton

  *

  *

  Inverness

  Jedburgh

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Kilmarnock

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Kirkcaldy

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Kirkcudbright

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Kirkwall

  Lanark

  *

  *

  Lerwick

  *

  *

  Linlithgow

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Lochmaddy

  Oban

  *

  Paisley

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Peebles

  Perth

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Peterhead

  *

  *

  *

  Portree

  Rothesay

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Selkirk

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Stirling

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Stonehaven

  *

  *

  Stornoway

  Stranraer

  *

  *

  Tain

  Wick

  *

  * Independent access.

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, for 1992–93 and 1993–94, separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotion materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising; and what are his latest estimates for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17607]

  Mr. Lang
  Details on expenditure on information publicity are set out below:

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Television

  831,000

  934,000

  Radio

  120,000

  80,000

  Press

  415,000

  511,000

  Other promotional activities

  1,072,000

  755,000

  Total

  2,438,000

  2,280,000

  The estimated outturn for expenditure on information publicity for 1994–95 is £2,254,000 and the estimate for 1995–96, £3,171,000.

  Recruitment advertising is done through the press and expenditure for 1992–93 and 1993–94 was £318,000 and
  1264
  £253,000 respectively. The estimated outturn for recruitment expenditure in 1994–95 is £135,000 and the forecast for 1995–96 is £126,000.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by his Department in each year since 1979–80, and how many such questions received a substantive answer within 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18473]

  (2) how many parliamentary questions to his Department requesting a priority written answer or answer on a named day, were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further five, 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18474]

  (3) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report; [18475]

  (4) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has written to a right hon. or hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question. [18476]
  1265
  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is a matter of public record but it could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many parliamentary questions to his Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence. [18478]

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is a matter of public record but it could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many parliamentary questions to his Department were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence. [18477]

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is a matter of public record but it could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost. However, I understand that figures are available from POLIS for next step agencies by parliamentary Session from 1992–93 onwards.

  NHS Staff (Tayside)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet representative of the health board and health trusts in Tayside to discuss morale among NHS staff in that area. [18143]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has no plans at present to meet representatives of the health board and health trusts in Tayside. There are, however, regular meetings between Scottish Office officials and representatives of health boards and NHS trusts, including Tayside.

  Microscopes in Schools
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he is sending to the Royal Microscopical Society in respect of its proposal that there should be a microscope in every school. [16376]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Secretary of State has not received any representation from the Royal Microscopical Society about the provision of microscopes in schools.

  The value of microscopes is recognised in the national guidelines for environmental studies 5–14. These include microscopes in the range of equipment which schools should have available to provide for the reasonable needs of pupils and teachers in their investigative activities. However, the choice of equipment for schools is a matter for education authorities.

  Gourock Ropeworks
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had, and with whom concerning the present condition and future of the Gourock Ropeworks of Port Glasgow; and if he will make a statement. [17303]
  1266
  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend has had no recent discussions on this matter. However, as the question relates to matters undertaken by Historic Scotland, I have asked the agency's director and chief executive, Mr Graeme Munro, to write to the hon. Member.

  The reply will appear in the Official Report and a copy deposited in the Library of the House.

  Letter from Graeme Munro to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 5 April 1995:
  You tabled a Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for written answer on 5 April asking what recent discussions he has had about the Gourock Ropework building. The question relates to operational matters undertaken by Historic Scotland and I have been asked to reply. The terms of this letter will be reproduced in the Official Report and a copy of it will also be deposited in the Library of the House.
  Historic Scotland has recently had contacts both with Scottish Homes and Bellway Homes about the Ropeworks building. As you will be aware, a feasibility study prepared by the company last year concluded that both building and site were ideal for a scheme of conversion and re-development for residential accommodation. Given such positive conclusions it was right and proper that this avenue for putting together a scheme for the re-use of this listed building should be explored carefully and extensively. It is now clear, however, from discussions which I have had with Scottish Homes that a package of assistance to make the scheme viable cannot be put together.
  Government policy with regard to listed buildings is that no worthwhile building should be demolished unless it is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that every effort has been exerted by all concerned to find practical ways of keeping it. I am now satisfied that the concerted efforts to find a practical use for the building, encouraged by Historic Scotland, have fulfilled this policy commitment.
  The position concerning demolition is clear. In order to demolish a listed building such as the Gourock Ropeworks, listed building consent is needed. To date no application for such listed building consent has been received by Historic Scotland.

  European Social Fund
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students have benefited from the European Union's social fund provision, enabling them to undertake courses in(a) universities and (b) colleges of further education. [17260]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The estimated numbers of beneficiaries based on application by universities and further education college for European social fund in 1994 in Scotland are as follows:

  (a) Universities

  (b) FE Colleges

  Objective 1

  77

  932

  Objective 2

  386

  5,180

  Objectives 3

  1,365

  1,631

  Objective 5b

  0

  1,102

  All objectives

  1,828

  8,845

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidlines he has given to universities and other colleges concerning the training allowances given to mature students by way of the European Union's social fund. [17262]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The guidelines issued annually to all potential applicants for European social fund including universities and colleges set out the items of expenditure
  1267
  which are eligible for assistance. The guidelines cover how the allowances to students and other trainees are to be treated.

  Well-woman Centres
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has offered to fundholding general practitioners about the purchasing of treatment and care from well-woman centres; and if he will make a statement. [17261]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No specific guidance has been issued to GP fundholding practices on this subject.

  Unitary Authorities
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on indicative grants for the new unitary authorities. [17263]

  Mr. Kynoch
  To assist the shadow councils with their financial planning for 1996–97, it is proposed to prepare illustrative 1995–96 grant aided expenditure assessments and, in terms of section 24 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994, and subject to the approval of the House, notional 1995–96 budgets for each of the councils. We also plan to issue to them provisional non-housing capital allocations.

  Wildlife Offences
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what central records he maintains concerning criminal offences and activity in relation to(a) wild birds and (b) other wildlife; and if he will make a statement. [17264]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office holds statistical information, provided by Scottish police forces, on the following offences in relation to wild birds and other wildlife.(a) Categories of crimes and offences including offences in relation to wild birds:
  Offences involving birds
  (b) Categories of crimes and offences including offences in relation to other wildlife:
  Cruelty to animals (excluding dogs, birds)
  Offences involving animals (excluding dogs or birds or elsewhere classified)
  Salmon and freshwater fisheries offences
  Sea fisheries offences
  Possession of salmon or trout unlawfully obtained
  Poaching and game laws
  Offences under Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 and Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1982.

  Housebuilding
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of people employed in the housebuilding industry; and what were the figures in(a) 1981 and (b) 1989. [17265]
  1268
  Mr. Kynoch
  Information is available only for the construction industry as a whole. In December 1994, the number of employees in employment in the construction industry in Scotland was 119,200. The corresponding figure for December 1981 was 133,600, and for December 1989 was 132,800.

  Drug Abuse
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the change in local government upon the work of those employed in anti-drug abuse programmes; and if he will make a statement. [17266]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The important and continuing role of local authorities in tackling drug misuse was reflected in the report of the drugs task force, led by my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State. They will be represented on the local drug action teams, which are now being set up throughout Scotland, with responsibility for developing a strategic plan addressing all aspects of the drug misuse problem in their areas. In recent guidance, we have emphasised the importance of drawing the new shadow local authorities into the activities of the drug action teams to facilitate the strategic planning process and to ensure that local government continues to play its full and vital part in the response to drug misuse at local level.

  Out-patient Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the secretary of State for Scotland how many non-attenders to out-patient appointments there were in 1994; and what was the cost to the NHS. [17704]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The provisional figure for new out-patient appointments where the patient failed to attend in 1994 is 134,207. Corresponding information for return out-patients, and information on the resultant cost to the NHS of non-attenders is not centrally available.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions the Crown Office has had with Mr. Ron Smith of Scottish Woodlands Ltd., Castle Douglas, about a red and orange tarpaulin found at Lockerbie, before Christmas 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has made clear in relation to the Lockerbie case, as in any other case, it is not appropriate for the investigating or prosecuting authority to give details of investigative steps which have been taken.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South can expect a response to his letter of 26 January to the general manager of Lothian health board concerning general practitioner fundholding. [18206]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is a matter for the acting general manager of Lothian health board. However I understand that the information requested by the hon. Member will be supplied shortly.
  1269
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South can expect a response to his letter of 24 February to the chief executive of the Caithness and Sutherland NHS trust concerning performance-related pay; [18174]

  (2) when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South can expect a response to his letter of 24 February to the chief executive of the Raigmore hospital NHS trust concerning performance-related pay; [18175]

  (3) when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South can expect a response to his letter of 24 February to the chief executive of the Royal Alexandra hospital NHS trust concerning performance-related pay; [18176]

  (4) when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South can expect a response to his letter of 24 February to the chief executive of the Southern General hospitals NHS trust concerning performance-related pay; [18177]

  (5) when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South can expect a response to his letter of 24 February to the chief executive of the West Lothian NHS trust concerning performance-related pay; [18178]

  (6) when the hon. Member of Cunninghame, South can expect a response to his letter of 24 February to the chief executive of the Stobhill NHS trust concerning performance-related pay; [18187]

  (7) when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South can expect a response to his letter of 24 February to the chief executive of the Yorkhill NHS trust concerning performance-related pay; [18179]

  (8) when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South can expect a response to his letter of 24 February to the chief executive of the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS trust concerning performance-related pay. [18186]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is a matter which should be pursued with the chief executive of the individual trust concerned.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will write to the chief executives of Scotland's NHS trusts and the general managers of Scotland's health boards reminding them of their duties to respond to correspondence from hon. Members timeously. [18190]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Minister of State has asked the NHS management executive to remind chief executives of NHS trusts and the general managers of health boards of their duties in relation to correspondence from hon. Members.

  Green Policy
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will name the green Minister for his Department and list(a) the green initiatives taken by that Minister in respect of the Department's functions, (b) the representations made by the Minister in respect of functions carried out by other Departments and (c) the input made by the Minister into consultations on the Environment Bill. [18652]

  Sir Hector Monro
  I am the green Minister at the Scottish Office. All significant environmental initiatives taken by the Scottish Office are reported in the annual series of White Papers "This Common Inheritance"—the most recent, Cm 2822, was published on Wednesday 29 March. Many are also highlighted in the annual departmental reports.
  1270
  I am also fully involved in consideration of the Environment Bill, in particular the provisions setting up the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

  Arable Area Payments
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of payments(a) for set-aside and (b) in total under the arable area payments scheme in Scotland in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what is his estimate of the cost of payments in 1995–96. [18633]

  Sir Hector Monro
  Payments which have been made to farmers in Scotland under the arable area payments scheme in the scheme years 1993 and 1994 are as follows:

  (a) Set-aside £

  (b) Total AAPS payments £

  1993

  16,195,029.92

  93,287,405.44

  1994

  22,792,098.25

  115,593,078.84

  The cost of payments in the 1995 scheme year will depend on the amount of valid claims made and on the green pound-ecu exchange rate at 1 July 1995.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hectares of land were set aside under the arable area payments scheme in Scotland in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95; and what is his estimate of the number of hectares of land that will be set-aside in 1995–96. [16661]

  Sir Hector Monro
  Payments were made in respect of 80,661.09 hectares and 77,252.12 hectares of land set aside in the scheme years 1993 and 1994 respectively. Figures are not yet available for the 1995 scheme year.

  Flooding (Strathclyde)
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the measures he has taken to assist local authorities and other institutions in the aftermath of the floods within Strathclyde earlier this year. [17600]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 30 March 1995]: The measures taken under my responsibility in response to the Strathclyde flooding include:
  £100,000 supplementary capital allocation to Renfrew District Council in 1994–95, to provide temporary accommodation for those made homeless;
  £150,000 supplementary housing capital allocation to Strathkelvin District Council in 1994–95 to undertake flood abatement works at Lennoxtown;
  £200,000 supplementary capital allocation to Glasgow District Council in 1994–95 to undertake urgent housing repairs;
  £1.365 million supplementary capital allocations to Strathclyde Regional Council in 1994–95 for urgent repair work on non-housing services;
  authorising Renfrew District Council to carry forward unutilised capital consent of up to a maximum of £1.85 million from 1994–95 for expenditure in 1995–96;
  authorising Strathkelvin District Council to carry forward unutilised capital consent of up to a maximum of £0.53 million from 1994–95 for expenditure in 1995–96;
  £2.5 million additional capital allocations in 1995–96 for remedial work on housing to Renfrew District Council and Strathkelvin District Council;
  £10,000 contribution to Clyde River Purification Board study on the cause and extent of the recent flooding; and

  1271
  an increase of £180,000 in the 1995–96 non-housing capital consent allocation to Renfrew District Council to meet the cost of repairs to the Linwood Sports Centre.

  In addition, the Government scheme of special financial assistance, known as the Bellwin scheme, has been activated.

  A draft national planning policy guideline on planning and flooding has recently been issued for consultation.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, further to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 174, (i) how many pre-payment certificates were issued and (ii) how many prescriptions were dispensed on presentation of a pre-payment certificates, in each financial year since 1979–80 and for each health board in Scotland. [18254]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available. The number of pre-payment certificates issued is not held centrally. Prescriptions dispensed on presentation of pre-payment certificates are not separately identified.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, further to his answer of 21 March, Official Report, column 174, how many prescriptions for which no charge was made were issued excluding items issued on prescription on presentation of a pre-payment certificate, in each financial year since 1979–80 and for each health board in Scotland. [18253]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available. Prescriptions dispensed on presentation of pre-payment certificates are not separately identified.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been(a) the amount raised from prescription charges within the NHS in Scotland and (b) the expenditure on the system of NHS prescriptions for medication within the NHS in Scotland; and if he will give the difference between (a) and (b) in each year since 1979–80. [18261]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information for the financial years 1979–80 to 1993–94 is set out in the table. The information shows(a) the annual income from NHS prescription charges paid by patients in respect of drugs and appliances dispensed by community

  Health board

  1979–80 £

  1980–81 £

  1981–82 £

  1982–83 £

  1983–84 £

  1984–85 £

  1985–86 £

  Argyll and Clyde

  361,984

  654,993

  839,544

  978,013

  1,050,524

  1,139,261

  1,244,913

  Ayrshire and Arran

  344,877

  543,678

  805,826

  863,823

  916,197

  983,569

  1,097,596

  Borders

  77,866

  143,945

  180,320

  215,894

  234,704

  261,627

  305,637

  Dumfries and Galloway

  115,805

  184,775

  260,017

  309,078

  340,806

  364,014

  411,166

  Fife

  281,440

  450,802

  638,069

  741,875

  811,065

  874,511

  977,389

  Forth Valley

  221,844

  398,973

  517,782

  604,889

  664,162

  713,950

  789,965

  Grampian

  379,213

  696,876

  907,565

  1,112,691

  1,216,002

  1,381,119

  1,599,033

  Greater Glasgow

  789,443

  1,398,192

  1,743,182

  1,960,743

  2,102,009

  2,220,729

  2,344,749

  Highland

  142,481

  261,926

  337,880

  394,090

  433,661

  462,513

  516,948

  Lanarkshire

  480,368

  861,032

  1,103,182

  1,261,896

  1,362,351

  1,471,735

  1,601,002

  Lothian

  562,167

  909,458

  1,283,843

  1,500,822

  1,633,670

  1,774,271

  1,999,526

  Orkney

  12,892

  23,175

  30,774

  37,365

  38,331

  43,098

  70,018

  Shetland

  21,622

  42,291

  45,832

  46,375

  44,717

  50,399

  59,086

  Tayside

  301,176

  544,606

  678,014

  817,992

  873,748

  966,408

  1,091,185

  Western Isles

  17,812

  30,756

  45,661

  48,592

  52,460

  57,889

  63,731

  Total

  4,110,990

  7,145,478

  9,417,491

  10,894,138

  11,774,407

  12,765,093

  14,171,944

  1272
  pharmacists, dispensing doctors and appliance suppliers and the sums collected in respect of the sale of prepayment certificates; (b) the net ingredient cost of the drugs and appliances and the remuneration paid to community pharmacists, dispensing doctors and appliance suppliers for dispensing these drugs and appliances; and (c) the difference between (a) and (b).

  £ million

  Year

  (a) Annual income

  (b) Annual expenditure

  (c) Difference between (a) and (b)

  1979–80

  4.38

  99.94

  95.56

  1980–81

  7.87

  120.63

  112.76

  1981–82

  10.27

  137.57

  127.30

  1982–83

  11.89

  155.86

  143.97

  1983–84

  12.87

  172.02

  159.15

  1984–85

  14.03

  183.56

  169.53

  1985–86

  15.62

  195.30

  179.68

  1986–87

  19.00

  211.91

  192.91

  1987–88

  18.25

  235.98

  217.73

  1988–89

  19.82

  262.59

  242.77

  1989–90

  21.69

  292.82

  271.13

  1990–91

  23.03

  320.89

  297.86

  1991–92

  25.51

  359.55

  334.04

  1992–93

  27.87

  402.78

  374.91

  1993–94

  30.51

  435.97

  405.46

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was raised through the levying of prescriptions charges by each health board in Scotland in each financial year since 1979–80. [18188]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information for each health board for the financial years 1979–80 to 1993–94 is set out in the tables. The amounts of revenue shown include NHS prescription charges paid by patients in respect of drugs and appliances dispensed by community pharmacists, dispensing doctors and appliance suppliers. NHS prescription charges recovered from patients under health board post-dispensing checking arrangements are also included.

  The amounts shown do not include the sums collected in respect of the sales of pre-payment certificates which are not deemed to be the payment of a charge under the NHS (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Scotland) Regulations 1989, as amended.
  1273

  Health Board

  1986–87 £

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Argyll and Clyde

  1,541,503

  1,401,971

  1,619,931

  1,664,327

  1,739,909

  1,909,549

  2,034,494

  2,165,136

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1,258,265

  1,343,944

  1,363,265

  1,493,341

  1,599,391

  1,720,195

  1,825,740

  1,992,347

  Borders

  357,926

  361,707

  418,690

  432,012

  460,828

  507,546

  566,992

  639,116

  Dumfries and Galloway

  529,758

  506,040

  591,008

  616,088

  650,903

  731,447

  790,551

  889,771

  Fife

  1,290,751

  1,127,660

  1,224,895

  1,367,947

  1,451,579

  1,634,243

  1,752,818

  1,799,866

  Forth Valley

  998,607

  920,575

  1,059,355

  1,088,334

  1,165,445

  1,300,438

  1,401,513

  1,596,432

  Grampian

  1,841,974

  2,043,973

  2,006,440

  2,205,824

  2,399,868

  2,694,810

  3,039,443

  3,331,274

  Greater Glasgow

  2,840,176

  2,525,368

  2,694,145

  2,847,550

  2,945,034

  3,142,277

  3,307,852

  3,500,011

  Highland

  639,028

  570,729

  715,553

  765,988

  847,790

  959,670

  1,042,665

  1,119,967

  Lanarkshire

  1,935,899

  1,769,306

  1,918,087

  2,115,452

  2,115,476

  2,359,297

  2,520,036

  2,742,741

  Lothian

  2,539,710

  2,352,445

  2,550,357

  3,037,177

  3,031,138

  3,337,516

  3,626,777

  4,053,025

  Orkney

  80,435

  75,240

  85,649

  87,711

  105,903

  119,597

  240,408

  164,042

  Shetland

  73,169

  73,797

  79,223

  83,269

  105,137

  103,192

  113,651

  130,688

  Tayside

  1,369,588

  1,289,796

  1,399,856

  1,536,510

  1,658,357

  1,830,338

  2,011,229

  2,206,634

  Western Isles

  69,369

  79,929

  71,498

  77,870

  86,351

  87,519

  99,184

  114,418

  Total

  17,366,158

  16,442,480

  17,797,952

  19,419,400

  20,403,109

  22,437,634

  24,373,353

  26,445,468

  A9
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what objections have been made to the proposed design of the Logie Easter-Garrick bridge stretch of the A9; and what response has he given. [18563]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Draft statutory orders were published in October 1993 and five objections were received, one of which has been resolved. The remaining four objections relate to the provision of facilities for cyclists. The Scottish Office continues to seek resolution of these objections.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current estimated completion date for the Logie Easter-Garrick bridge stretch of the A9. [18564]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In his statement on 24 May 1994, my right hon. Friend announced that he expected that work would start on the improvement of the A9 between Logie Easter and Garrick bridge before March 1997 subject, among other things, to completion of the statutory procedures. Because of outstanding objections, these procedures remain incomplete and a programme for construction has not been determined.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he first proposed a route action plan for the A9 north of Dornoch bridge. [18565]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A route action plan approach to the A9 north of Dornoch was initially raised at a meeting with a delegation from Highland regional council in January 1991.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Highland regional council following the proposal for a route action plan for the A9 north of the Dornoch bridge; and what reply he gave. [18566]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office has received no representations from Highland regional 1274
  council. However, since the question of a route action plan was first raised, my officials have been in regular contact with officials from the regional council.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he issued the terms of reference for the route action plan north of the Dornoch bridge. [18567]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Following the submission of draft proposals for the action plan in January 1992 and after a series of discussions with Highland regional council, a brief for the route action plan was issued to the regional council in January 1994.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive proposals to implement a route action plan; and if he will make a statement. [18568]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Highland regional council is to submit an interim report on the route action plan by December 1995. This will describe the extent of congestion on the existing road, the nature of the existing constraints to free flow of traffic and the options which will be examined for testing. The interim report will be analysed to produce a programme of works to be included in the route action plan.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to obtain a European regional development fund grant under objective 1 funding for the improvement of the A9 between Helmsdale and the Ord of Caithness; and if he will make a statement. [18569]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  An application for ERDF objective 1 funding would be premature at this time. Consideration will be given to lodging an application in due course.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he is currently giving to the improvement of the A9 at Berriedale; and if he will make a statement. [18570]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The case for improvements at Berriedale Braes will be examined as part of the A9 route action plan.
  1275
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Highland regional council about upgrading the A9 at Berriedale. [18571]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office has not received recently any representations from Highland regional council about the upgrading of the A9 at Berriedale. However, Berriedale lies within the scope of the A9 north of Dornoch route action plan study currently being carried out by Highland region and as such my officials have been in regular contact with officials from the regional council.

  Temporary Contracts
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people he expects to employ in (i) his Department and (ii) all executive agencies for which he is responsible on temporary contracts of(a) 51 weeks or (b) less than 51 weeks duration in the next three years, in each case specifying the number of employees who had previously been employed in a similar position on the same contract.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 March 1995]: During the next three years, I intend to continue our normal policy of employing some staff on a casual basis to fill temporary vacancies which arise seasonally, or to meet a temporary increase in demand. It is not possible to predict how many will be employed on this basis, although we would not expect it to differ signifcantly from previous years.

  Historic Scotland
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To aks the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the key performance targets he has set for Historic Scotland for 1995–96. [19122]

  Mr. Lang
  I have set Historic Scotland the following key performance targets for 1995–96:

  Table 1 Courses of dental treatment—by health board in Scotland

  Health board

  Year ending December 19871

  Financial year 19881

  19891

  19901

  1991–922

  1992–932

  1993–942

  Scotland

  2,989,148

  3,054,905

  3,144,689

  3,373,802

  2,484,539

  2,569,298

  2,647,088

  Argyll and Clyde

  258,537

  263,704

  271,769

  292,528

  206,277

  211,504

  212,294

  Ayrshire and Arran

  250,239

  250,350

  254,617

  321,693

  187,757

  190,798

  185,868

  Borders

  72,514

  74,807

  78,839

  85,142

  65,622

  66,926

  67,664

  Dumfries and Galloway

  88,106

  92,049

  94,113

  100,253

  71,512

  69,524

  64,684

  Fife

  208,259

  213,290

  220,942

  234,936

  160,124

  163,676

  173,970

  Forth Valley

  150,978

  157,174

  160,965

  170,660

  130,389

  137,191

  144,446

  Grampian

  292,001

  292,106

  303,233

  306,831

  267,042

  277,380

  287,776

  Greater Glasgow

  513,945

  527,965

  537,454

  576,003

  441,154

  459,004

  470,973

  Highland

  101,489

  104,525

  111,009

  126,897

  94,050

  96,023

  94,009

  Lanarkshire

  300,227

  306,231

  309,381

  316,006

  219,558

  226,420

  236,699

  Lothian

  458,153

  471,551

  490,115

  510,014

  396,777

  414,624

  436,028

  Orkney

  8,147

  8,231

  8,598

  8,979

  7,438

  7,604

  7,486

  Shetland

  5,551

  6,445

  7,604

  8,722

  6,589

  6,470

  7,505

  Tayside

  268,986

  275,142

  284,822

  304,920

  222,697

  233,545

  250,004

  Western Isles

  10,029

  9,347

  9,239

  8,228

  7,553

  8,609

  7,864

  1 1987 to 1990 information is for all courses of treatment for adults and children.

  2 1991–92 onwards information is for all courses of treatment for adults and for courses of treatment for children where an item-of-service fee was paid. Since October 1990 most treatment for children has been provided under capitation arrangements and is not counted as individual courses of treatment.

  1276

  Target

  Protecting Scotland's Built Heritage

  Number of monuments scheduled

  360

  Weighted number of listed building resurvey units

  170

  Percentage of scheduled monument consent cases resolved within 12 weeks

  80 per cent.

  Percentage of listed building consent cases resolved within 28 days

  97 per cent

  Number of historic building repair projects newly assisted by grant

  145

  Total value of grant-assisted repairs in progress

  £31 million

  Backlog of conservation of monuments in care

  1reduce

  Promoting and presenting the Building Heritage

  Number of visitors to monuments in care

  2.4 million

  HS market share compared to other paid visitor attractions in Scotland

  20.5 per cent.

  Percentage of satisfied visitors (based on surveys)

  90 per cent.

  Average retail spend per visitor

  £0.94

  Agency Management

  Percentage efficiency gains/savings on all non-grant expenditure

  1.5 per cent.

  Total agency income

  £9.1 million

  Note:

  1 A measure to show the percentage reduction in the conservation backlog will be developed for 1997–98, following the quinquennial survey of the estate in care in 1996.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each health board area in Scotland(a) the number of patients treated by dentists and (b) the number of patients treated by a dentist who did not make any payment for their treatment for each financial year since 1985–86. [15531]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamiliton
  [holding answer 23 March 1995]: The information is in the tables. Information for earlier years is not available.
  1277

  Table 2 Courses of dental treatment where no patient charge was paid—by health board in Scotland

  Financial year Health board

  1988–891

  1989–901

  1990–911

  1991–922

  1992–932

  1993–942

  Scotland

  1,529,429

  1,581,655

  1,196,154

  777,773

  854,629

  933,652

  Argyll and Clyde

  140,761

  146,968

  109,311

  72,294

  80,985

  89,228

  Ayrshire and Arran

  141,165

  143,430

  108,525

  65,558

  71,480

  77,712

  Borders

  28,210

  29,861

  22,210

  14,255

  15,563

  16,616

  Dumfries and Galloway

  44,191

  45,672

  31,226

  17,371

  17,293

  18,868

  Fife

  108,594

  112,357

  80,831

  44,147

  47,183

  52,124

  Forth Valley

  79,549

  81,128

  61,271

  39,882

  43,424

  47,026

  Grampian

  111,280

  113,543

  85,181

  61,382

  64,677

  70,219

  Greater Glasgow

  299,536

  131,121

  255,779

  185,849

  208,212

  220,979

  Highland

  50,653

  52,342

  41,419

  26,324

  27,126

  29,584

  Lanarkshire

  173,641

  175,227

  126,792

  79,394

  86,461

  94,743

  Lothian

  207,967

  219,537

  163,853

  104,530

  117,025

  131,791

  Orkney

  2,810

  2,875

  1,844

  1,318

  1,225

  1,234

  Shetland

  1,080

  1,357

  1,370

  1,188

  1,267

  1,656

  Tayside

  136,157

  140,172

  103,695

  69,109

  69,951

  79,150

  Western Isles

  3,835

  4,065

  2,849

  2,172

  2,757

  2,722

  1 1988–89 to 1990–91 information relates to all courses of treatment for adults and children.

  2 1991–92 onwards information relates to all courses of treatment for adults and to courses of treatment for children where an item-of-service fee was paid. Since October 1990 most treatment for children has been provided under capitation arrangements and is not counted as individual courses of treatment.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each health board area in Scotland the average amount paid in charges by a patient receiving dental treatment for each financial year since 1985–86. [15538]

  Average amount paid in charges by dental patients1—Scotland

  Health board

  1988–892 £

  1989–902 £

  1990–912 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Scotland

  16.90

  22.00

  23.60

  24.34

  23.59

  23.37

  Argyll and Clyde

  17.00

  22.50

  25.00

  25.06

  24.69

  24.52

  Ayrshire and Arran

  17.00

  22.00

  23.30

  24.04

  22.40

  22.51

  Borders

  12.30

  16.20

  17.30

  17.55

  18.36

  18.38

  Dumfries and Galloway

  15.90

  21.00

  21.50

  22.49

  21.40

  21.82

  Fife

  15.50

  20.50

  22.30

  22.99

  22.47

  22.26

  Forth Valley

  17.70

  23.00

  24.50

  24.96

  24.05

  23.44

  Grampian

  15.90

  20.50

  21.50

  22.22

  21.82

  21.30

  Greater Glasgow

  19.10

  24.90

  26.90

  27.80

  27.03

  26.90

  Highland

  19.50

  24.60

  26.60

  26.87

  25.21

  23.95

  Larnarkshire

  17.70

  23.20

  25.50

  26.83

  25.56

  24.86

  Lothian

  16.60

  21.70

  23.10

  23.68

  23.03

  22.88

  Orkney

  11.20

  15.10

  15.00

  16.42

  17.47

  18.41

  Shetland

  15.70

  19.20

  19.10

  19.66

  22.42

  27.09

  Tayside

  15.70

  21.10

  22.50

  22.98

  22.34

  22.64

  Western Isles

  14.00

  19.60

  21.50

  27.51

  26.75

  24.56

  1 Total amount paid by patients divided by the total number of courses of treatment for patients who paid a charge.

  2 Figures for 1988–89 to 1990–91 are rounded to nearest 10p.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to his answer on 21 March,Official Report, column 174, what was the number of (a) deregistrations from NHS dentists to enter private contract by agreement, (b) deregistrations attributable to a dentist leaving a practice and (c) NHS registered dental patients, in respect of each health board area in Scotland and in respect of each year since 1991–92. [16369]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 March 1995]: The information requested about deregistrations is not available centrally. Information about the numbers of NHS registered dental patients in each health board area since 1991–92 is contained in the table.
  1278
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 March 1995]: The information is in the table. Information for earlier years is not available in this form.

  Dental patients registered at 31 March by health board in Scotland

  Financial Year

  Health Board

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Argyll and Clyde

  213,990

  212,219

  207,647

  Ayrshire and Arran

  221,072

  200,998

  198,376

  Borders

  52,771

  53,897

  53,238

  Dumfries and Galloway

  74,290

  71,220

  68,292

  Fife

  167,285

  171,475

  170,690

  Forth Valley

  129,146

  133,441

  131,571

  Grampian

  246,479

  259,362

  260,173

  Greater Glasgow

  458,557

  474,592

  464,351

  1279

  Dental patients registered at 31 March by health board in Scotland

  Financial Year

  Health Board

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Highland

  102,894

  99,161

  92,670

  Lanarkshire

  233,418

  242,743

  240,001

  Lothian

  374,659

  389,764

  385,702

  Orkney

  5,525

  7,267

  7,961

  Shetland

  7,034

  7,004

  7,823

  Tayside

  207,270

  216,441

  217,565

  Western Isles

  8,294

  8,511

  8,756

  Scotland

  2,502,684

  2,548,095

  2,514,816

  Council Housing
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants, and subsequently repossessed, by local authority area, in each of the last five years. [16000]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 March 1995]: Information on the number of repossessions of dwellings bought under the right-to-buy scheme is not available. However, I understand from figures provided by the Council of Mortgage Lenders that 1,791 properties in total were repossessed in Scotland in 1994, which represents 0.22 per cent. of the total number of properties with mortgages outstanding. This is around half the proportion for the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what facilities in terms of(a) access to telephones, (b) use of equipment, (c) use of offices, (d) access to ministerial meetings, (e) sight of correspondence, (f) attendance at inter-departmental meetings and (g) access to civil servants are available to specialist advisers in his Department. [15612]

  Mr. Ian Lang
  [holding answer 23 March 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 27 March, Official Report, column 435.

  Ferry Services
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the timetable to be followed in advertising, explaining the appeal procedure, setting a deadline for receipts of objections and, where appropriate, holding a public inquiry into the proposed withdrawal of any ferry service, under the terms of the Railways Act 1993; and if he will make a statement; [16716]

  (2) what is the remit of the rail users consultative committee, in respect of the right to call public inquiries into the proposed withdrawal of any Scottish ferry service, under the terms of the Railways Act 1993; and if he will make a statement. [16720]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 March 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads on 28 March, Official Report, column 534.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he had given to the rail users 1280
  consultative committee over its power, under the Railway Act 1993, to call public inquires into the proposed withdrawal of any ferry services; what subsequent representation he has received for the RUCC; what plans he has to hold further discussion with the RUCC over the matter; and if he will make a statement. [16717]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 March 1995]: The Scottish Office wrote to Mr. Lawrence Kemp, the acting chairman of the rail users consultative committee for Scotland, on 17 February about the statutory provisions in connection with its functions in relation to ferry services and drew attention to the need for the committee to seek its own legal advice. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads will be writing shortly to Mr. Kemp with a full statement of the Government's understanding of the position. I have received no further representations and have no plans to hold further discussions given my hon. Friend's intention to write.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment he has made of the contractual and financial implications that would arise, in respect of the toll-funded Skye bridge project, from the continuation of a parallel ferry service in competition with the road bridge beyond the date of the bridge's opening to traffic, and if he will make a statement; [16718]

  (2) what discussions he has had with Highland regional council over the contractual and operational implications which would arise, in respect of the toll-funded Skye bridge project, from the continuation of a parallel ferry service in competition with the road bridge beyond the date of the bridge's opening to traffic; and if he will make a statement. [16719]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 March 1995]: My right hon. Friend decided to proceed with the planning and construction of the bridge to Skye on the understanding that the ferry service would be withdrawn once a bridge was provided. This was fully discussed with, and accepted by, Highland regional council. Since there is no intention that the ferry service would continue, no discussions have taken place with Highland regional council on the contractual, financial or operational implications associated with the continuation of a ferry service and no assessment has been made of these matters.

  Employment Costs
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average annual cost of employing(a) a hospital consultant, (b) a senior registrar, (c) a registrar (career), (d) a registrar (SHO3), (e) a senior house officer, (f) a house officer, (g) a qualified nurse and (h) an ambulance paramedic. [16696]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 March 1995]: In Scotland, the average cost of employing (a) a hospital consultant was £63,862, (b) a senior registrar was £42,671, (c) a registrar (career) was £36,038, (e) a senior house officer was £30,052, (f) a house officer was £21,046, (g) a qualified nurse was £20,555.

  The information has been calculated over a 12-month period based on the nine months from 1 April to 31 December 1994. It cannot be broken down to show the average cost of a registrar (SHO3) or an ambulance paramedic.

ENVIRONMENT

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each non-departmental public body and agency for which he has responsibility and, for each, list separate figures for the spending by that body or agency on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotional materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising for each year since 1979–80 or for each year of its existence if it has been created since then; and what are his latest estimates of (a) to (f) for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17616]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A list of my Department's non-departmental public bodies can be found in "Public Bodies 1994", published by HMSO and available in the Library of the House. Information back to 1979 is not available.

  There was no expenditure by executive NDPBs or agencies in 1994–95 on either (a) television or (b) radio advertising and there are no plans for such expenditure during 1995–96.

  The Department is responsible for promotional and advertising expenditure by advisory NDPBs and tribunals.

  Information is not kept in the format requested to answer (c), (d) or (f) and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities which have set a budget which would exceed the cap set for those authorities if the Government were to confirm its pro-capping criteria. [18061]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 4 April.

  Latham Report
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many representations he has received(a) in favour and (b) against the recommendations of the Latham report; and from which organisations; [18059]

  (2) how many representations he has received (a) in favour and (b) against the recommendations of the Latham Report; and from which organisations. [18056]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We have received some 150 letters from all sections of the construction industry—particularly from specialist contractors. They have been uniformly supportive of the recommendations of the Latham Report.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which recommendations of the Latham report he plans to implement. [18057]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We have already made my Department the lead Department for progressing the recommendations in the report. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has established a scrutiny of Government's own procurement designed to ensure that 1282
  Government can be a best practice client. We have established and received the report of the review implementation forum and, on its advice, my right hon. Friend has established a construction industry board, chaired by Sir Michael Latham, which brings together all parts of the industry, its clients and relevant government departments. Also on the advice of RIF that there was majority support for the legislative proposals in Sir Michael's report, my right hon. Friend has announced that he intends to publish detailed consultation documents on these matters. The majority of the Latham report recommendations are, however, directed at others and we have been active in urging all parts of the industry to address those recommendations.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to bring forward legislation on construction standards. [18055]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Amendments to part L and part F of the building regulations will come into effect on 1 July 1995.

  Consultations on possible amendments to part M are currently under way.

  My right hon. Friend hopes to issue consultation papers shortly on the legislative proposals in Sir Michael Latham's report "Constructing the Team" HMSO: July 1994.

  Telecommunications Development Planning Guidance
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what planning guidance he issues regarding(a) increasing the number of and (b) the positioning of electricity, radio and telephone (i) tower construction and (ii) overhead pylons in the open countryside; and if he will make a statement. [17895]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Planning advice on telecommunications development is given in planning policy guidance note 8, "Telecommunications", December 1992, which was supplemented in 1994 by a circular letter to local planning authorities on the prior approval procedure for the appearance and siting of radio masts of up to 15m in height. Copies of these documents have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  On electricity pylons, all proposed overhead lines in England and Wales, apart from those to supply individual properties and a few other minor developments, require the consent of the President of the Board of Trade under the Electricity Act 1989. Department of the Environment circular 14/90 explains the procedure which electricity supply companies have to follow before putting up an overhead line.

  Environmental Reporting and Disclosure
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department was represented at the meeting on guidelines for environmental reporting and disclosure by multinational companies sponsored by the United Nations conference on trade and development, held in Geneva on 13 to 17 March; and if he will obtain a copy of the report of the meeting and place it in the Library. [17884]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department of Trade and Industry arranges representation at UNCTAD' s intergovernmental working group of experts on international standards of accounting and reporting. The
  1283
  UK delegate to the sessions on environmental reporting at ISAR's meeting on 13 to 17 March was Professor Keith Maunders of the university of Hull. I will arrange for a copy of the report of the meeting, when it is available, to be placed in the Library.

  Electrical Contracting Industry
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on Government policy towards the electrical contracting industry. [18058]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  It is our policy to help the electrical contracting industry succeed in its domestic and overseas markets.

  Bristol Development Corporation
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reasons Argent Estates gave for withdrawal from the Bristol development corporation's Quay point development; and if he will make a statement. [18066]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Bristol development corporation informed my Department that Argent Group had decided to withdraw its interest in the development of Quay point.

  The reasons for this withdrawal are a matter for the company.

  Climate Change Programme
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the environment if he has revised the carbon savings target he set for "The Energy Savings Trust in Climate Change—the UK Programme". [17971]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to him on 28 March,Official Report, column 605. The trust is currently reviewing its plans. It estimates that the programme of activities already established and financed will save about 0.3 million tonnes of carbon in the year 2000. Further schemes will make additional contributions, but they are not yet established. The Government are updating the carbon dioxide chapter of their climate change programme, and this will include an assessment of the likely contribution of energy efficiency. The Government will continue to reflect the key role of the trust, and the targets it sets itself, in the programme; but they will not set targets for the trust.

  Earth Tremors, Stoke-on-Trent
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will investigate the extent and causes of recent earth tremors in Stoke-on-Trent. [17898]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The extent of earth tremors in Great Britain is monitored by the British Geological Survey. Eleven separate small events were recorded at Stoke-on-Trent and one at Newcastle-under-Lyme between the 20 and 28 February, 1995. None of the existing monitoring instruments is located sufficiently close to the centre of the activity to determine the cause. It is not proposed to install additional monitoring equipment since, while this might identify the origin of subsequent tremors, if any occur, it would not identify unambiguously the cause of those which have taken place already.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers(a) he has and (b) other
  1284
  authorities have to investigate the causes of a house collapse at Kidsgrove, Stoke-on-Trent; and if he will make a statement. [17888]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has no responsibility to investigate the causes of a house collapse. While the local authority has powers to take action to secure public safety, in the event of an emergency, under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and the Building Act 1984, these powers do not extend to investigation of the causes of a house collapse. The secure and safe occupancy of a site is a matter for the landowner under the Occupiers' Liability Acts 1957 and 1984. The Coal Authority has responsibility, under the Coal Industry Act 1994, to have regard to securing the safety of members of the public in respect of hazards arising from the physical legacy of coal mining for which it has responsibility. This is in addition to the more specific responsibilities it has in the area of coal mining subsidence.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish an inquiry into possible links between earth tremors, former mining operations, and a house collapse in Kidsgrove, Stoke-on-Trent. [17889]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  It would not be appropriate to establish an inquiry, since the Coal Authority is currently investigating this incident to determine whether there is any relationship to the physical legacy of coal mining.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by his Department in each year since 1979–80; and how many such questions received a substantiative answer within 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18523]

  (2) how many parliamentary questions to his Department in each year since 1979–80 requesting a priority written answer or answer on a named day, were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further five, 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18524]

  (3) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report; [18525]

  (4) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has written to a right hon. or hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question; [18526]

  (5) how many parliamentary questions to his Department were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence; [18527]

  (6) how many parliamentary questions to his Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence. [18528]
  1285
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is a matter of public record but it could be extracted only in the form requested at disproportionate cost.

  Lambeth Council
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when his Department became aware of Lambeth council's failure to finalise accounts for each relevant financial year between 1979 and financial year ended 1993; and on what date his Department took action in each case; [18402]

  (2) what information his Department received as to the failure of Lambeth council to finalise accounts for any financial year between 1979 and financial year ended 1993; and what action his Department took in each case. [18405]

  Mr. Curry
  Local authorities are required, under regulation 6 of the Accounts and Audit Regulations 1983, SI 1761, to make up and balance accounts for each financial year by no later than six months after the end of that financial year; and, under regulation 15, to publish a statement of accounts no later than nine months after the end of the financial year. Failure to meet these deadlines is a matter for the local authority concerned and the district auditor. My Department is not involved.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when his Department first became aware of each audit report in the public interest that has been issued since 1979 with reference to Lambeth council; and what action his Department has taken in each case; [18407]

  (2) what discussions his Department has had with the district audit service of the Audit Commission with respect to each audit report issued in the public interest on the subject of Lambeth council; and what action his Department has taken on each of them. [18404]

  Mr. Curry
  Since 1979, 10 public interest reports have been issued by the district auditor at Lambeth. The Department became aware of them as public documents. It is the responsibility of the audited body to respond to public interest reports, and to take any necessary action. The Department has no direct role in the process.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department first became aware of the contents of each management letter sent to Lambeth council since 1979; and what action his Department took in each case. [18403]

  Mr. Curry
  The management letter is not a public document, unless an authority chooses to make it so, and any consequent action is between the audited body and its appointed auditor. The auditor is prevented by law from disclosing to the Government or anyone else information obtained in the course of his or her duties.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the dates and nature of notices served on Lambeth council with reference to the management and accounts of the council direct labour organisation; and what was the response in each case. [18406]

  Mr. Curry
  On 22 March 1993, five notices were served on the authority for accounting deficiencies and failure to provide accounts. Overall, these notices covered building maintenance work, highway and sewer maintenance work, refuse collection, street cleaning,1286
  ground maintenance work, building cleaning and vehicle maintenance. Subsequently, four directions were issued to the authority on 23 July 1993. Their details are as follows:
  Building maintenance; to re-tender all the work by 1 April 1994 and seek the consent from the Secretary of State before assigning any of the work to its direct labour organisation; a prohibition on carrying out housing maintenance work being undertaken by the private sector; a prohibition on carrying out work on non-educational public buildings; and a complete prohibition from carrying out the work from 1 July 1994 unless outstanding accounts were provided by 31 December 1993. The work was re-tendered in 63 contracts, the authority obtained consent to assign 12 contracts to its direct labour organisation in March 1994 and the accounts were supplied.
  Highway and sewer maintenance—a prohibition on carrying out the work from 1 April 1994 except for winter emergency work.
  Refuse collection and street cleaning—a complete prohibition on carrying out the work from 1 July 1994 unless outstanding accounts were provided by 31 December 1993. The accounts were provided and the direct service organisation continues to undertake the work.
  Ground maintenance, building cleaning and vehicle maintenance—a complete prohibition on carrying out the work from 1 July 1994 unless outstanding accounts were provided by 31 December 1993. The accounts were provided and the direct service organisation continues to undertake the work.
  On 28 February this year, two further notices were served on the authority for financial failure in respect of ground maintenance work and building cleaning in the year 1993–94. We have received the authority's responses and are considering whether to proceed to directions.

  Water Industry
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of the proportion of profits obtained by the privatised water industry which have been(a) retained for investment in its core business, (b) distributed to shareholders and (c) invested in businesses other than the provision of water and sewerage services. [18561]

  Mr. Atkins
  This information is published in the annual reports and accounts of the individual water companies.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of whether the Regulator of the Water Industry has adequately protected the consumer interest; and if he will make a statement. [18562]

  Mr. Atkins
  The Director General of Water Services, Mr. Ian Byatt, has a statutory duty to ensure that the functions of water and sewerage companies are properly carried out and that they are able to finance these functions. He must also protect customers' interests, promote economy and efficiency and facilitate competition where appropriate. Mr. Byatt has carried out these duties successfully and effectively.

  Unitary Development Plans
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) to what extent draft unitary development plans should be taken account of in determining planning decisions and appeals; [18341]

  (2) what guidance he gives to (a) local authorities and (b) inspectors with delegated powers, where planning applications or appeals run counter to draft unitary development plans but are to be determined before the development plan process is finalised; [18342]
  1287
  (3) what action is open to local authorities where it appears that planning applications contrary to a draft unitary development plan are being submitted in an attempt to determine issues in advance of the UMP inquiry where this would have the effect of prejudging the inquiry. [18343]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department's policy is set out in paragraphs 32–34 of PPG1.

  As far as possible, decisions should be taken in the light of current policies. However, it may be justifiable for a local planning authority to refuse planning permission when a development proposal raises matters that should be settled in the development plan context. The weight to be attached to a draft plan will increase as successive stages in the development plan process are reached, having regard to any conflicts with existing plans, and whether there are objections.

  Prematurity cases call for careful judgment about the scale of the impact of the proposed development, and its significance in relation to the emerging development plan. The objective of our policy is to safeguard the development plan processes, while at the same time ensuring that development is not delayed without good cause.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what criteria he uses for deciding which planning appeals to delegate to inspectors; [18340]

  (2) for what reasons he delegated to an inspector responsibility for the recent planning appeal at Oxclose farm, Sheffield. [18344]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 transfers responsibility for determining appeals to planning inspectors unless the Secretary of State

  Title

  Objectives

  Fieldwork start date

  Researchers

  Evaluation of 'Right to Buy' Publicity Campaign

  To evaluate publicity campaign

  April 1993

  MORI

  'Right to Buy' Campaign Evaluation—follow-up stage

  Follow-up to above survey

  May 1993

  MORI

  Helping the Earth Campaign Evaluation Research 1993–94—Waves 4 and 5

  To evaluate the 'Helping the Earth' campaign

  July 1993

  BMRB

  Landlords Research

  To inform policy making

  July 1993

  SCPR

  Public Attitudes to the Environment

  To inform policy

  July 1993

  NOP

  Customer Survey: Study of Appellants' and Local Authorities' Experience of the Hearings System

  To assess customer satisfaction with the hearings of appeals procedures

  September 1993

  W. S. Atkins Planning Consultants

  Helping the Earth—Literature Evaluation

  To evaluate literature campaign

  September 1993

  MAI

  Ventilation in Homes

  To evaluate the effectiveness of Building Regulations

  October 1993

  PAS

  Helping the Earth Radio Campaign

  To assess the effectiveness of campaign

  October 1993

  RSGB

  Rent Policies of LAs in England

  To monitor and inform policy

  November 1993

  Inlogov

  The Nature of Demand for Housing in Rural Areas

  To investigate people's housing experiences in rural areas

  December 1993

  Birmingham University

  Flat Service Charges and Right to Buy

  To monitor and inform policy

  December 1993

  MORI

  Monitoring the Actions of Failed Grant Applicants

  To monitor and inform policy

  January 1994

  PAS

  Rent to Mortgage Leaflet follow-up

  To establish tenants opinion and action taken towards buying their home

  February 1994

  NOP

  Public Attitudes to Planning (and Development)

  To inform policy and promote the planning system

  February 1994

  Prism Research

  Helping the Earth Campaign, Pre and Post Monitor

  To assess campaign effectiveness

  February 1994

  COI

  Study of Lodgers Scheme

  To inform policy making on Lodgers scheme

  March 1994

  The London Research Centre

  Recreational Cycling Market Research

  To assess customer satisfaction

  April 1994

  COI

  1288
  decides to intervene and recover jurisdiction. The criteria for recovering jurisdiction are set out in the Government's response to the fifth report from the Environment Committee, Session 1985–86, "Planning: Appeals, Call-In and Major Public Inquiries", Command 43. The proposal at Oxclose farm did not meet any of these recovery criteria. The appeal therefore remained to be determined by an inspector.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what assessment he has made of whether the inspector's decision on the planning appeal at Oxclose farm, Sheffield, conforms to guidance notes PPG6 and PPG13; [18338]

  (2) what assessment he has made of whether the introduction of guidance notes PPG6 and PPG13 in their current form made a difference to the outcome of the recent planning appeal at Oxclose farm, Sheffield.
  [18339]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  All inspectors are expected to take account of guidance notes PPG6 and PPG13 where they are relevant. It is established practice that I do not comment on individual cases.

  Polling Organisations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 24 March,Official Report, column 365, if he will list those polling organisations which have been employed by his Department and give in detail the research undertaken by those organisations. [18259]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information available is provided in the table below. The table lists all surveys of the public which were conducted in the two financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95 by external organisations employed by the Department of the Environment, and which included questions seeking public opinion.
  1289

  Title

  Objectives

  Fieldwork start date

  Researchers

  Ventilation in Homes

  To evaluate the effectiveness of Building Regulations

  April 1994

  Public Attitudes Surveys Ltd.

  The Environmental Effects of Dust from Surface Mineral Workings—pilot survey

  To define reasonable dust levels

  May 1994

  Over Arup and Partners

  Vacant Dwellings in the Private Sector

  To determine the scope for bringing vacant dwellings back into use

  May 1994

  University of Wales and MORI

  Home Improvement Agency Client Survey

  To review the work of Home Improvement Agencies

  June 1994

  SCPR

  Research into the Role and Operation of Homes

  To evaluate policy

  August 1994

  MORI

  'Wasting Energy Costs the Earth' Campaign Evaluation

  To establish attitudes to and action on energy use in the home

  September 1994

  NOP

  The Environmental Effects of Production Blasting from Surface Mineral Workings (Pilot Survey)

  To define reasonable working levels for production blasting

  September 1994

  Vibrock Ltd.

  Customer Survey: Study of Customer's experience of the inquiry procedure

  To assess customer satisfaction

  October 1994

  W.S.Atkins Planning Consultants

  Review of Council's Tenants Charter

  To assess customer awareness, views on contents and usefulness of the Councils Tenant's Charter

  October 1994

  MORI

  Houses in Multiple Occupation: Establishing Effective Local Authority Strategies

  To asses customer satisfaction

  November 1994

  Public Attitudes Surveys Ltd.

  Testing the Planetary Caretaker Pack

  To explore children's reactions to Environmental Information Packs

  March 1995

  NOP

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline the measures taken, facilities offered and adjustments made in his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to facilitate access for disabled people; what plans he has to improve access; and if he will make a statement. [18588]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department is committed to providing and improving access into and around its buildings for staff and visitors with disabilities. Where the physical characteristics of existing buildings allow, accommodation officers make arrangements to meet the specific needs of people with disabilities on advice from the departmental disabled persons officer.

  Facilities already provided include wheelchair ramps, lifts with tactile buttons, car parking facilities and assistance where necessary. Induction loops are available for people with hearing difficulties and arrangements can also be made for sign language interpretation at meetings or interviews.

  Green Policy
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which Minister attended when the green Ministers last met; which items were discussed; when they will next meet; and what items are on the agenda for that meeting. [18657]

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I attended the last meeting in December 1994.

  The items discussed were:
  the UK annual report 1995: "This Common Inheritance" (now published, Cm 2822), the town and country quality initiative, the Royal Commission on environmental pollution report on transport and the environment and the proposed rural White Paper. The UK round table on sustainable development and departmental green housekeeping strategies were also discussed.

  A further meeting will be held shortly and the agenda is presently being considered.
  1290
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will name the green Minister for his Department and list(a) the green initiatives taken by that Minister in respect of the Department's functions, (b) the representations made by the Minister in respect of functions carried out by other Departments and (c) the input made by the Minister into consultations on the Environment Bill. [18639]

  Mr. Gummer
  I am the principal green Minister for the Department of the Environment, but all my ministerial colleagues share our common objective of promoting sustainable development in all areas of national life.

  "Sustainable Development: the UK Strategy", Cm 2426, presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister in January 1994, set out our overall approach to these issues, and lists large numbers of individual initiatives, objectives and targets. Progress on these has been reported more recently in "This Common Inheritance 1995", Cm 2822, published last month. Paragraphs 1.9 to 1.12 of that report list the following nine areas to which we are giving high priority this year together with the following priority aims for each one:
  Climate Change: to review the objectives and measures in the UK's climate change programme, and to consider how it should be extended beyond 2000 so as to make an appropriate UK contribution to the global effort.
  Air Quality: to implement an effective strategy for improving general levels of local air quality and for managing episodes of poor air quality on the basis of the strategic policies set out in "Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge".
  Freshwater and the Sea: to maintain and where appropriate improve the quality of UK drinking water, rivers and bathing and coastal waters; and to participate constructively in European negotiations on the further improvement of drinking water (including on the issue of lead) and surface waters, and the protection of groundwater; while taking carefully into account what water consumers and others can reasonably afford.
  Biodiversity: to develop the UK's biodiversity action plan into an effective programme for the protection of habitats and species, with specific costed targets for key habitats and species.

  1291
  Fish stocks: to examine options for improving the EC common fisheries policy taking account of the advice of the Government's panel on sustainable development, and to reflect on its recommendation for the establishment of an intergovernmental panel on the oceans;
  Waste: to carry forward public consultations on a new waste management strategy which would encourage everyone firstly to reduce waste and then to reuse or recycle, or recover energy in preference to disposing of waste, and to seek Parliament's approval for statute-based producer responsibility schemes for the reuse, recovery or recycling of products and materials.
  Rural Development: in preparing rural White Papers for England and Scotland to take a fresh look at economic, social and environmental policies which impact on rural areas.
  The Built Environment: to improve the quality of the built environment, to raise awareness that good design matters and is affordable and to help ease development pressure in particular by taking forward ideas prompted by the quality in town and country initiative.
  Transport: recognising that unconstrained traffic growth would have unacceptable consequences in terms of pollution, carbon dioxide production, noise and disturbance, to develop appropriate national and local strategies and measures for reducing the need to travel and to encourage more sustainable and environmentally acceptable patterns of transport—focusing particularly on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution.

  The whole Government are committed to the objective of sustainable development and I am in regular contact with all my colleagues on the implications of this, including in particular the Chancellor of the Exchequer; the Foreign Secretary; the Home Secretary; the Secretary of State for Transport; the President of the Board of Trade; the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland.

  I have taken the lead inside and outside Government in the preparations for the Environment Bill, and look forward to introducing it to the House of Commons shortly after Easter.

  Social Index
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the net gain or loss in Liverpool arising from its position on the social index; and what were the corresponding figures for Westminster and Wandsworth. [18943]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The contributions of the combined economic and social indices to the 1995–96 standard spending assessments are:

  Liverpool: £12.411 million;

  Westminster: £20.290 million;

  Wandsworth: £10.305 million;

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment where Liverpool ranks on the social index; and what rankings are given to(a) Westminster, (b) Wandsworth, (c) Bath, (d) Brighton and (e) Norwich. [18942]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The ranking for the combined economic an social indices in 1995–96 are:Liverpool 17

  a) Westminster 12

  b) Wandsworth 16

  c) Bath 86

  d) Brighton 29

  e) Norwich 47

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how economic disadvantage is taken into account in the economic and social services standard spending assessment; what ranking Liverpool receives on 1292
  the social index; what ranking it receives on the index of local conditions; which of these is used to determine standard spending assessments; and what consideration he is giving to referring to both indexes in making the calculation. [18936]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The SSAs for personal social services includes an other social services index; the all other services district level SSA includes an economic index and social index. These two indices should be considered together. The constituents of these indexes are set out in the Local Government Finance Report, England, 1995–96.

  In the social index alone, Liverpool has a ranking of 81. Liverpool has a ranking of 17th for the combined economic and social indices, and second for the authorities outside London. Liverpool ranks sixth in the index of local conditions. The economic and social indices are not comparable with the index of local conditions which is designed for a different purpose.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to remove the capping criteria on local government spending. [18237]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  None. Capping ensures that all authorities play their part in the restraint of public expenditure, and protects taxpayers from high council taxes. We have taken powers to reduce excessive budgets and excessive increases in budget and have made it clear that we will not hesitate to use them should it prove necessary to do so.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the average standard spending assessment in England over the last two years; what is the figure in Liverpool; what is the Liverpool standard spending assessment as an average per head of population; what is the corresponding figure for inner London boroughs; and what is the average standard spending assessment per head of population in Tower Hamlets and Hackney. [18941]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The figures requested are shown below:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Standard spending assessment for England (£ per head)

  £782

  £798

  Standard spending assessment for Liverpool

  £419m

  £423m

  Standard spending assessment for Liverpool (£ per head)

  £875

  £887

  Average standard spending assessment for inner London boroughs (£ per head)

  £1,090

  £1,141

  Standard spending assessment for Tower Hamlets (£ per head)

  £1,481

  £1,535

  Standard spending assessment for Hackney (£ per head)

  £1,305

  £1,295

  Notes

  The figures have not been adjusted for changes in function. The £ per head figures for England are not comparable with those for Liverpool or London authorities primarily because of the inclusion in the former of SSA elements for police and fire.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what consultation takes place with local government before the annual standard spending assessment formula is determined; and if he will make it his policy to publish information requested by local
  1293
  government about next year's standard spending assessment before the consultation period has been completed; [18937]

  (2) how many local authorities came to see Ministers this year about the standard spending assessment; and what changes to the standard spending assessment methodology have been proposed as a result of the meeting with those authorities. [18938]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  There are annual discussions with the local authority associations in the local government finance settlement working group. In particular, a technical sub-group of officials from the associations and relevant Government Departments meets approximately 10 to 12 times between March and September each year to consider possible changes in methodology. An annual report of this sub-group's work is published and discussed at the consultative council on local government finance, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend. In December, provisional standard spending assessments are published and sent to all local authorities together with an explanation of any proposed changes in methodology and the underlying data which has been used. There is a formal period of consultation during which local authorities may make representations. In the light of this consultation, final standard spending assessments are calculated and sent to local authorities.

  The information which is provided to local government at all the key stages in the annual cycle is discussed with the local authority associations. Wherever practicable, we seek to meet local authority requests for information.

  Department of the Environment Ministers met 90 delegations from local authorities during consultation on the provisional local government finance settlement. In addition, nine police authorities had meetings with Home Office Ministers. As a result of representations made during consultation, there was only one methodology change, concerning the application of the area cost

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Craven

  19,071

  20,643

  20,938

  25,222

  32,583

  45,488

  41,135

  39,633

  39,775

  Hambleton

  19,151

  21,794

  23,624

  29,956

  39,790

  46,972

  45,747

  45,474

  n/a

  Harrogate

  17,709

  20,420

  20,830

  24,659

  34,086

  42,210

  43,361

  41,910

  41,715

  Richmondshire

  19,245

  20,593

  21,957

  26,104

  30,503

  37,288

  41,856

  40,079

  38,204

  Ryedale

  19,810

  21,878

  22,658

  27,928

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Scarborough

  19,557

  19,877

  20,137

  24,173

  32,310

  38,028

  39,939

  43,448

  41,042

  Selby

  19,600

  20,600

  21,800

  23,997

  31,212

  31,940

  38,625

  41,165

  41,075

  York

  19,418

  20,802

  22,537

  27,161

  39,035

  43,627

  43,809

  42,522

  40,938

  Average right-to-buy prices represent the values of dwellings that have been sold and may not be representative of the stock still in council ownership. They represent a measure of vacant possession value rather than tenanted market value. Some values in the table are not available because data is no longer collected following the authority's transfer of dwellings to a housing association.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further consideration he is giving to the appointment of a trouble shooter to spearhead the objective 1 programmes on Merseyside. [18935]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cities in Great Britain are in 1294
  adjustment within the police formula, but a number of the issues raised will be examined in the next settlement and have been included in the programme of the technical sub-group mentioned above.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the ratio between the change in the level of resources provided through the area cost adjustment over the last year and(a) the level of inflation and (b) overall changes in the standard spending. [18947]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The total contribution of the area cost adjustment to standard spending assessments rose by 7.9 per cent. between 1994–95 and 1995–96. In 1994–95, however, the SSA for the receiver for the Metropolitan police was based on his budget. This included those extra costs which, from 1995–96, are reflected in the area cost adjustment. Excluding these, the increase in the total area cost adjustment contribution was 1.3 per cent. This compares with an overall increase in SSAs between 1994–95 and 1995–96 of 2.4 per cent. The projected increase in the GDP deflator for 1995–96 is 3.25 per cent.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reserves were held by each county council at 31 March 1994 under the headings(a) the reserves for local management of schools, (b) earmarked reserves, (c) free balances and (d) total reserves.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on Monday 13 March,Official Report, column 421. No further breakdown into earmarked reserves and free balances is available.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the values at the end of each financial year since 1985 for each of the North Yorkshire district councils. [18814]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  For districts in North Yorkshire, average right-to-buy values are given below, in £s for each financial year, before any discount:

  receipt of objective 1 funding; and what account is taken of this designation in determining standard spending assessments. [18940]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Within Great Britain the only city eligible for funding from the European Commission under objective 1 is Liverpool.

  The receipt of EC assistance is not taken into account in assessing the standard spending assessments of local authorities.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he is giving to the effect of the standard spending assessment on Liverpool's ability to identify funds to match against proposed objective 1 scheme; and what impact this is having on the city's ability to gain access to the objective 1 grants available. [18934]
  1295
  Sir Paul Beresford
  Standard spending assessments are the Government's assessment of what revenue local authorities need to spend in order to provide a common level of service. There is no direct relationship between SSAs and the ability of an area to match EC grants which are predominantly grants towards capital expenditure.

  Matching funding for such grants is available from a variety of sources including domestic public expenditure programmes, UDCs, TECs, and the private and voluntary sectors as well as from local authorities' own resources.

  Wildlife Controls
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to increase the use of DNA testing in the enforcement of wildlife controls. [18835]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In my announcement of 20 December,Official Report, columns 1115–16 I promised to keep the House advised of the developments in the use of DNA tests.

  The results of research commissioned by the Department and recent successful prosecutions based on DNA evidence have demonstrated the effectiveness of DNA testing as an aid to the enforcement of wildlife controls. We are therefore taking a number of steps to promote and extend its use as part of our commitment to improving the protection of threatened species.

  We have today written to all police chief constables in Great Britain giving information about DNA testing, outlining the ways in which it can assist in the investigation of possible offences, and providing advice on its practical application. A copy of this letter has been placed in the Library of the House. My Department is commissioning a study to establish what further guidance and other practical assistance we should provide on testing standards and procedures in this field.

  We have allocated £40,000 to finance selective DNA tests to be commissioned by the Department's wildlife inspectorate. The results will provide a means of verifying the information held on the existing bird registration database.

  On 20 July, I announced in my reply to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier), Official Report, column 319, that my Department had funded research on the use of DNA testing to identify the parentage of birds. The results of this research are set out in Nottingham university's report "Genetic Variation in Birds of Prey—Phase IV", copies of which were placed in the Library of the House in December last year. As part of this project, the university has developed a number of genetic probes—"single locus probes"—which can be used to analyse blood samples, and greatly simplify the process of DNA fingerprinting. I hope that other laboratories will soon be in a position to use these probes to undertake DNA tests on wildlife to assist in the investigation of possible offences.

  The Department also proposes to commission research into the scope for simplifying tests, and using genetic material such as feathers rather than blood.

  The Department's working group to review the enforcement of wildlife controls—which I announced on 20 December in my reply to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), Official Report, column 1115–16—is examining the use of DNA tests and the application of
  1296
  other forensic methods. The group will submit its recommendations to me by the end of July.

  Substandard Properties, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many properties in(a) the council sector and (b) the private sector in Liverpool are classified as substandard dwellings. [18946]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Local authorities are requested to provide information on dwellings in their area which are unfit—that is, fail to meet all the fitness criteria in section 83 of schedule 9 of the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act—in their annual housing investment programme returns.

  The latest available data relate to 1 April 1994, at which time Liverpool reported 3,393 unfit local authority dwellings in its area—8 per cent. of total stock—and 18,000 unfit private sector dwellings—excluding housing association dwellings; 15 per cent. of total stock. The private sector figure is based on a sample survey carried out in 1992.

  Housing Co-operatives
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to meet the representative bodies for the housing co-operative movement to discuss funding and strategy for the housing co-operative sector; [18839]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that the views of tenants in housing co-operatives are adequately represented to Government. [18840]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  While there are no current plans to meet the representative bodies for the housing co-operative movement, I will be accepting the invitation from the all-party group on housing co-operatives, on behalf of the Minister for Housing, for a meeting to discuss funding and strategy. Tenants of housing co-operatives can of course feed their views into that group, as well as passing them on directly to the Housing Corporation or to Government.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses were held by each of the district authorities in North Yorkshire at the end of each financial year since 1979. [18815]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Local authorities report the numbers of dwellings they own in their annual housing investment programme returns. The figures for 1979 to 1994 for each district in North Yorkshire can be found in the "HIP1 All Items Print" for those years, copies of which are in the Library.

  The references of the relevant columns in prints for 1979 to 1993 are as follows:

  1979: B11

  1980 to 1990: A11

  1991 to 1993: A11 and A16

  For 1994 the figures can be found in section A of the "1994 HIP1 All Items Print".
  1297
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the values of disposals of council-owned property by each of the North Yorkshire district authorities for each financial year since 1990. [18817]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information requested, as reported by each of the district authorities in North Yorkshire, is as follows. The figures for council house purchase are based on the values of dwellings without subtracting the value of mortgage lending by local authorities.

  Capital receipts from the sale of council dwelling in North Yorkshire (execluding lending for council house purchase)

  £ thousand

  Local authority

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Craven

  517

  263

  379

  612

  Hambleton

  1,087

  1,288

  1,348

  31,422

  Harrogate

  1,367

  1,480

  888

  1,487

  Richmondshire

  812

  1,035

  833

  1,100

  Ryedale

  27,319

  0

  0

  0

  Scarborough

  2,228

  1,565

  1,306

  1,645

  Selby

  1,721

  1,281

  1,133

  1,575

  York

  1,973

  2,001

  2,183

  3,009

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to require Cherwell district council to consult further with its tenants before he considers any further proposals for the transfer of any of its housing to another landlord. [18777]

  Mr. Curry
  Whether the council should be required to carry out further consultation with its tenants is a matter which would need to be considered only when the council submitted an application for the Secretary of State's consent to transfer housing to a new landlord. No application from the council is before the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of all tenants of Cherwell district council voted(a) in favour and (b) against the proposed transfer of their homes to another landlord when they were consulted on this option. [18776]

  Mr. Curry
  In March 1994, separate ballots were held in the Banbury area and the rest of the district, and in each area the tenants were asked two questions. On the question whether they were in favour of the council transferring all its homes in their area to a new housing association, 31.4 per cent. of the tenants, taking the district as a whole, voted for transfer and 47.5 per cent. voted against. On the question whether they were in favour of their own homes transferring to a new housing association even if a majority of the tenants in their area decided to stay with the council, 27.6 per cent. of the tenants, taking the district as a whole, voted for transfer and 49.2 per cent. voted against.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has of the impact of the delay of the proposed transfer of housing from Cherwell district council to the Cherwell Valley housing association on the housing revenue account in Cherwell district in 1995–96. [18778]

  Mr. Curry
  I understand that Cherwell district council has decided to increase the rents of its remaining houses by an average of £1.62 a week in 1995–96, which is below 1298
  the Department's HRA subsidy rent guideline of £1.82 a week.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold in each financial year since 1982 by each of the district authorities in North Yorkshire. [18816]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Tables showing the available information on the volume of total council house sales for each English local authority for every financial year since 1980 and a cumulative total to March 1994 are in the Library.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the total allocation to housing co-operatives by the Housing Corporation in 1995–96 reflects the proportion of the total Housing Corporation allocation that housing co-operatives were targeted to achieve in the Housing Corporation's Co-operatives strategy published in 1993; what steps he is taking to increase the funding to housing co-operatives; and if he will make a statement. [18838]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The total allocation for development made by the Housing Corporation to housing co-operatives in 1995–96 will be some £9.5 million. The corporation's co-operatives strategy made it clear that target investment levels were subject to co-operatives gaining funding on the same criteria as other housing associations. All housing associations including co-operatives bid for allocations from the Housing Corporation's approved development programme on a competitive basis. The successful bids are those which meet the priority needs identified by local authorities in their housing strategies, on the most cost-effective basis.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action his Department has taken to(a) reduce the use of agriculture pesticides and (b) set national pesticide reduction standards. [18875]

  Mr. Atkins
  It is the Government's policy to minimise the use of pesticides through the rigorous approval and review of products, through guidance to users and through research and development. Targets for reducing emissions of certain pesticides to the marine environment have been agreed by the international conferences on the protection of the North sea.

  Anti-social Behaviour (Council Estates)
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to help local authorities to tackle anti-social behaviour on council estates; and whether he will make a statement. [18837]

  Mr. Curry
  My Department has issued today a consultation paper on proposals to introduce a system of probationary tenancies for new tenants on council estates. Copies have been placed in the Library and the Vote Office.

  Under these proposals, local authorities will be able, if they wish, to put new tenants on probation for a year. Authorities exercising this discretion will have to give probationary tenancies to all their new tenants. If tenants complete their probation satisfactorily, their tenancies will be converted into secure tenancies. If, however, tenants do not behave responsibly their authority will be able to

  1299
  terminate their tenancy at any time during the probationary period by serving a notice to quit.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is consulting separately on these proposals.

  Pollution Report
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to publish the findings of the advisory committee for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. [18836]

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department is publishing the committee's interim report today. I am grateful to members of the committee for producing a useful and timely report. They have suggested a challenging set of recommendations for the inspectorate to improve further its capabilities as an efficient and effective organisation in the run-up to the creation of the Environment Agency. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has responded positively to the committee's views. I am today placing a copy of both the report and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution substantive response to the recommendations in the Library of the House.

  Local Plan Process
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to respond to the consultation paper entitled "Improving the Local Plan Process", published in March 1994. [18976]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The local plan process needs to operate more responsively and efficiently. There must be sound, up-to-date plans in place, capable of speedy review, if the plan-led system is to work well. The Government's aim is:

  (i) in the short term, to give more impetus to current plan preparation, in order to achieve the maximum practicable area wide local plan coverage by the end of 1996; and

  (ii) in the longer term, to speed up the entire process, so that local authorities are not discouraged from reviewing and updating existing plans because it is too time consuming and costly.

  The consultation paper prompted over 300 responses, which we have carefully considered.

  We are already implementing the straightforward proposals, such as those concerned with the better management of the process, in liaison with the local authorities associations and the Planning Inspectorate agency. The inspectorate is taking forward a number of initiatives, such as shorter inspectors' reports, the use of assistant inspectors and the development of advisory services.

  In addition, we propose to introduce shortly:

  (i) revised planning policy guidance, providing for local planning authorities to carry out more effective consultation on their plans at the pre-deposit stage: and

  (ii) substantial revision of the Department's published code of practice on local plan inquiries, with the aim of helping planning authorities to manage the entire plan-making process more effectively and economically.

  External Finance Limits
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes were made to the external financing limits for the urban development corporations, Urban Regeneration Agency, housing action trusts and docklands light railway in 1994–95. [19337]
  1300
  Mr. Curry
  External finance limits were increased by £1,250,000 from £90,715,000 to £91,965,000 for the housing action trusts, by £500,000 from £7,000,000 to £7,500,000 for Birmingham Heartlands development corporation and by £1,500,000 from £116,806,000 to £118,306,000 for the Urban Regeneration Agency. The external finance limit of the docklands light railway was reduced by £500,000 from £38,900,000 to £38,400,000. The remaining increases were met from identified savings on the urban programme.

  Agencies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have(a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared. [18324]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: The Department of the Environment contains five agencies—the Planning Inspectorate, the Building Research Establishment, the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, the Buying Agency and the Securities Facilities Executive. The Planning Inspectorate's work is demand led and the agency has reduced its staffing level in line with falling appeals. No jobs have been contracted out or functions ceased. The Building Research Establishment has entered into a partnership agreement with a private firm to undertake its publications business. Four staff transferred to the new company and three others left the BRE. A number of staff transferred within BRE as part of a consequential reorganisation. The total number of staff employed by the BRE is dependant on the income it is able to generate. Staff numbers in the other three agencies have increased in the past two years to meet operational needs.

  The Secretary of State is also responsible for the Ordnance Survey, where staff numbers have been reduced by 278 in the past two years. Only two posts were taken over by contractors. The other lost posts are the net effect of changes in operational activities and efficiency gains.

  Local Inquiries
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the decision to hold the BNP bookshop inquiry at Crayford town hall; and if he will make a statement. [17796]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: The provision of information on public local inquiries is the responsibility of the planning inspectorate. I have asked the inspectorate's chief executive, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Shepley to Mr. David Evennett, dated 31 March 1995:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION No. 117796/95/96
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the representations he has received about the decision to hold the BNP bookshop inquiry at the Crayford Town Hall.
  In all, six representations have been received. Three were addressed to the Secretary of State, and all were referred to the Planning Inspectorate for reply.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

EU: Single Currency
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to keep their options open on joining a European single currency on 1st January 1999.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, under the UK opt-out to the Maastricht Treaty, the Government have kept open the option of whether or not to seek to join any future European single currency. That remains our policy. We shall judge, in the light of the circumstances of the time, whether participation would or would not be in the best interests of the United Kingdom.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister. Can I assume that he is not willing, or would not agree, to go beyond what the Prime Minister said on Monday night about the single currency, when, in fact, he said nothing and took a long time doing so? Can he also say whether or not a single currency would have the same effect as destroying a nation state? More importantly, would the Minister accept that, if the options are to be kept open, it would be necessary under Article 109j.1 of the Maastricht Treaty to be within the exchange rate mechanism from 1st July next year for two years? Is that the Government's intention?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in his assumption that I would not go beyond the statements already made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. So far as concerns the ERM, the Prime Minister made it very clear that Britain will not join the ERM in 1996 or 1997.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, whatever the ultimate result on this particular issue, from the nation's point of view it would he politically healthier for the overwhelming number in the Labour Party who disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, to place on the record how they feel, even at this stage?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend tempts me into the realms of speculation about what is or is not the Labour Party's policy with regard to either the ERM or a single currency. I believe that it is far too early for us to make a judgment about the situation in 1999. When we reach that point, we as a government intend to take any decision necessary, in the light of what is in the best interests of Britain, the British people and the British economy.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would it surprise my noble friend to know that the earlier part of my life was spent under a single currency which had lasted for 100 years? It was called the gold standard. It ended only with the First World War. Nobody suggested that it interfered with our independence.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall not go back quite so far as that. But my point about the single currency is valid. If we decide some time in the future that the situation is such that we ought to consider joining it, quite clearly any government—certainly a Conservative Government—would take into account what was in the best interests of the British people and the British economy. That has to be the right way to treat this issue.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can we take it from what the Minister said—without going any further than the Prime Minister did, which I fully understand—that, if the conditions are right, the Government's policy is that they will join?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the situation is as I said. We will look at the conditions. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said on 3rd February, unless the economic conditions are right, a single currency would tear apart the European Union. It is not just consideration of the interests of the United Kingdom; it is also in the interests of the European Union itself that, when we are presented with the option of joining or not, we then decide whether or not that is in our interests.
Lord Richard: My Lords, if, in the opinion of the Government, the conditions are right, then the Government will join—is that right?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if the conditions are judged to be right—if it is in the interests of the British people—then the issue will have to be decided by the government of the day and indeed by Parliament, because it is a decision of very considerable importance.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend assume, from the Question put by the former Chief Secretary, and indeed others, that the Labour Party would now agree to a single currency if it should be in a position ever to exercise that authority?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that may well be the conclusion that one must draw from the exchanges this afternoon, and indeed from other remarks made outside the House and in another place. But I cannot believe that even the Labour Party would be so irresponsible as to decide now that they should join a single currency in 1999, 1997 or whenever, not knowing what the circumstances would be at that time. Not even the Labour Party could be that irresponsible.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that his noble and learned friend Lord

173
Hailsham is completely wrong in likening a single currency and economic monetary union to the gold standard? Does he further agree that far more than that is involved in a single currency and that loss of sovereignty could be involved? Will he tell the House whether the Government will agree to a referendum before we embark upon such a course?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am always glad to welcome the authentic voice of the Labour Party to any European Union debates that we have on matters of that nature. The noble Lord is indeed right to say that a single currency raises serious economic, political and constitutional issues. On the issue of constitutional change, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear on a number of occasions, a referendum cannot be ruled out. It would be for the Government at the time to decide whether, in the circumstances, it was sensible to recommend to Parliament that a referendum ought to be carried out.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if a German Minister were currently to be asked the kind of flat-footed question which was just addressed to him by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, he would in no circumstances give a straight answer?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not entirely sure whether I should thank my noble friend for what was implied towards the end of that question. He makes a valid point. Ministers of other European countries also take largely the same view as we do and will do on the day on which a decision has to be made on behalf of their own countries; namely, they will take those decisions in the best interests of their own countrymen, whether they be French, German or in our case British.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, inadvertently, the Minister did not answer my supplementary question. I asked him, if the Government are to keep open their options about joining a single currency, whether, under Article 109 of the Maastricht Treaty, they would need to keep within the normal range of the ERM. I did not ask whether they would join it. I asked whether they would need to keep within that range. He simply replied that they do not intend to join it. Could he now perhaps try to answer my question?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought I had answered the question by saying that we do not intend to join it in 1997. However, the exchange rate criteria in the treaty was written at a time when the ERM operated under different rules. For example, there were narrow bands in the ERM which do not now exist. It is not clear now how the requirements would be measured. There is no legal or practical need for a formal interpretation of the treaty, nor for us to decide to join the ERM before 1997.

BBC Charter and Agreement
2.40 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether either House of Parliament will be able to amend the proposed new BBC Charter and Agreement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, the Royal Charter is granted by Her Majesty and the Agreement is a contract between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the BBC. However, we intend that both documents should be laid before Parliament and debated together by both Houses before they come into force. Should either House of Parliament indicate that the documents as drafted were unacceptable, then the Government would carefully consider whether changes were necessary.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is a big constitutional point? We are about to introduce a new Charter and Agreement and it is only right—I am glad to have it confirmed in Hansard—that it should be discussed in both Houses. I am sure that we have something to contribute. Recent events in connection with "Panorama" and Channel 4—sorry, Clause 4, that is more important—underline the need for us to look at these matters carefully. I draw my noble friend's attention to today's Daily Telegraph where Simon Heffer has an interview indirectly with Tony Hall from which it emerges that the current Producer Guidelines—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Orr-Ewing: I have here a book containing some of the regulations that provide for them. The guidelines are 276 pages long, so I cannot summarise them. What has been issued is for guidance only. In no sense are these BBC rules or undertakings. This is a serious matter which should be discussed.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend will forgive me if I do not start the debate on the BBC at this moment. In answer to his question that the BBC, in common with other broadcasters, is required to observe due impartiality when dealing with issues of public controversy, we intend to include specific and clear obligations along those lines in the new BBC Agreement. We have taken full account of the genuine and understandable anxieties expressed in your Lordships' House and, indeed, elsewhere.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that three times this week the Scottish courts have held that there is a prima facie case that the BBC is in breach of its duties in relation to due impartiality concerning the Scottish local elections? In those circumstances, if the BBC complains about political parties going to the courts, would it not be wise for the BBC to set up its own panel of governors to adjudicate in advance of a programme on any responsible complaints made by political parties in relation to due impartiality? Does that not underline the

175
case made by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that the BBC Charter and Agreement should be subject to the same detailed scrutiny, including the right to amend, in both Houses of Parliament as are the commercial television stations under the broadcasting Acts?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, refers to the recent actions in the courts in Scotland. I understand that those matters may be subject to further action in the courts and therefore it would be wrong for me to comment on the facts of the case. In relation to the points made about the Charter and the Agreement, I must emphasise again that there will be a debate in both Houses of Parliament. We will take any anxieties expressed by your Lordships, as we always do, very seriously. If the Charter or the Agreement were not felt to be doing the job properly, we would have to withdraw them and have new versions prepared.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, the action in the Scottish courts in the past week has opened wide the whole question of BBC impartiality and whether the Royal Charter is the proper instrument for this purpose. That needs to be thoroughly investigated and Parliament must have the right to propose changes if necessary.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, Parliament has the right to propose any changes it thinks fit to the BBC Agreement or Charter. Indeed, we had a recent debate in your Lordships' House and the Government gave the commitment that there would be a further debate once the Charter and Agreement are published. But the BBC is there by Royal Charter which is granted under Royal Prerogative. It establishes the BBC as a public corporation and sets out its powers. It is not, as such, subject to parliamentary approval, but Parliament has an important role to play in the management and the role of the BBC.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that many of us on these Benches are broadly in agreement with what he said in his first two answers? Is he further aware that although we may differ from the Government, perhaps quite strongly, about how governors of the BBC should be appointed and how the Charter should clearly specify the powers of the board of governors and the board of management, we agree with the Government that the governors must he trusted to govern without meddlesome interference from any outside body?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an Important point. I hope that when we publish the Charter and the Agreement we shall address the noble Lord's concerns so that it is entirely clear what the role of the governors and the role of the board of management should be.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, has the noble Viscount noticed that under "No day named" I tabled a Motion to resolve the matter by saying that we should not have a Charter at all? It should be an Act of Parliament.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, if the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, achieves a debate, and if I am asked, I shall certainly reply to his proposal and we can discuss the issue then.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when it was first decided that the BBC should have a Royal Charter, sound broadcasting was in its experimental infancy? Television was not introduced until 30 years later. Is my noble friend aware that the BBC is now an influential and vital part of national life? Should not Parliament therefore have the right to decide in detail how it should operate and be governed?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the current Royal Charter, Licence and Agreement were dealt with in exactly the same way in 1981. The Government agree with the Select Committee in another place that the BBC should continue to be established by Royal Charter.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that while the Charter is not amendable and the Government can do no more than take it back if the opposition is sufficiently vociferous—which seems unlikely—the Agreement is amendable? Will the noble Viscount confirm that?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Agreement is not amendable. The Government would have to take back the Agreement and the Charter. I should point out to your Lordships that Parliament has an important role to play with regard to the BBC. The BBC submits its annual report and accounts to Parliament and Parliament sets the licence fee. The BBC's activities can be scrutinised by a Select Committee.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, do we not have too many interminable debates in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading by way of amendment? Do we want to add a new class of them?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend makes an important point. I am sure that when we come to discuss the Charter and the Agreement your Lordships will see the benefit of both.

Jewish Settlements in Arab Territory
2.49 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking in the United Nations Security Council and in the European Union to prevent the establishment and maintenance of illegal Jewish settlements in Arab territory.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we and our European Union partners have recently reaffirmed to both the Israeli Government and the United Nations Security Council our view that settlements are illegal and an obstacle to peace.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that unless something is done soon about the settlements there will be no chance of the peace process going ahead? I acknowledge, as the noble Lord said, that the

177
Government have protested to the Israeli Government that the settlements are illegal and a major obstacle to peace, but why do they decline to exert pressure on Israel? For instance, why do they not with their partners in Europe press Israel to stop building these settlements?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it was only last month when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was visiting Israel that he expressly said that the declaration of principles signed by Israel and the PLO made it clear that there should be no more settlement activity. We are committed to trying to bring the peace process forward. Throughout, our emphasis is on constructive involvement to try to bring about a successful outcome.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the issue of settlements is one of the very important issues which has to be resolved and which will, we hope, be resolved through negotiation between the parties concerned? Does he further agree that to raise matters of this kind externally on one side of the argument or another is no contribution to the peace process but rather the reverse?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I said in my reply to the previous question, it is our role to support the peace process. We shall do everything we can to try to bring about a successful conclusion.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Israel is a democracy and that Prime Minister Rabin cannot just give instructions to dismantle the settlements? Is he further aware that Prime Minister Rabin issued a statement after his meeting with Chairman Arafat on 19th January 1995 in which he stated that, as he had promised when he became Prime Minister, no new authorisation had been given regarding buildings in the settlements, expansion of the settlements or the acquisition of land?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is the case that the programme of settlement has been curtailed. However, there is great anxiety on this point both about possible private developments and also about ideas that are being floated for the expansion of these settlements. As the House will be aware, the matter of resolving these problems was set on one side in the declaration of principles to be dealt with in the permanent status negotiations which are due to start by May next year. It is important, as was stated in the declaration of principles, that no unilateral action is taken on either side to prejudice the final outcome.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Israeli Foreign Minister when in London last week said that some of these settlements would have to be dismantled? Does he agree that this is an extremely important step towards peace? Can he tell the House whether the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Peres, gave any indication as to the timetable for the dismantlement of some of these settlements, or indeed any details of which they would be?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important matter. I am not in a position to give
178
the House further details of the points raised but I shall be pleased to write to her with details if I can obtain them.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the endeavours of Mr. Yasser Arafat and the Israeli Prime Minister have been quite remarkable and that they are genuine in their endeavours to achieve peace? Both sides listen carefully to what the British Parliament has to say. If we can encourage them with regard to this one issue so that the land can be returned to its rightful owners, I feel sure that the British contribution can ensure peace in the Middle East and help both sides.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is undoubtedly the case that in January this year very severe pressures were put on the declaration of principles. Both leaders played a significant part in bringing matters forward. We must all be united in hoping to see a solution to this long-standing, extremely difficult and well nigh almost intractable problem.

Prisoners: Pastoral Care
2.54 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that, under prison rule 12(2), individual pastoral care of prisoners by ministers of religion has a role to play in cases of bereavement, marital stress or breakdown and other personal crises.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): Yes, my Lords. We welcome the unique and important contribution that chaplains and ministers of religion are able to make, along with other agencies, to the pastoral care of prisoners in times of personal crises.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that up until recently the amount of time that individual ministers gave to their pastoral duties within the prison system was a matter within their own discretion but that now contracts are being let by individual prison governors which specify the maximum number of hours which can be devoted to a prison by a given minister? Under those circumstances there is a lack of flexibility and a difference between one prison and another which are hindering the visiting ministers from carrying out the duties that are mentioned.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I am aware that as a result of the development of local management the arrangements now are made on a local basis. In setting the amount of time for which payment will be made regard is had to the requirements which are perceived to be necessary for a particular prison. They vary according to the different denominations which are predominant in various parts of the country. That is wholly without prejudice to the right of any minister to visit voluntarily without payment in addition to the hours for which he is paid.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, do I take it that the Government do not accept any responsibility for the

179
amount of religious worship—I use the word "religious" in its widest sense—that is provided in prisons? Do the Government accept any responsibility; or do they leave it to some governor, who might be an atheist?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, as the noble Earl, who takes an interest in these matters, knows, there are provisions both in statute and in the prison rules which deal with religious observance and so on in prisons. Having regard to the obligations under statute and under the rules, the local management decides the best way in which the resources should be used in a particular prison. For example, in some areas there may be a requirement for more Buddhists or more Moslems to be visited; in other areas, more Roman Catholics. It is entirely a matter for the governor, having regard to the obligations which are placed upon him.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is it really satisfactory that matters of this kind should be determined by the governor? I am all in favour, as I am sure all of us are, of giving as much authority to governors as possible, hut are we really contemplating a situation where a minister of religion could be excluded if he required payment for what might be fairly onerous services?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, these matters are discussed with the chaplains who liaise with the various denominations. As a result of that, agreements arc entered into in the local area. There is no question of ministers of religion being excluded from visiting any particular person. The only question that arises is the number of hours of service for which they would be paid. That is determined as a result of negotiations with the chaplains and with the various people who represent the faiths. It is a matter on which, so far as I am aware, agreement is generally reached.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can we be assured that, whatever the position with regard to payment might be, a minister of religion is free to come and go and to extend his work if he sees fit? We cannot surely be moving to a situation of payment by results in religion.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I give that assurance. Indeed I would underline that them is no question of that. The question of access is dealt with on the basis that, so far as it does not interfere with discipline and so on, there is free access. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, raised the question of the number of hours for which payment might be made. That is a different matter.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that it is profoundly unsatisfactory for him to say that ministers of religion can provide these services free? Is he further aware that in some prisons the amount of time that is allowed to be devoted to individual prisoners can be as low as 12 minutes per month? Does he not agree that the Home Office has a duty to consult representatives of all the faiths served
180
by visiting ministers in the prisons to see whether agreement can be reached on some common guidelines as to the level of service which ought to be provided?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I believe that it is true to say that the Home Office and the Prison Service have taken a lead in developing over the years a way of handling the various faiths which are now represented in the prison population. Indeed, they have produced directories of information, and so on, which have been a model not only to this country but to countries overseas as well. Therefore, I would reject any suggestion that this matter has not been dealt with sensitively. On the contrary, my understanding is that agreement and consultation are very much the order of the day.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Cumberlege will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on health services in London.
With the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two debates standing in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. Speeches in the first debate should be limited to a maximum of seven minutes and those in the second to a maximum of six minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate. It may also be for the convenience of the House if I remind noble Lords that when the clocks indicate six minutes, that means that six minutes have already elapsed and the seventh minute has in fact begun.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, as regards the Statement, I understood that the Procedure Committee decided some time ago that on the days when there are two short debates and a Statement had to be made it would be made between the two debates. Is that practice now being discontinued?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, where possible, it is the practice to continue to accommodate Statements between two debates when we have two short debates on a Wednesday. However, the decision was taken after considerable consideration and discussion with the usual channels. It was decided that it would be for the convenience of the House to have this debate earlier on in the afternoon rather than later.

Merchant Shipping Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Merchant Shipping Acts 1894 to 1994 and other enactments relating to merchant shipping. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Shipping and Trading Interests (Protection) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments for the protection of shipping and trading interests. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Financial Services (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to enable the Secretary of State to make available, and to publish, reports made by inspectors appointed under Section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Haskel.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Accommodation Level Crossings Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report
3.4 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 43).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. APPOINTMENT TO SUB-COMMITTEES

The Committee has appointed Lord Inglewood to the Refreshment Sub-Committee in place of the Earl of Arran who has resigned.

2. PROCEDURE FOR APPOINTING BLACK ROD

The Committee has agreed to a new procedure for the appointment of Black Rod, suggested by the Leader of the House with the agreement of the Lord Chamberlain.

3. ACCOMMODATION

The Committee has approved a reallocation of rooms on the Ground, Principal, First and Second Floors of the West Front as the final changes in the major review of accommodation which has been taking place during the last two years. The moves will take place during the 1995 Summer Recess.

This reallocation will result in Black Rod, his secretaries and the Yeoman Usher moving to the south end of the Principal Floor corridor, into rooms currently occupied by the Chairman of
182
Committees, his Counsel and the Private Bill Office. This will help to consolidate and improve the efficiency of Black Rod's Department. It will also enable the present offices of Black Rod and his secretaries to be allocated to the Opposition and Government Whips respectively.

The Convenor of the Cross Benches will move into the Opposition Whips' present office, which will be enlarged. The Chairman of Committees will move to the room at the very southern end of the Principal Floor.

There will also be a consolidation of the Parliament Office on the First Floor, West Front, and the rooms thereby vacated on the Second Floor will become available as Peers' Desk Rooms.

The Committee has also agreed—

—in principle, to the provision of Peers' Facilities Rooms housing a PDVN terminal, photocopiers and facsimile machines in areas where there are concentrations of Peers' Desk Rooms, and that locations should be identified after the 1995 Summer Recess;

—that the question of the provision of a Spouses' Room should be given further consideration, in the light of recent changes made by the Refreshment Sub-Committee to the rules governing facilities for spouses;

—that consideration should be given to relocating the Record Office Map Room, Bindery and Reprographic room outside the Palace of Westminster; and

—that all the changes recently approved have exhausted the hope of identifying any substantial further accommodation for peers within the Palace; and to invite Black Rod and the Director of Parliamentary Works to investigate the possibility of further infilling within the Palace, the acquisition of extra office space and alternative residential accommodation for Black Rod and the Yeoman Usher in the vicinity of the Palace.

4. EFFECT OF THE WORKS PROGRAMME OF PEERS

The Committee has been informed of the precautions being taken to minimise disturbance to Peers over the next twelve months; and has agreed that a display be mounted in the Royal Gallery early in May to outline the plans for the South East Return and Black Rod's Garden.

5. REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT PAY

The Committee has been informed of new arrangements for the grading of non-chef industrial posts in the Refreshment Department; of the introduction of a new staff reporting system to take effect on 1st April 1996; of a progressive annual reduction in working hours from 39 hours to 36 hours a week by 1st April 1997; of cash inducements to give up cash or weekly pay; and of a modification of the current profit sharing bonus scheme to take account of performance-related pay.

6. REVIEW OF THE ATTENDANTS

The Committee has been informed of an increase in the complement of, and of a new grade structure and shift system for, House of Lords Attendants, following a review of their grading and working practices.

7. STAFF OF THE HOUSE

The Committee has taken note of the early retirement of Mr C.A.J. Mitchell, Chief Clerk, and has expressed its appreciation for the twenty-seven years' service which he has rendered the House.

The Committee has agreed—

—the appointment of an additional Housemaid for 7 Old Palace Yard;

—the appointment of an additional Senior Clerical Officer in the Law Lords' Office;

—the appointment of an additional Executive Officer in the Computer Office;

183

—the extension of the post of part-time Architectural Archivist until July 1998; and

—the upgrading of the Parliamentary Works Directorate post of Project Sponsor from 7 to 6 for the duration of the Phase II development in Bridge Street; and of Deputy Director from 6 to 5, subject to review in 18 months' time on the current postholder's retirement.

The Committee has also agreed that the time-limited posts of Computer Executive, Deputy Computer Executive, Computer Assistant and part-time Senior Clerical Officer in the Computer Office be extended indefinitely.

8. REMUNERATION OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS

The Committee has noted that the Government's proposal that the pay of individual Permanent Secretaries in future be determined by a Remuneration Committee was not appropriate for determining the pay of the Clerk of the Parliaments. The Committee has therefore agreed that (in line with the salary of the Clerk of the House of Commons. the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration) the salary of the Clerk of the Parliaments should with effect from 1st April 1995 be fixed to that of a High Court Judge.

9. PAINTING OF THE HOUSE IN SESSION

The Committee has agreed to a proposal for a painting of the House in session.

The day to day management of the project will be undertaken by the Advisory Panel on Works of Art; decisions on finance and on the Lords to be included will be taken by a group consisting of the Chief Whips and the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of the Advisory Panel on Works of Art. It is the intention that the project should ultimately be self-financing.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I believe that it is in order to speak on this report. Very briefly, I have one or two points to make. I notice that in Paragraph 3, headed "Accommodation", there is a very substantial juggling of accommodation. Eventually, accommodation will be freed on the second floor and allocated as Peers' Desk Rooms. At some time before these jugglings are completed, the accommodation released on lower floors should be allocated to your Lordships for their Desk Rooms.
As regards Paragraph 4, entitled "Effect of the works programme on peers", I welcome the decision to make available an explanation to your Lordships as to what is going to happen in the coming 12 months. But why has that only just been suggested? The appalling chaos which intrudes itself in this place during Recesses ought to be explained so that we know what is going on. It is conceivable that at some time your Lordships may be able to suggest improvements to minimise the disturbance.
It is not only disturbance to your Lordships that should be reduced, but also disturbance to my blood pressure. Those of us who use Chancellor's Gate will have seen that transparent glass blocks have been laid on several parts of the pavement in order to let light into the cellars. Having laid these blocks, a few weeks later they were taken up and the glass changed from transparent to opaque. The cost of that must run into several thousands of pounds. I shall be grateful if the Chairman of Committees can explain to the House what happened on that occasion.
184
Finally, on Paragraph 9, "Painting of the House in session", for one moment I had a terrible feeling that all this redecoration is going to intrude on us while in Session. But having read the item more closely I see that it is to be a portrait of the House in Session. It is stated that there is "a proposal for a painting". Can the Chairman of Committees tell us where the proposal comes from?
I then read that Members of your Lordships' House to be included in the painting are to be selected by,
"Chief Whips and the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of the Advisory Panel on Works of Art".
On what criteria is that selection to be made? Bearing in mind the precedent in the other place when a painting was made of the House in Session—those who were left out were so jealous and created such an enormous fuss that a second painting had to be done—can the Chairman of Committees tell us whether there are any contingency plans for that?
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a small point about the soundings which are taken among noble Lords when works are carried out in the building. Some time ago the telephone booths were removed. It is necessary for Peers to make private calls from time to time near the Chamber, but it is almost impossible to do so. We lost that whole batch of telephone booths. All the directories were removed to a small corridor near the main telephone booths to the left of the Peers' Lobby. I do not know whether any noble Lords have tried to look up a telephone number there. There is nowhere on which to put the book. One has to stand with the telephone directory held up and turn the pages over. It is quite impossible to find a number if one cannot get into one of the booths to put the book down.
When these minor works are carried out there should be some sounding out among Peers on how they feel about them. As far as I know, nobody has been asked about the removal of the booths or about the difficulties which have been created because of where the telephone directories have been placed. I hope that the Chairman of Committees will look into this and ensure that in future when this kind of work is carried out some people are consulted beforehand.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a question on Paragraph 5, "Refreshment Department Pay". It refers to,
"a progressive annual reduction in working hours from 39 hours to 36 hours a week by 1st April 1997".
Does that mean that there will be a reduction in take home pay for the staff involved? Were they or their representatives consulted regarding the change? If they were, were their proposals considered and accepted?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, both the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, and the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, asked questions relating to disruption being caused in the course of the works. These matters of major works go back to recommendations which were made by the appropriate committee as long ago as the end of 1993 and the very beginning of 1994. It was envisaged and explained then

185
that there would be certain disruption. I am very conscious, as are the committees themselves, of the need to keep that disruption to a very minimum.
I can certainly inform your Lordships that it was envisaged at that time that there would be a certain amount of disruption and it was decided that rather than take a fast course for the works, which would have been particularly disruptive, or a slow course, which would have delayed considerably the improvements sought by your Lordships, a middle course should be taken. The intention and the hope is that any disruption will be confined, as far as heavy work is concerned, to the two Recesses and lighter work to term time. I emphasise that it was envisaged that there would be disruption because in order to seek the improvements which your Lordships require it is necessary that the work be carried out as speedily as possible. However, I assure your Lordships that the disruption will be kept to an absolute minimum.
To answer the first question of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, I believe that the report of the Offices Committee explains what is to happen on the Principal Floor. The Lower Floor has been considered previously by your Lordships. If I can help the noble Lord on any particularly detailed points, I shall either speak to him outside the Chamber or write to him with further details about the arrangements for the Lower Floor. The Lower Floor does not feature in the report of the Offices Committee which is now before the House.
I am afraid that I cannot immediately help the noble Lord with his second question. However, I shall make inquiries and I shall hope, and seek, to satisfy him once I have made those inquiries.
The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, also asked about the painting. It has been suggested that, if the Motion is passed, the system outlined in the report of the Offices Committee should be followed—that is to say, the day-to-day arrangements for the painting will be in the hands of your Lordships' Advisory Panel on Works of Art, under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. Other details, such as financial matters and the question of which Members shall appear in the painting, will be left to the group, as was suggested in the report. It is true that there will have to be further consideration about the details of the allocation. I envisage that that will be a matter for the usual channels. It will, no doubt, be an awkward decision to make because it is envisaged that the number of your Lordships who will be able to appear in such a painting will be limited to around 250, so some selection will be needed.
If the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, will forgive me, I shall not venture into a comparison with another place, but it might be of some assistance to your Lordships to know that, informally, a group of your Lordships' Deputy Speakers considered the matter before the weekly meeting last Thursday. I say "informally" because, as Deputy Speakers, they have no locus in such decisions. We were conscious of the limitation on the number of Members who would be likely to appear in such a painting. We also ventured to consider the question of the artist. It was thought—I should not dream of revealing by whom—that if we were to have a Lowry-type artist, it might be possible to include all of
186
your Lordships. Another noble Lord immediately volunteered the suggestion—again, I should not think of revealing his identity—that if we were to have a Lowry-type artist, some of your Lordships—I cannot think why he said this! —might be flattered to be portrayed in such a way. As one who used to be as thin as a rake, I am moving rapidly, with age, in that direction. I commend the Motion to the House—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, before the Chairman of Committees sits down, will he deal with the point that I raised?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I have a note of his intervention. It is indeed the case that the staff concerned with those proposals were consulted beforehand, and I understand that the proposals were acceptable. Perhaps I can write to the noble Lord on his detailed point about the amounts involved. I apologise to the noble Lord for not including him in my earlier remarks. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health Authorities Bill
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion on the Order Paper standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage of the Health Authorities Bill be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3 and 4,

Schedule 2,

Clause 5,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 6 to 10.—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Probation Officers: Recruitment and Training
3.15 p.m.
Viscount Tenby Viscount Tenby rose to call attention to the Government's proposals for the recruitment and training of probation officers; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the Motion perhaps I may say how grateful I am for having been presented with the opportunity of raising this subject now at the beginning of what is a comparatively short discussion period on the Government's proposals for the recruitment and training of probation officers. In passing, perhaps I may also say that I am delighted that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham has

187
decided to make this debate the occasion of his maiden speech. I am sure that we all await his comments with the greatest interest.
Although, to some, probation may appear a somewhat specialised and peripheral part of the criminal justice system, that is not the case. Most disposals of criminal and associated matters are settled in the magistrates' courts. Perhaps here I should disclose an interest as a magistrate although I stress that the views I express are purely personal and in no way representative of magistrates as a whole. In all those courts, the probation service plays a critical and constructive role. But that is not all. It is also active in the higher courts, in prisons, and in after-prison care. Its presence is crucial in family court proceedings.
There are approximately 7,000 staff in the probation service, dealing with a variety of offenders, totalling some 140,000. That can be compared to the rapidly rising—the daily rising—prison population which now stands at about 51,000. The House will see the importance of the service and note its relatively low cost to the nation of about £450 million as against the £1.6 billion spent on custody. In short, the well-being and competence of the probation service are essential to the smooth running of this country's criminal justice system.
Over the past few years, the Government have succeeded in alienating, or at least irritating, most elements of the system: judges, banisters, magistrates, the police and the prison service. I gave thanks in my simple way that the probation service had at least been spared their attentions. That was a naive conclusion, indeed, for the proposals contained in the Government's recent review of probation officer recruitment and qualifying training have succeeded in uniting all relevant practitioners in opposition to them.
The basic propositions, which I put as simply as I can, are that the recruitment net should be cast wider to catch those who today might wish to become probation officers but who are deterred by the current restrictive educational conditions, and that training should be better suited to the work in hand. I believe that both objectives are ill-conceived and fly in the face of current facts and experience. There is no shortage of recruits for the places available. Incidentally, there are now fewer places following a cut of some £17 million last November in the budget. It is by no means clear that the service is losing out in obtaining the mature recruits who are said to be wanted. In 1993, for example, over half the recruits entering the service were over the age of 30 and more than 40 per cent. had had previous work experience.
We are left, therefore, seeking other explanations for the Government's intention to dismantle a system which all the other parties involved agree is working satisfactorily. I shall return later to that important point. Broadly speaking, the Government have said that their objectives are to free up entry into the probation service; to dispense with outmoded and unnecessary qualifications, linked to the broader spectrum of the social services; to make it possible for older and more mature applicants with already proven relationship skills to join the service; to close down the two-year courses
188
at certain universities and transfer the responsibility for training packages to regional consortia within the service; and, finally, through those changes, to match service recruitment and service needs.
Given this far-ranging blueprint, one may be forgiven for thinking that the present service is in a bit of a mess, full of people of fashionable social service ideas and dogma, numerically unbalanced as between the various sexual, racial and class elements in our society, and indifferent to the presence of potential recruits of great experience clamouring to get in but unable to do so because they are not paid-up members of the social services club. That may be the perception in certain quarters where there is an inbuilt belief that the probation service is in some way soft, but it is a picture that I and, I suspect, many others do not recognise.
I have been a magistrate in Hampshire for over 20 years, during which time I have enjoyed the professional and constructive advice of the local probation service. I recall comparatively few occasions when I and my colleagues have not followed, at least in principle, the advice offered to us. Perhaps I have been lucky in that respect, but I do not believe my experience to be unique. There is no organisation in the country that does not bear repeated examination; nor is there one which, with a tweak here or a bit of fine-tuning there, cannot be turned into something better. If there are faults in the probation service and all are agreed on the diagnosis, let the matter be remedied. No doubt in such a frame of mind the Home Office invited the Industrial Society to review probation recruitment and training last summer. The society's verdict was:
"Our research suggests that the probation service is very effective in the training and recruitment methods it employs. None of the professions we looked into had better links with the education bodies delivering the training."
It is those links the Government propose to sever. Although the proposals are up for discussion over the next seven weeks, the relevant universities have already been informed that courses are being discontinued in October 1996 at the start of the academic year. That is what I call consultation!
In passing, it is extraordinary that the Government should seek to discontinue courses without the knowledge upon which one expects such decisions to be based. I quote from the Dews Report, the internal Home Office scrutiny conducted after the Industrial Society's survey:
"In allocating the quota of sponsorships to different universities and colleges the Home Office has no systematic information about the quality of different courses."
Why on earth not? Is that not the kind of information on which one bases any decision relating to such courses and whether or not they should be continued? The government discussion paper makes clear that the discontinuance of university courses and the consequent obligation upon probation officers to obtain a diploma in social work will help to reassure those of mature years seeking a second career in probation that such an ambition will not be unduly delayed in future. That fear may be present, but the fact that currently more than 50 per cent. of diploma in social work students are over the age of 30 scarcely supports the theory.
On the other hand, it may well be the case that the increase in the number of mature women who apply—I am aware that in some quarters there is a feeling that at present there may be rather too many of them for a proper balance—is due to the fact that, with the removal of the training salary in recent years and its replacement by university grant, not unnaturally some men of mature years with family obligations simply cannot afford to make the financial sacrifice.
One thing is sure. The elimination of the requirement to obtain a diploma in social work will undervalue probation officers, run the risk of discouraging high-calibre entrants and, most seriously of all, pose the threat, with the removal of university standards of excellence—particularly marked in the case of the probation service—of a fall in standards throughout the service at the very time when they are most in need of rising.
Because the implications of the many new criminal justice Acts which pour from Whitehall in a seemingly never-ending stream will require new skills, it is argued that probation officers should not be tied to predetermined university courses. But one of the matters that distinguishes the relationship between the teaching at these universities and the needs of the service itself is the practical co-operation between the two parties that is so effectively overseen, as required by statute, by the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. In September of this year yet more changes will be brought into effect in the syllabus—I believe for about the third time in recent years—to take account of government requirements and recent legislation.
It has been said by some—and the point may be made again today—that it is unnecessary for probation officers to have such a diploma when it is not mandatory in the wider field of social services. But that world encompasses a vast range of services of varying skills. It would be neither practical nor useful to make it a blanket requirement in such circumstances. On the other hand, the work of the probation officer is precise and highly specialised. The demands that it makes upon its practitioners can be adequately recognised and measured only by structured higher education and the award of a diploma. I cannot emphasise enough that that is of critical importance in ensuring that the work is validated by an outside body.
It is only too easy to condemn proposals across the board. I shall try to be helpful in the few areas where that may be possible. The idea of regional co-operation between probation areas is a constructive one, which I feel sure can benefit the service. But if the Government are hell bent on making some changes, if only to indicate action in response to a perceived shortcoming, I beg them not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Why should easier entry for mature recruits preclude people who wish to pursue a long-term career in probation from obtaining a professional qualification? I say to those who fear that the two streams cannot exist side by side and that it will create a "them and us" divisiveness that they must have the courage and imagination to try to make it work.
I must refer in passing to the proposals issued in the middle of last month by the Government in relation to community sentencing. If implemented, they will raise the number of criminal justice Acts to about seven since 1986. One is almost tempted to think that the Home Secretary must be on a productivity bonus—or not, as some may feel. The proposals are not part of the present debate but if they are implemented they must have considerable repercussions on a probation service already trying to come to terms with the changes we are discussing, if the Government are unwise enough to pursue them.
I made the point earlier, to which I promised to return, that we should perhaps look elsewhere to discern the real reasons behind the Government's proposals. Indeed, the gaffe—if I may use the appropriate vernacular—has already been blown by a newspaper article at the end of February. That article called for the recruitment of more ex-servicemen and women as a means of instilling greater discipline into the service. Such new recruits, experienced as they are, will not naturally need some airy-fairy social service diploma; indeed, its requirement will be a positive deterrent to men and women who are bursting to get up and go. Perhaps I may again pray in aid Hampshire. Since it is the home of the Army and the Royal Navy, it has more than a passing knowledge of ex-servicemen and their many attributes. I am delighted to say that some already serve in the local probation service and are much valued. Do you know what they say? They say that, although their previous experience has proved useful to some degree, nothing they have done before quite equips them for what they have to do now. In view of the fact that their new areas of responsibility include drug and sexual abuse, family breakdowns and mental illness, that is hardly surprising, mercifully. Naturally, they have to receive extensive state of the art training in those areas.
In short, we are left with The inescapable conclusion that an entry and training system which has been refined over many years and which works, according to the Industrial Society and the people who have to implement it, will be dismantled, not through cost implications, for reasons of efficiency or because of a shortfall in numbers recruited, but as part of the ceaseless activity on every front which the Government so often mistake for a coherent policy on crime and its prevention. That policy will be damaged to a considerable extent if the proposals are implemented. I beg to move my Motion for Papers.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I must first declare an interest, in that I am president of the Rayner Foundation, which invented and founded the probation service and which has been much involved with it throughout its life. In that honourable position I had the honour to succeed the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, whose service to this country's criminal justice system is unique.
I thank, as I am sure the whole House will, the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for raising this subject. The probation service is not just an integral part but is a vitally important part of our criminal justice system.

191
I imagine that the Government were already aware, before today's debate, of the dismay and the strong opposition which their recruitment and training proposals have caused within the probation service, and not just within the probation service itself but within many of our universities, and, collectively, in the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. My plea to the Government is to take those fears and objections very seriously indeed; do not, whatever happens, just dismiss them, let alone ride roughshod over them.
I am not for one moment saying to the Government, "Do not make any changes". Indeed, all governments have a duty to make changes if they believe that changes are necessary. What I am saying to the Government is that, in making changes, they should think deeply and clearly; discuss fully and carefully with those involved; and at least seek hard to arrive at some agreement before implementing them.
I am a strong believer in the need for change in changing conditions. Indeed, earlier in my political career I was a joint author of a book called Change is our Ally, but successful change needs to be evolutionary, not revolutionary. Upsetting applecarts is not usually a good way to make progress.
How do the Government intend to proceed? I hope that we shall hear a detailed account of how they intend to proceed from my noble friend the Minister when he winds up. In their discussion document issued in February, the Government invited comments up to 26th May. That seemed to promise a reasonable opportunity for genuine consultation and discussion. But, as has already been said by the noble Viscount, in that same document the Government appeared to announce a firm decision—not for consultation—that after the beginning of the next academic year no further probation stream students would be sponsored through the universities.
If that decision is a firm and final one, it kills the present system stone dead. So what is there of substance left to discuss? It seems to show the offer of consultation to be no more than a sham. I do not believe that the Government intend to do that. I certainly hope not. So I beg my noble friend when winding up tonight to make it clear that there will be genuine discussions, which there cannot be if that decision is held over them as a final decision.
The present arrangement has been operating since only 1992 —barely three full years. Moreover, it is clearly still developing and changing in that evolutionary way that we want. Starting this September, I understand, it is intended to boost major developments within the current system; for university courses to be taken on a part-time, and not just a full-time basis; to be non-residential if required; to make use of distance learning; and for the system to make more adequate allowances for the previous experience of a mature candidate transferring in mid-life.
The object of those further developments—which are occurring within the system, not despite it, and helped by it—is to make it easier than it may be at the moment for older men and women who started life in all sorts of other careers to join the probation service if they have a calling to do so. I thought that that was just what the Government wanted, and want, to happen. It is
192
happening under the present system and, with good will and a bit of a push, it can happen more and more. There is no need to upset the applecart in this way. So why tear up by the roots this relatively new system which is developing satisfactorily? It is particularly difficult to understand when the evidence provided to the inquiry conducted by the Home Office by the assessor that the Home Office itself appointed (the Industrial Society) gave the present system such an excellent bill of health. The noble Viscount mentioned some details of that.
So all, I thought, was going well and going in the direction of change which the Government believe to be necessary. Therefore I beg the Government to listen hard and to think hard before committing themselves too easily to this charge into the valley of such acute dispute with a profession so dedicated and united on this matter as is the probation service.
I see, and I understand, the changes which the Government seek. They want the age structure and the breadth of background of the probation service to be broadened. But I am convinced that they could achieve that successfully by developing and working on the present system and not by destroying it, with all the ill will that that will cause. So I beg the Government to think hard and to realise that what the service wants desperately and will fight to the end over is to maintain its genuine professional status, which means that the training must include a genuine higher education element and a qualification which is validated independently and not just by the employer.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, in view of the limitation on time, as a precursor I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, whose analysis raised many of the points which would otherwise have taken time. I ask a question about the nature of this document. If the noble Viscount had not used the procedures of the House, would the House have had a chance to debate this discussion document? What do the Government have in mind? They were going to discuss the proposals with those interested. Were they going to discuss them with us? I congratulate the noble Viscount on giving us the chance to do that.
I want to talk principally about the nature of the discussion paper. I have spent some time looking at it in the past three or four days. What is it for? May 26th, and the discussion is over! Are all the points to be discussed and analysed? An administrative document—not a White Paper—written by civil servants in the Home Office is what has appeared. It is to be discussed within a matter of weeks. There are profound aspects of the matter to be discussed. As has already been made clear, a major change is to take place from the beginning of the next academic year. Can that be altered? The decision has already been taken. What is the point of discussing the matter? There are other points of discussion within the document. Is it a fait accompli? Are we wasting our time?
At page 17, paragraph 2.2, the document states:
"over a number of years there have been doubts in the Home Office … about … social work qualifications".

193
Who in the Home Office has had such doubts and why have they not been declared previously?
The introduction to the paper, which does not augur well for the future, states:
"This review has been undertaken on behalf of the Home Office who were concerned".
When before the war I was earning money as a pupil teacher I would have put a line through that straight away. But who were concerned about the matter? How can we analyse the situation unless we have the evidence? The report is only a partial analysis.
The report explains that 12 per cent. of the respondents—that is the probation officers—were of Afro-Caribbean and Asian origin and that that is well out of proportion to the population as a whole. Only 12 per cent. responded. When I visit prisons I find a high proportion of Afro-Caribbean men. It is valuable to have Afro-Asian probation officers to deal with the problem.
The report states:
"A high proportion of the offenders are black".
I thought that I detected a slight racial overtone, or undertone, in that. Whatever the situation in respect of the number of women, if there is a problem it should be attended to. One should not attempt to alter the situation by doing what is proposed in the document.
All noble Lords have received advice from probation officers and universities up and down the country, and I am grateful. I have received advice from the probation service in West Yorkshire, with which I have had close contact for the past 30 years. It is a good service and perhaps I may quote from a document that I received from its members based on their practical experience. Commenting on the point about younger people beginning their careers, the document states:
"Eighty per cent. of recruits are aged 27 or over and entering a second career".
That does not sound like young people in the sense in which we are talking. As regards the issue of more military personnel and police officers being encouraged to join, those in the West Yorkshire service point out that many former Armed Forces personnel, engineering workers, police, company directors, prison officers and rugby league professionals are involved. It may be a good thing to have former military personnel laying the law down and I should not like to have the law laid down by a former rugby league professional.
The deputy manager of a hostel in Leeds—I know him well—is a former regular Army warrant officer. At present he is a quartermaster in the TA and he states:
"It took a while to adapt from military attitudes. Most of the men in this hostel don't want to be here. We are intervening in their lives and the way to change their behaviour is through advice and persuasion and not by ordering them about".
If there is a weakness in recruitment and cost, do something about it. I do not find the document up to the standard that I expect from the Home Office. It is not a document on which to work out what to do. I do not have time to develop my argument at length but perhaps
194
I may refer to a point which arises on pages 22 to 23. The report praises the work of the Central Council for Education and Training. Then it states:
"There is considerable criticism of CCETSW. One commentator described it as running a 'crusade for social reform' which (when combined with the internal politics of social work departments) led to courses more concerned with ideology than with teaching skills for dealing with offending behaviour".
I hope that vice-chancellors read the document because there is a gratuitous criticism of university teaching by civil servants at the Home Office. I presume that they visited all the social work departments or perhaps they listened to this one chap, whoever he is. I ask merely for a chance for us to study the document. Can we not have a Select Committee? Can we not probe and ask questions about the document? It is not the way to make major changes after 26th May.
3.44 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I follow two former Home Secretaries and therefore I approach the debate with considerable humility. I wish to confine myself to training and the type of courses for probation officers. When I read the Home Office review of probation officer recruitment, it became clear that in approaching the review of training the Home Office was influenced by the thinking and development of national vocational qualifications. The aim of the qualifications is to test the adequacy of people for a job by testing their competence on the job.
I am very much in favour of the development of the national vocational qualifications. For my sins, I am chairman of the lead body for the administration of NVQs. Therefore, I am well aware of the difficulties involved. A major criticism, which is highly relevant to the subject we are discussing today, is that under the proposed system it is difficult to test the adequacy of the knowledge and understanding required by professionals for the jobs they undertake. That is the core of the matter.
The criticism has come from many sources. The noble Viscount may be aware, for instance, of the work of Professor Smithers at Manchester University. His is only one of many voices. They have raised the difficulty of finding out under this system whether people have an adequate knowledge and understanding.
What is the knowledge and understanding that probation officers require? There can be no doubt that, first and foremost, probation officers deal with human behaviour—in particular, human misbehaviour—in complicated social situations. Probation officers need to be trained to dissect, analyse and understand that human behaviour and the way in which people who have transgressed may be able to return to a normal law-abiding life.
Human behaviour and misbehaviour in social settings is the very stuff of which the studies of psychology and sociology are comprised. Those subjects continue to be studied in universities throughout the country and have been so for many decades. Probation officers need to be well drilled in those subjects. How can they be well drilled unless the drilling takes place in institutions of higher education? In such institutions continuing

195
research is being undertaken and the various points of view, attitudes and studies can be discussed and challenged. Above all, those studies, which are essential and at the core of the work of probation officers, can be linked with their practical training on the job.
Such relationships between the theoretical study and the practical training are at the heart of good training in this area. That is being done well by university departments which have experience in the subject. Such linkage between practical training and academic study is of great value from both angles. The practical work illuminates the theoretical study; the theoretical study enables the practitioner to have greater insight into the practical sphere. There is no substitute for theoretical study in an objective higher education atmosphere together with its linkage, properly devised with the practical work.
Some people may say that such training in psychology and sociology is all airy-fairy stuff, that probation officers do not need it and that their job is a matter of common sense. Indeed, that thought appears to run through the report. If that is what the Home Secretary is saying, as appears to be reflected in the newspapers, he is in the position of the man who discovered that for all his life he had been talking prose. When the Home Secretary says that "prison works" and that what is required is "tough punishment" and "tough supervision" he is making a psychological statement, whether he knows it or not. We might call it "Howard's theory of deterrence". In a proper university setting, "Howard's theory of deterrence" would be examined along with all the other theories of deterrence and motivation on which psychologists and sociologists have been working for decades. He cannot escape from that.
It may be said also that on-the-job training is adequate. In the industrial field, where I have more experience of training than in the area of probation, that is well known as "sitting next to Nellie". There have been some extremely good Nellies. Our old apprenticeship system was based on sitting next to Nellie. The good Nellies did a very good job but the bad Nellies were a total disaster, and we all know they were. In my own experience, many years ago, I remember using a Nellie to train a new office worker. In that case, the Nellie was heard to say, "I discovered the best way to do this job. Why on earth should I tell her?" That is not an unknown attitude of the Nellies who are lumbered with training.
There is no substitute for proper training in the essential understanding of those enormously difficult problems. They are difficult because of the nature of human beings and they are difficult because of the extremely complex social society which we now have. I beg the Government to tear up that ridiculous document; to have proper discussions; and not to cancel the university courses until those discussions have genuinely taken place.
3.51 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, with all the buffetings that Bishops receive, I find it very restorative to be in such a polite and courteous place as
196
your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, I make my maiden speech with considerable trepidation because I am all too aware of the wisdom that I find in the scriptures:
"As the work of the potter is tested in the kiln,
so a man is tried in debate…
Do not praise a man till you hear him in argument,
for that is the test".
With regard to this debate, I must declare a personal interest as a member of the Council of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and as chairman, since 1988, of its Young Offenders Committee.
Today we are considering the recruitment and training of probation officers. That is a matter of concern not only to probation officers themselves, and not only to the people who are placed under their supervision and whose needs require a properly professional service. The public at large also has an interest in the recruitment and training of probation officers because of the public's proper expectation that offenders who are supervised in the community should be supervised effectively. Therefore, it is a matter of concern to us all that probation officers should be adequately and appropriately equipped for the exacting professional task which they are charged to fulfil on our behalf.
As we have already heard, the Government propose to make far-reaching changes to the way in which probation officers are to be recruited and trained. They want to ensure that a wider range of people than at present should be enabled to work as probation officers. That in itself is a laudable proposal as long as professional standards are not put in jeopardy. They also wish to remove the training of probation officers from the universities and so from their long established links with social work training. That is a more controversial matter which I shall not pursue today. Nevertheless, I hope that I may be allowed to reflect for a few minutes on what we know about the tasks which probation officers have to undertake; about the characteristics of those whom they have to supervise in the community; and about the skills and attitudes which are therefore required of them.
The work of probation officers is varied. They prepare reports for criminal courts. They undertake supervision of a variety of offenders serving community sentences or after release from prison. They have an important role in assessing the best interests of children caught up in divorce proceedings.
Their case-loads include large numbers of people with a multiplicity of personal and social difficulties. One in 10 has been in a psychiatric hospital. One in three misuses drugs. Half of them drink too much or are addicted to alcohol. Only about one in five will be in waged employment. Many of the others will be living in conditions of poverty. This is particularly true of some of the younger offenders in question, notably those 16 and 17 year-olds for whom no income support may be available.
It is of course true that we are talking about people who have committed offences, sometimes serious offences, and that crime deserves punishment. But most of those offenders will not have committed crimes so serious as to

197
send them to prison, or if they do go to prison, it will generally be for a fairly short period. So whether they go to prison or not, they will soon be back in the community, and that is where they must be helped to learn to live constructively and without breaking the law.
Helping such people to live constructive lives in the community: that is the work of probation officers. It goes without saying that it is no easy task—responding to chaotic, disorganised people who will not do as they are told and who find it difficult to get up in the morning, let alone apply for work, attend interviews or keep appointments. They are people with little stake in society and therefore with little sense of responsibility to it or for it. Working with such people requires dedication, patience and skill, firmness and humanity, and proper professional expertise. Those are qualities to be found in abundance among probation officers. To do their work they need the kinds of skills which can motivate people, which can raise their spirits when life looks bleak, which can help them to take responsibility for their actions and which can encourage them to take opportunities to change for the better. It takes very special qualities to be able to exercise those skills day in, day out, with people whom everybody else has written off. It also takes a thorough and appropriate training.
Some of your Lordships may have seen the research which was published last year by the Policy Studies Institute into persistent young offenders. That small but intractable group illustrates at their sharpest the human problems which face probation officers. There is wickedness, yes, but there is also terrible sadness. That research revealed a picture of fractured and dispersed families, of weak relationships, of children seldom at school and, indeed, rarely in touch with the world of adults at all. Strengthening relationships with home, with school, with work, helping offenders to become aware of the consequences of their action—that is the stuff of work with offenders. It is demanding; it takes time; it does not always succeed. But unless such work is undertaken, supported and maintained, there is little prospect of young people turning away from crime.
I hope that there is no need to defend the importance and value of supervision in the community. There is plenty of evidence to show that supervision in the community can be effective in reducing re-offending and so protecting the public. I am told that a recent summary of research found that, while the re-conviction rates for community sentences as a whole are not strikingly better than those for custodial sentences, better targeted and organised programmes can make a considerable difference in terms of re-offending by as much as 20 or 30 per cent. Just as important, research has found that, compared with custodial sentences, community sentences do not generate long-term negative impacts on those who have been sentenced. By contrast, custodial sentences have been found to be linked to increasing social problems in the period following release from custody. That is not good news if we hope not only to respond to the crimes of the past but also to reduce the incidence of crime in the future.
198
For my conclusion I should like to be more overtly theological. All social questions are questions about the nature of human beings. They therefore, in the Christian view, have an inescapably theological dimension. Human beings are made in the image of God, and they find their true fulfilment in love for God and one another. It follows from this that we may write no one off. The image of God is indeed marred in every one of us, but it is also capable of re-creation by the renewal of relationship, trust, responsibility and love—but all at immense cost. If we write anyone off as beyond redemption or rescue, we are writing off not only our own flesh and blood, but the flesh and blood which, according to Christian faith, God made his own in the body of his Son. Next week the Church will keep Good Friday, which will remind us not only of the uncertainties of all human justice, but of the compassion and justice of God and of the true dignity of man.
That, in the end, is what we are talking about when we discuss things like the recruitment and training of probation officers. Probation officers need training which is appropriate to the true nature of a role which is grounded in our duty to the dignity, the frailty, the responsibility and the capacity of our own flesh and blood.
4 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it is my privilege to congratulate and thank the right reverend Prelate on behalf of the whole House even though, with time being so short, I cannot say more than that his speech was a most impressive one, based on great knowledge. I hope that we shall hear the right reverend Prelate speak again in terms of equal quality, given—if I may be forgiven a personal note—the fact that we are both honorary fellows of the same Cambridge college.
The Oxford dictionary says that the characteristic principle of the Conservative Party is the maintenance of existing institutions, but I do wonder a bit when I think of local government, the police, the health service, education and, alas, the Civil Service. Now it is turn of the probation service.
In thinking about today's debate, I recalled that when some years ago it was decided, regrettably, to transfer the children's department from the Home Office to the DHSS, we had to consider what should be done about the comparatively small probation service. For a brief moment we even wondered whether we should follow the Scots, do away with it as a separate service and roll-up the duties with the rest of the social services—a course which, I imagine, would not have commended itself to the present Home Secretary. But, in the end, we concluded that, for England and Wales, it would be best to keep a separate service and develop a high level of training. After some experimentation, that is what I thought had been achieved. No service is perfect, and some of the criticisms in the Dews Report are perfectly valid. But there seems to be precious little evidence that, in general, the courts are dissatisfied with the service. I am glad to say that my noble friend Lord Acton, who is to speak later, will be able to give the House the fruits of the research project which the Government have so far declined to publish. Like everyone else, I read the

199
blessing conferred by the Industrial Society. The Government tend to be a hit unlucky when they go for advice to outside experts.
I am not sure that quite so many people as might be supposed share this Government's passion for sending as many people as possible to prison, but there is probably some feeling that non-custodial punishments are a soft option. It is the Green Paper, not being debated today, which tries to address that issue. As regards today's topic, we are dependent on a newspaper report that the Home Secretary has said that he is looking for retired Army officers who would not stand any nonsense and would provide more discipline. A difficulty, though, is that no one will apply, or stay, unless he or she has some sense of mission. One does not take on the task of supervising a group of resentful youths clearing out overgrown ditches on a wet Saturday afternoon unless one really believes that it is all worthwhile.
Anyway, there is much more to probation work than community service, including the supervision of discharged prisoners some of whom are murderers who have served long terms in prison and who now have to re-establish themselves in the community. There is also the question of advising on the best interests of children in family disputes.
The trouble is that the individuals with whom the probation service is concerned are not just people who happen to have had a brush with the law. They can be drug takers, alcoholics, mentally ill, unemployed, homeless and possibly the victims of crimes themselves. To deal with such a variety of human behaviour calls for a high degree of skill and knowledge, perhaps going beyond the normal experience of an Army officer. It seems to me that simply to go back to direct recruitment, with in-service training leading to no qualification, carries great risks. It could discourage the good entrant so that we end up with probation officers who have had less training, who possess less skill and who are in greater isolation from other services in the community. The faithful in the party would no doubt greet with rapture any suggestion that life for criminals was to be made tougher. But the cheering would die away if one or two cases were to go badly wrong as a result of lack of expertise on the part of a probation officer.
I believe that the Government must take note of the fact, as we heard today, that two former Home Secretaries feel grave concern about the proposals. I am authorised to say that there is also a third Home Secretary who would like to join the other two. He is someone who happens to be president of a Welsh university which runs a successful diploma course. If, as I am sure, this is a genuine exercise in consultation, I join with others in asking the Government to think again.

Health Services in London
4.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the changes to the health service in
200
London which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"The decisions I announced yesterday follow four separate statutory consultation exercises about hospital changes in south and east London and around Barnet and Edgware. In each case, the decisions measure up against the Government's key objectives for improving the health service in London: to strengthen specialist services by concentrating them in centres of excellence; to preserve and enhance medical teaching and research in the capital; to provide more modem acute hospital services closer to the major centres of population; and to release money to increase investment in family doctor and community health services which are badly needed in parts of the capital.
"Those key elements of the Government's strategy will be familiar to the House. I set them out in a Statement at the time of the publication of the Tomlinson Report and again when I announced my response. They have been frequently debated. I said on those occasions and I say again: the objectives of this strategy enjoy widespread support within the clinical and academic worlds and from independent commentators such as the King's Fund. The need for change in london is widely recognised and widely recognised as long overdue.
"I hear and understand the concerns which have been expressed. We considered very carefully the points made during the consultations including those made by right honourable and honourable Members in their meetings with me and the Minister. I was, in particular, struck by the points made about the pace of change. The extended time-scale of some of the announcements yesterday respond to those points. Let me make it absolutely clear: no accident and emergency facility, or indeed any other, will close until Ministers are satisfied that the alternative facilities are not only available but capable of providing an improved service to patients.
"My right honourable friend asks specifically about the financial implications. The changes announced yesterday will be backed by £400 million of capital investment—that on top of the £210 million that we are already spending on improved primary care. This is substantial investment in a modern health service.
"That money will buy, among other things, a new NHS hospital for Greenwich, and an upgraded hospital in Barnet, complete with a state of the art accident and emergency department and a world-beating centre for neurosciences and neurosurgery at King's. It will support the changes at the Royal Hospitals Trust and Guy's and St. Thomas' which will develop them as centres of supreme excellence in treatment, teaching and research. In addition we are investing substantially in other hospitals such as the Homerton, Lewisham, King's and the Royal Free.
"Aside from the direct clinical benefits, we expect these changes to lead to substantial revenue savings which I estimate will be of the order of £75 million every year once the changes are complete. This is

201
money which can and will be invested elsewhere in the health service, both in community health services in London's areas of greatest need and outside the capital.
"I say to the House that, at the moment, rather than getting £75 million out we are putting in £28 million a year, supporting the duplication and fragmentation of services around the four areas covered by my announcement. That must be a good exchange by anyone's standards. As for St. Bartholomew's and the Royal London, the capital investment will total nearly £240 million. It is expected to deliver revenue savings of some £30 million a year. This compares to the current subsidy going into the trust of £8 million a year.
"I say this, however, in conclusion to my right honourable friend. The changes which I announced yesterday, and which carry forward our strategy, are not primarily about finance. They are about improving the quality of care. They are about better specialist services where medical expertise is enhanced by bringing clinicians together to benefit from each other's ideas. They are about better teaching and research—linking world-class hospitals to multi-faculty colleges. They are about equipping modern hospitals to respond more flexibly to the pressures they face and to harness the awesome advances in medical technology. And they are about providing more health care where Londoners most badly need it—in their communities, their doctors' surgeries, and the streets where they live.
"It is on this basis that I took these decisions. Change is not easy, but it would be harder for London if we do not change. These changes will build towards a first-class health service for London, fit for the 21st century, and they deserve the support of this House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating her right honourable friend's Statement. I am particularly pleased that she has done so because it gives your Lordships what is a rare chance to question the Government about important decisions in the NHS at the time they are made. It is somewhat ironic that the Statement has been forced out of the Government in another place on a day when yet another major NHS document has been published and circulated. It is particularly ironic that it is about openness in the NHS. However, today we are here to discuss the Statement which has been repeated by the Minister.
The Minister spoke in the context of the Tomlinson Report. Have the Government considered those reports which have been published and the inquiries which have been conducted since the Tomlinson Report and which give a rather different picture of the needs of London? I refer particularly to that which was conducted by the chief executives of the inner London health authorities, the one conducted by Professor Jarman, who considered whether London was underbedded or overbedded, and indeed the updated King's Fund report on the situation in London which does not entirely support the view of its earlier report, although it was of course that report
202
which stated that money for primary care should come up front before any other changes were made. I should like to ask the Minister whether the new changes pay due attention to the authoritative reports published since Professor Tomlinson made his suggestions.
As regards specific matters, the Statement says that no accident and emergency facility will close until Ministers are satisfied that alternative facilities are available and capable of providing improved services. Will the Minister comment on the situation at Guy's Hospital, one of those mentioned in the Statement as being subject to change, where I understand the A&E department, which has just had £1 million spent on it, is likely to be closed by 1999 without any suggestion being made for its further use? Will the Minister comment on the point about the need for investment in primary care before acute sector beds are closed? In the past Ministers have spoken about the inappropriate use—I think it has always been a rather inappropriate use of words —of A&E departments by Londoners because of the lack of primary care. However, as we all know, the lack of primary care is partly because it has not received substantial investment and there was no substantial improvement in services before these radical decisions were taken.
How much is known about the shift of resources between acute care and primary care which is supposed to lead to redistribution of services? I suspect that the situation in London is probably more like that which I know to exist in the health authority of which I am a member where the number of people registered with general practitioners has fallen in the past few years. So the ability to use primary care services has obviously fallen at the same time and A&E continues to be used "inappropriately".
Have the Government also considered the work done recently on the problems of homelessness in London and the work of the London task force on mental illness which again shows a particularly acute need for special services in London? The Minister will know that, as regards mental health beds, there have been several reports of bed occupancy being at 120 or 130 per cent. How can that possibly tie in with the closure of beds suggested in this report? How many beds will be closed as a result of the changes? How do we know precisely in what way need will be met by these, I am afraid, rather mythical improvements in primary care'? Is the money which is to be spent on more' capital investment in this field new money or—as I mentioned before—is it the result of a possible shift in resources which we do not know enough about?
In a debate in your Lordships' House last week on an amendment to the Health Authorities Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, a question was raised with regard to the need for a strategic health authority for London. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, who replied for the Government, said that the need for a strategic authority for London was probably redundant because a lot of the work that was needed was already being done by the London Implementation Group. She listed the particular concerns that the LIG had been looking at which included concentrating, developing and enhancing specialist healthcare services; taking action for

203
the benefit of teaching and research; and indeed improving primary and community health services. Somewhat surprisingly, the noble Baroness added that the work of the London Implementation Group is now complete. We know that the London Implementation Group will be disbanded in the very near future.
Can the Minister give any kind of end-of-term account of whether the London Implementation Group has been able to reveal the shift in resources and the improvements in the areas on which it has been concentrating in order to give us much greater confidence about these radical changes to acute services? I remind the Minister that although the Statement refers to the King's Fund as an authoritative source, she will know that the latest suggestion of that fund is that its judgment of the resources needed for London was greatly under-estimated. I ask the Minister to consider that these decisions are being taken in a rushed way without due concern for the long-term changes which need to occur before we can feel confident about the reduction in acute care beds in London. I echo the stance which has been taken on these Benches on many occasions. I believe there must be a moratorium on closures pending a full inquiry into all the health needs of London.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I do not wish to be carping but it seems to me a great pity that we should have to interrupt the debate on probation officers, which is an important subject, in order to turn our minds to another important subject. That surely is not the best way to consider matters which are of cardinal importance to a great many people.
I continue my grumbles by saying that this document was handed to me a few minutes ago. I understand that it was only available then. How one is expected to make any intelligent comments when the information arrives at such short notice, I do not know. This discussion surely could have been postponed until we had longer to think about the matter.
So many questions have already been asked by the noble Baroness, who knows a great deal more about the subject than I do, that I want only to emphasise one or two points. In particular, I should very much like to know and have some reassurance about what is meant by the words in the Statement that,
"no accident and emergency facility...will close until Ministers are satisfied".
Does that mean again that once Ministers are satisfied they will tell us what is to happen? Or does it mean that when a further report has been produced we shall be given the information and have an opportunity for a real discussion on the subject? It is not only in this context that we find the Government's understanding of the word "consultation" somewhat confusing, to say the least.
I should also like to ask what is really going to happen. It is tantalising. We are all extremely interested, and those of us who have been patients in some of the hospitals mentioned are particularly interested, to know what exactly will happen in respect of the amalgamation of Guy's and St. Thomas'. Or has that been abandoned? Everyone will be very interested to know. Whenever I go
204
to those hospitals I find that people are still confused. The staff are demoralised by the fact that nobody really seems to know what will happen. Is this not an opportunity to give people a clearer view of what is to happen?
Similarly, the Statement indicates that at St. Bartholomew's and the Royal London capital investment will total nearly £240 million. If the hospital is supposed to be running down or is ultimately to be closed, what is that £240 million to be spent on? Or will all the money go to the Royal London? Can the noble Baroness tell us?
Of course I accept, as a Londoner, that in the past certain parts of London have undoubtedly suffered from the inadequacy of primary health care. Nobody will deny that primary health care is the foundation stone of any health service. For example, those of us with experience of trying to look after seriously ill people at home who have wanted help in the night from the medical service have found it almost impossible to obtain the assistance one would hope would be available. If the changes mean that that situation does not arise in the future, most of us will be very grateful. Is that what is intended?
I am afraid that having read the Statement I am still very much in the dark as to what is to happen.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may address the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that this is a rare opportunity to debate the London questions. I remember very clearly having a major debate in this House on the health service in London and its future. Indeed, I remember on that occasion the noble Baroness making the very profound remark that nearly everyone who has looked at London's health services agrees with Sir Bernard Tomlinson's general conclusion that some rationalisation and reorganisation should occur. Therefore, we had some modest support from the noble Baroness at that time for major changes in London.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. That is a rather strange way to respond to what I said. I did not say that we had not had opportunities to discuss the situation in London. I said that it was useful to be able to look at a health service decision on the day it was taken. Of course I agree with what I said about Professor Tomlinson's report. However, I began my remarks by saying that many other people have reported since Professor Tomlinson. Have the Government taken any notice of those other reports whose conclusions have been somewhat different in making these decisions?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, of course we have listened to other people. Indeed, we have listened to the King's Fund. On 9th March this year Robert Maxwell, secretary of the King's Fund, said:
"Our own position is that the strategic objectives of current policies are largely correct but that great care is needed with the handling, sequence and pacing of changes".
As I said in the Statement, we have taken account of those comments, and others, in that we have ensured that in relation to Guy's and Bart's we have allowed more time to bring about these major changes so that they occur at a slower pace.

205
We have also listened to many other people in addition to Professor Jarman. The noble Baroness will remember that Professor Jarman's concerns were not so much with the loss of acute beds as with the fact that primary care in London was very poor. That is a conclusion with which your Lordships have agreed every time we have discussed the subject. He was also concerned that there were not enough long-term, continuing beds. The health authority of Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham has already received 650 applications for nursing home beds. Those are to be registered. The London borough of Lambeth is investing in 150 beds for long-term care. Therefore, we are trying to meet the problems that Professor Jarman outlined and are investing quite heavily at Guy's in mental health beds.
We have also listened very carefully to the independent specialty reviews that we ourselves commissioned. Dr. Chris Paine, president of the Royal College of Radiologists, said that he felt that there was a need for fewer, larger specialist centres, most closely linked to general hospitals, and that that would lead to a stronger service and research base than we have now.
In the cardiac review Professor Geoffrey Smith, president of the Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons, when studying care in London, said that none of London's existing 14 centres provided adult tertiary cardiac services which met the criteria laid down in all respects, and many fell well short.
Service, research and development and teaching considerations all point to the concentration of resources and expertise in fewer, larger centres.
I could go on and mention Mr. Rab Hide, chairman of the neurosciences review, and Professor Sir Norman Browse, president of the Royal College of Surgeons. They were at one in saying that there was a need for services in London to be reorganised to meet the needs of the 21st century.
We are investing very heavily in primary care. Your Lordships have always felt that that was the way forward for London. Over the next three years we shall invest £210 million in over 1,000 primary care projects. Some of those are nearing completion and others are under way. A huge amount of investment is taking place.
The London Implementation Group was always a time-expired body, as recommended by the King's Fund, when the commission produced its report. The major decisions have now been taken. The implementation of those decisions is up to the two regional health authorities and the district health authorities. We rely on our normal management processes and systems in order to do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked about accident and emergency units and consultation. Whenever we make major changes we have to consult. All the proposals before your Lordships in the Statement today have been heavily consulted upon. If there are changes to the accident and emergency departments we shall of course consult further. We have given an undertaking that we will not close any department unless there is alternative provision which is at least as good.
206
I think that I have covered most of the points raised. If I have missed some I am very willing to come back to them.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend add a little to what she said about the closure of beds? I understood her to say that closure would not take place until alternative facilities had been provided on an adequate scale. Can she say what is the total number of beds it is intended ultimately to close under these changes?
Secondly, can my noble friend say whether allowance is made in these changes for the fact that the high standard of medical care in London attracts patients from all over the world, particularly from the Middle East? Has due allowance been made for the inflow of patients into London due to the high standards of care which it is appreciated throughout the world are to be found in London?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes. As we see medical care change we see increasingly more patients treated on a day case basis. At one time operations for cataracts required 10 days in hospital. As noble Lords are aware, those can now be done on a day case basis.
Regardless of what happened, we would see reductions in beds. We seek to ensure that it is a controlled reduction, that it makes sense, and that there is sufficient investment not only in day treatments but also in community developments to make up the loss.
To be specific, with regard to the Bart's closure, we expect a loss of something like 188 beds. But with regard to the Royal London Hospital and Homerton, we expect more patients to be treated than are at present being treated within the three hospitals. With regard to Guy's and St. Thomas', we expect something like a loss of 263 beds. However, the time has come when we have to consider healthcare not in terms of loss of beds but of patients treated and the quality of care given. We know that many would rather be treated locally by their own GPs if only the primary care were good enough.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I speak as one who would certainly not agree with the Minister's view that the changes in some areas are moving at a fast pace. Does she accept that the Statement is of positive help? One hopes that it will enable those organisations which were reluctantly forced to block large payments in relation to Guy's rebuilding—in the case of my own organisation the amount was more than £9 million; and there were other large sums involved—to reconsider their position with a view to releasing those moneys and therefore ending at least some of the destructive uncertainty which surrounds the reorganisation at present.
Does the Minister also accept that there is an urgent need for the Government to announce a firm, clear policy and to stick to it? All the issues in this controversial area have been well argued and are well known to anyone interested in the subject. The possibility of the Minister and the Government finding

207
total agreement with their proposals is limited, to say the least. The key factor now is to get on with the policy and to stick to it.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree very much with the noble Lord. Perhaps I may pay tribute to the work that he has done through the trustees chairing that body at Guy's Hospital.
The noble Lord is completely right. Uncertainty is very damaging not only to institutions but also to the staff who work within them and others who are in academic or research positions. I agree with the noble Lord that the case has been well argued, well reasoned and well debated. Indeed, we have had 20 reports in the past 80 years all saying roughly the same. I have to say that there has been no Secretary of State more courageous than the present Secretary of State. She has grasped the nettle and is determined to continue. We are firm. We are clear. We have a policy which we believe will improve the services for the people of London.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that many noble Lords on this side of the Chamber totally support my noble friend's remarks concerning her right honourable friend the Secretary of State who has shown enormous courage and constancy in seeing through what we always recognised would be a difficult and in some cases a stormy process? However, is not my noble friend absolutely right to concentrate on the need to improve the primary care and community care services? Was it not astonishing to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, refer to mythical investment in primary care? I wrote down her words.
There are a thousand projects; my area of east London—it includes Walthamstow and Waltham Forest—has the highest concentration of single-handed practitioners in the entire country. Is my noble friend aware that many projects are financed through the London Implementation Group programme—
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Perhaps I may—
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The noble Baroness must learn to sit and take criticism and not to jump up every time someone criticises her.
Lord Richard: The noble Lord is supposed to ask a question.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I was asking this question. Is my noble friend aware that in that area of London a great many projects are going ahead which will realise the ambition of a primary healthcare-led service? Is such a service not at the heart of the whole reform? It is what doctors and other professionals in the health service, including the chief executives of the inner London health authorities to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, referred, have been demanding for years. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is now delivering that service. Is it not right that she should be allowed to provide it?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. I had thought that he was sitting down; I misunderstood. As I am sure he
208
knows, I am perfectly capable of taking criticism. I wish to ask a supplementary question. The Minister did not respond to my original question. If there has been such successful investment in primary care where is the end-of-term report of the LIG?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is on the ground. The noble Baroness has only to come with me to visit some of the remarkable schemes that are now taking place. I do not refer to all the schemes because it takes time to appoint people and to build new health centres, and so on. But we are seeing a tremendous improvement, as my noble friend said.
There certainly is room for improvement. We know that in inner London there are 25 per cent. fewer practice nurses helping GPs than there are practices; that 80 per cent. of GPs nationally offer minor surgery but in inner London the figure is only 46 per cent., and that that accounts for some of the accident and emergency overload that we have experienced; that almost twice as many GPs work alone in London compared with the national average; and that in London twice the national average of GPs are over 65 years old.
Noble Lords will know that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, is a GP working in London. When we have had debates in this House, he has often spoken of primary care. Indeed, he asked me for the list of the 1,000 projects. I have given him that list. If the noble Baroness would like to accompany me, we shall go round London and see what is happening on the ground.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, perhaps I may slightly shift the thrust of the questions and observations towards education and research. Can the noble Baroness give a reassurance—I know that it will be widely appreciated among the academic and research communities—that there is full support for the key objectives that she mentioned? The shift in the pace of change will be widely appreciated. It will give people the opportunity to think through their research applications and plans.
However, I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that there is a widespread hope in Guy's that a suitable division of specialist services and specialist beds between Guy's and St. Thomas' can be worked out. It is greatly hoped that there will be opportunities to improve the training of the undergraduates in primary care activities. It is hoped that such educational development, and a service bridging the gaps while primary care is built up, can be established on the Guy's site. It is very much hoped that the shift towards home treatment and outpatient services can be developed at London Bridge because of the wonderful transport connections. Indeed, some of us cast our eyes over to that remarkable polyclinic which is to be found in Leiden. The circumstance is similar to the relationship between the new hospital being constructed at Guy's and London Bridge Station. It allows people from a wide area to come to a centre where the research people are in a strong position to give what so many patients demand. Indeed they demand it in primary care. It is real reassurance about the diagnosis that they receive. That reassurance comes from a research, knowledge-orientated, teaching hospital environment.

209
Perhaps the noble Baroness will give reassurances that research in surgical, dental and psychiatric subjects will be cosseted and will make its contribution to the London scene. It is such a strong scene that we all realise that we can play only a part in it. I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness will give me some reassurances to take back to my young men and women.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, has a long-standing interest in medical education and research and has worked tirelessly to improve it. I am sure that he will be reassured to know that today the provost of University College London, Dr. Derek Roberts, has announced that University College London has been given £11.5 million by the Wellcome Trust and £14.5 by the Higher Education Funding Council for England to fund a new teaching centre for medical students and a major new medical research centre at University College Hospital.
I know that the noble Lord's particular interest is in Guy's Hospital. I hope that I reassure him that our vision for the future is for Guy's to be the centre of excellence in terms of teaching and research. We have much support from the Vice-Chancellor of the University of London. We believe that the linking now of medical schools with multi-faculty colleges will strengthen them, as indeed they have been strengthened in other parts of the country, for example, in Oxford.
We are concerned that our teaching and research should not fall behind. We want to be a world leader and a world beater. We want to attract students from all over the world to benefit from our medical education, which we believe is the best but which has to struggle very hard to maintain that position.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that there had been a lot of consultation. Was there consultation between the Secretary of State and her right honourable friend Peter Brooke? He does not seem to believe that there was proper consultation with somebody who had a real interest in that area and in Bart's in particular. Has there been proper consultation with all the staff of St. Bartholomew's? My information is that there has not been proper consultation and that they will by no means be satisfied with the Statement which the noble Baroness repeated today.
Can the Minister also explain why the Secretary of State for Wales seems to take a completely different line on reorganisation from that taken by the Secretary of State for Health? Apparently, he believes that many of the older buildings are perfectly suited to modem methods and that much of the reorganisation is for administrative and financial convenience. I wonder whether the noble Baroness would comment on that.
Finally, can she say whether the £210 million for primary care to which she referred is new money or is it to be transferred from elsewhere to somebody else's detriment?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with regard to consultation in that part of London, 5,000 copies of the consultation document were printed and around 2,500
210
were issued immediately to all interested parties, which would have included staff. A further 2,000 copies were issued in response to requests. At the same time 40,000 copies of a short leaflet were printed and large numbers were issued to relevant outlets, with a further 14,500 copies issued in response to requests. The leaflet also included a message in eight languages inviting the reader to telephone the language line service, which provided a telephone interpreter service in those languages. Three public meetings were held, one in each locality. They were arranged by the authority and senior representatives of the authority. Those people attended 15 other meetings arranged by the community health councils, professional groups, social services departments, and so on.
So the noble Lord will be aware that there was a very great deal of consultation among staff and among the general public. Indeed, to my certain knowledge, the Secretary of State has met with her colleague on several occasions, not least in the past week or so, when I believe she has met him three times.
With regard to the Secretary of State for Wales, perhaps the noble Lord will read very carefully what he said. He said that he felt that services in the future should be clinically driven. We believe in that. We are carrying out these developments primarily to improve the services in London: the health service, the academic teaching and research and development. Those are clinically driven services.
With regard to the primary care money, the total investment is £400 million overall in London, but the £210 million has been allocated through the normal budget round. It is new money. It came, as it normally does, through the distribution mechanism from the Treasury.
Perhaps I may also say that the noble Lord will be aware of the enormous amount of money that the National Health Service received this year—£1.3 billion extra funds.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister was as amazed as I was when the noble Baroness, Lady Jay—I sympathise with some of her worries—asked for yet another full inquiry to be made at this time and said that we were coming to rushed decisions. Was the Minister not absolutely dumbfounded—perhaps dumbfounded is the wrong word—when the noble Lord said that there had been no consultation with Bart's?
For 30 years we have had consultations with Bart's about getting into bed with the Royal London. Would they move? No. Every attempt to have any kind of discussions even of the problem have been completely and absolutely refused by Bart's. That is in marked contrast to what has happened in other parts of London. Does the Minister agree that in north London, for example, a marriage was arranged with University College and the Middlesex and that that has now become a very happy partnership? I believe that the Royal Free, which again for years refused to talk, is now beginning to move and become part of that partnership. The same is happening in west London.

211
I appreciate, as I am sure does the noble Baroness, the difficulties which face Guy's. But surely that is bound up with obtaining funds for King's pre-clinical school perhaps to move ultimately to the site by London Bridge and make one of the four new multi-faculty centres.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should very much like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who has for a very long time taken an interest in the London hospitals. As a former Vice-Chancellor of London University, clearly he has a very keen interest in them. He is quite right; we are now seeing a huge sea change throughout London. There is a different attitude among many of the London hospitals, which recognise that in world terms they have to get together, that there has to be a critical mass and that they have to be linked in with multi-faculty colleges if they are to survive and indeed lead the world. There is a change, and change is always difficult.
Clearly, St. Bartholomew's Hospital is finding the situation more difficult than most. However, I believe that these changes are the right way forward. The new campus at Guy's will not only be a centre for education in medical terms. We also propose to take there the school of nursing. It will be very closely linked with other basic sciences within the university. I believe that it will prove to be a very new form of centre for teaching. It is an exciting development. I know that others involved share that view.

Probation Officers: Recruitment and Training
Debate resumed.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I presume that the probation service debate will now continue. Neither the probation service nor the Prison Service is listed among my special interests. However, the treatment of alcohol and drug abuse is a field of special interest to me. In that context I put down my name to speak in this debate, which has been so ably introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby.
I should like to say a few words on the Addictive Diseases Trust. That is a charity which has pioneered the treatment of people in prison who have severe alcohol and drug addiction problems. The implications of that treatment programme beyond prison, and therefore concerning the probation service, will be self-evident.
As noble Lords will know, addiction in prison is widespread. That was emphasised in the memorable maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate. It is the nature of addiction that people can change their chosen mood-altering drug. Thus, an alcoholic can become a drug addict. Because drugs can be more easily distributed than alcohol in a supposedly secure environment, drugs in prison have become the main focus of attention. It is thought that over 50 per cent, of inmates of our prisons have chronic, and often severe addiction. In some prisons up to 80 per cent, of inmates
212
are using drugs, and many inmates who were not addicted when they entered prison have become addicted by the time they are released, often through the pressure of drug pushers inside the prison.
It goes without saying that the consequences to the community are horrifying. It is estimated that nearly half of all property crimes is drug related. The average cost of keeping someone in prison is £23,000 a year. The average length of sentence at Downview Prison, where the Addictive Diseases Trust works, is four years. Therefore, with court and police costs, the total cost to the community for a Downview inmate is over £100,000. On release from prison there is a strong chance that an inmate will re-offend if he is still addicted. The vicious circle of addiction; offending; prison, and re-offending because of continuing addiction, has to be broken. It must follow that treatment while the addict is still in prison is the most cost-effective approach to the problem.
Only last week I was invited to Downview Prison and had the privilege of seeing something of the programme in action. It is based on a similar programme that has been used successfully in prisons in the United States over the past 14 years. Where it has been used, there is evidence that re-offending rates have dropped sharply.
I must pay tribute to Mr. Jonathan Wallace who, by dint of single mindedness and conviction, founded the trust. With equal energy and determination it is administered by Michael Meakin. They and others on the small permanent staff richly earn the support of a distinguished board of trustees, eminent patrons, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and an ever-widening group of friends. Through the efforts of those people and the absolutely crucial support of the governor, David Lancaster, there came into existence in April 1992 the first dedicated, stand-alone, intensive addiction treatment programme at Her Majesty's Prison Downview. It has been an outstanding success. But as far as I am aware there is still no directly comparable programme operating elsewhere in the prison system, in spite of the fact that the programme has earned warm endorsement from many quarters, among them from the governor; from HM Inspector of Prisons, his Honour Judge Tumim, and most significantly in the context of this debate, from Mr. John Harding, chief probation officer of the Inner London Probation Service. He said,
"On a recent visit to Downview Prison I was much impressed by the intensive Twelve Steps Drug Rehabilitation programme for drug misusers serving a prison sentence. The programme was well-focused, well managed by the staff and peer counsellors, and thoroughly participative in style. It was a working model which other prisons could well emulate to good effect in the collective endeavour to reduce drug misuse in prisons."
The "peer" counsellors to whom Mr. Harding refers are inmates who are themselves addicts and who have come through the programme and received intensive training. Naturally, they enjoy a high level of credibility among other inmates and their involvement is central to the objective of eliminating drug culture in the prison.
Precisely because there has been an inmate-driven culture change, Downview is well on the way to becoming a drug-free prison. There is a waiting list of prisoners applying to come from other prisons; inmates from over 60 prisons have received treatment at

213
Downview. While initially the programme was funded from charitable donations raised by the Addictive Diseases Trust, public funds have been made available for the current year, and for this the Prison Service and the Government are to be congratulated. Enormous credit is also due to the probation service, both for its support and for the tangible contribution it makes in respect of prisoners needing aftercare when they have been released.
I am aware that in dealing with any aspect of crime, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is not looking for soft options. I can assure him and my noble friend the Minister that this programme is anything but soft. It is precisely the same programme that 16 years ago helped me to end my own long and wretched history of alcoholism. Even at this distance, I regard it as possibly the toughest journey on which I am ever likely to embark.
In the chronic stages of addiction, a person may be said to have disintegrated, physically, mentally and spiritually. Science has yet to come up with a definition of addiction. But empirical evidence points overwhelmingly to there being much more to the story than merely the physical effect of drugs. An addict's character becomes diseased. The ADT programme addresses this. The moving life stories we heard last week from three addicted inmates, whose careers had been a litany of crime, much of it violent, demonstrated the degree to which someone can change in a short time. The prison officers who had responsibility for those people, and who might be forgiven for cynicism at the notion of villains becoming reformed, themselves testified to the extraordinary changes for the better. I leave your Lordships with a single haunting remark made to me by one of the inmates that I met. "How strange I often think it is," he said, "that I had to go to prison to find my freedom".
I ask my noble friend to continue to give every encouragement and help to this important initiative. I sincerely believe that it holds the key to so much that he is striving to achieve. Above all, I hope that he will have it in mind when he comes to reflect on any proposals he may have for the probation service, whose work is so closely intertwined with the problem of addiction in our prisons and throughout our community at large.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to intervene briefly to tell your Lordships that this debate will now finish at 6.56 p.m.
4.56 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, other noble Lords have dealt ably with the detail of the current proposals the Home Secretary is making in relation to the training and recruiting of probation officers. It is my intention to set those proposals within the wider context of the Government's penal policy. It is perhaps the single merit of the proposals that they are consistent with the rest of the current approach to penal policy.
214
That approach has two main characteristics. First, it is populist, designed to appeal to the most primitive human instincts of anger and a desire for vengeance. Secondly, it is characterised by its refusal to accept contrary research evidence and the experience of practitioners in the field. Other Tory Home Secretaries in the past saw such policies as a short-cut to electoral popularity. But some, like the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, had the wisdom to change their minds and to admit that short, sharp shocks do not reduce recidivism, are extremely expensive and may even create tougher and more resentful criminals.
There is no sign that the current Home Secretary has learnt from his previous mistakes or those of his predecessors. Indeed, the latest Green Paper is called Punishment in the Community. Not only does he continue to use words like "discipline" and "punishment" as though they are talismans that will ward off electoral defeat, but he also continues to bring forward policies based on emotion and irrationality that fly in the teeth of the evidence.
For example, a report of a Home Office survey into the use of soft drugs which was published in today's papers shows that cannabis use among young people is widespread, amounting to some 4 million users. In recognition of that fact, police forces for many years pursued a policy of cautioning or taking no action for the possession of a small amount of cannabis. Yet the Home Secretary, while that piece of research was going on, in a purely political and futile gesture last year, increased by fivefold the fine for cannabis possession. Behaving, as he so often does, like King Canute, is not a sensible way to conduct penal policy.
The current Home Office proposals for probation officer recruitment and training are but another example of that approach, based on prejudice and simplistic stereotypes of social workers, probation officers, magistrates and criminals. An example of the Home Secretary's thought processes is the speech that he made last week in which he said:
"Retired Army officers … understand the need for discipline and they won't stand any nonsense. That's exactly what offenders need!".
That is disgraceful from a Home Secretary. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said in her powerful speech, he should realise that it requires considerable expertise, knowledge of psychology, sociology and experience in the field to be an effective probation officer.
Another thing that puzzles me is why we constantly turn to the United States for our ideas about penal policy. The United States has a murder rate approximately six times our own. It has 1.5 million people in prison. Indeed, Florida's gaols are now so overcrowded that they have had to introduce a capping policy and they are releasing prisoners on a purely arbitrary basis. At the other end of the country, in California, there are empty private prisons which are touting for custom because they are too expensive to fill.
There are much more effective penal policies closer at hand and I cannot understand why we do not look to Scandinavia, to Holland or to Germany where they have reduced crime and their prison population. I say that I

215
do not understand, but of course I understand only too well that their policies are not sufficiently draconian and eye-catching.
Instead, in this country we introduce ideas because they will capture the public imagination, even though they have already failed—the tagging of criminals (the trial in this country was a failure, but it is nevertheless to be introduced); secure detention centres for 14 year-olds (a re-run of the failed junior detention centres which the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, introduced when he was Home Secretary and which were subsequently abandoned); and boot camps for 16 year-olds (persisted in despite American evidence that they succeed in reducing recidivism only when combined with substantial inputs of education and therapy, which suggests that it is the latter that are effective and not the tough discipline). Other misguided policies have been the introduction of private prisons— an abdication of government responsibility—and the failure last year to make crime prevention a duty of the new police authorities.
All these policies place the emphasis on punishment, which cannot within a penal system be an end in itself. It does not act as a deterrent. The chance of prosecution is remote and conviction and sentence are often months or years after an offence. Moreover, all the evidence is that punishment works, as in a family or school, only within a context of respect and affection, whereas within a penal system it is inclined to make people worse, not better.
If severity of punishment becomes an electoral gimmick to attract popular support, we are in serious danger of following another new trend in the United States in which politicians vie with each other in promising ever more severe retribution against criminals, including a variety of ways of killing them, to secure their election. This is a slippery slope which leads back to lynch mobs, public executions and, no doubt in due course, additional torments such as being hanged, drawn and quartered. We need penal policies based on knowledge and experience, not on prejudice and ambition.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, if I may say so, what a speech to be condemned to follow! I shall confine myself to four questions about the chronology of the Dews Report and to three respectful comments. I am sure that the noble Earl will answer them with his usual expertise and courtesy.
I concentrate on the Dews Report because it is the bedrock on which the Home Office recommendations are built. I am not clear what evidentially supported motives inspired the commissioning of the report. The first cohort of probation officers whose training statutorily embodied the diploma in social work emerged in significant numbers only towards the end of 1993. The review was set up early in 1994 with unambiguously skewed terms of reference which referred to Home Office concern,
"that present arrangements did not meet the needs of the modem probation service and did not offer value for money".
Yet the report itself acknowledges that,
216
"the probation service and the academic institutions argued strongly that the present arrangements met the service's needs".
By strong implication, the courts agree. The money savings will be small. My first question therefore is: what moved who in the Home Office to set in train a radical review of the new training when its first products had only just emerged in significant numbers?
The report says that the service needs to recruit mature people with a breadth of experience and,
"there is evidence of a recent trend to younger entry".
The report was published in September 1994 and records that the majority of the 1993 entrants were over the age of 30 and 42 per cent, had previous careers in a wide variety of occupations. Given the chronology, I ask my second question. What evidence is there over a sustained period to justify the claims about this "recent trend"?
The report acknowledges that,
"most people within the probation service argued that a social work qualification was appropriate to probation work but there was a strand of opinion"—
a strand of opinion, my Lords, that the jobs of social workers and probation officers were becoming significantly different.
The report was compiled in a little over 90 days—some time between February and September 1994. That was while the central council was conducting its second updating review to ensure that the training accommodated the latest Home Office requirements. The council approved the results of that review in February 1995. My third question is: what solid and sustainable evidence is there to back this "strand of opinion"?
It is repeatedly implied that the diploma in social work course is not all that relevant to the needs of the modern probation service. That is manifestly untrue. The report also claims that, despite the diploma partnerships system,
"both the profile of students selected and control of the training itself in practice seemed to"—
"seemed to", my Lords—
"rest with academic institutions rather than the probation service".
That claim is inherently implausible given the part played by the Home Office, via its bursaries, and by the probation service, via its partnership status, and the fact that one third of the diploma training course is on the job and therefore entirely the responsibility of the probation service. So my fourth question is: what specific evidence over what period is there to support this cloudy claim? I have in mind the explicitly contrary conclusion drawn by the Industrial Society, whose findings in this and in many other respects clearly and cleanly contradict the recommendations in the Dews Report.
I now venture three brief comments. First, there is a disturbing disconnection between the evidence and the recommendations in the Dews Report; and it is the latter, not the former, which are aggressively repeated in the doubtfully literate discussion paper.

217
Secondly, it is sad to see departmental Ministers dragging two relatively junior named members of the Civil Service into a highly visible and unusually contentious experiment in ideological engineering. It is thoroughly unfair on the officials concerned.
Thirdly, your Lordships will recall Mr. Gradgrind, Mr. Choakumchild and Mr. Bounderby in the novel Hard Times. The last named, Mr. Bounderby, was the Bully of humility—a certain resonance there—who disbelieved profoundly in "your model schools, your training schools, your whole kettle of fish schools", but he believed profoundly in "hard-headed, solid-fisted people". I suggest to your Lordships that the shade of Mr. Bounderby presides over this—and I regret having to use these words—affront to rationality and good government.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, first I must declare an interest; not, I regret to say, a commercial one, but nonetheless real for that. I was one of the founders of NACRO some 29 years ago. Noble Lords who listened to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate will realise that there are two people in this House who work for NACRO and who are very keen. It is now the largest and, with the exception of the Howard League for Penal Reform, the oldest of the voluntary bodies set up to help accused people on remand, sentenced, in prison or coming out of it—in other words, the offender from beginning to end. Basically, its work has continued to develop, but always developing in the closest possible association with the probation service.
I have heard nine speeches today. After 25 years in your Lordships' House I do not believe that I have ever got up to speak after nine speeches having agreed with every one of them and, on the whole, fully. The only speech which strayed a little was that of the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, who spoke about something which interests us all very much indeed, but which was not quite so directly on the probation point, but none the worse for that. I feel that I shall not only not have to exercise my own wits very much, but I believe I shall give noble Lords some pleasure if I do not.
It is worth saying that when we first started NACRO we pressed very strongly for a welfare officer to be put into every prison. I need hardly say that the first one was a probation officer.
I have a particular interest in this debate because our work in NACRO is so closely associated with, and so largely dependent on, an efficient probation service. In rough figures, we employ about 1,200 workers who deal with about 200,000 cases a year. Almost every one of these cases is either sent to us by, or is returned by us to, a probation officer so that there is no organisation in this country which knows more about the probation service than we do.
I tell the House all this because I want to make it clear that our opinion of the probation service is based on nearly 30 years working closely with it and our opinion is perfectly clear. Probations officers are doing
218
a really good job. We make mistakes occasionally, and they do, but, by and large, really good work is achieved by our association together.
We deplore the Home Secretary's wish to change, by changing the training, the type of man or woman now recruited and carefully trained for the service. We particularly deplore the lack of deeper training, which is the university side. Among other things, the Home Secretary is proposing to remove a great deal of the decision-making which is now part of each probation officer's daily, normal procedure. In particular, the proposal to do away with social work training shows no understanding of at least half of a probation officer's duties. I will not go on about that because we have heard again and again how different the probation duties are and what special treatment is necessary.
I do not believe that I have ever met a prison governor who did not believe that quite a large number of his prisoners should not be in prison at all. As regards re-offending, those on community service orders do distinctly better, but not as much as we had hoped, than those who come out of prison. Even though that difference is not very large—it is something under 10 per cent.—our people cost £25 a week whereas those in prison cost £437 a week, which is about 20 times as much. I can never understand why the Treasury have never got on to this specific waste of money. Perhaps they will read this debate and ask some questions.
We often find the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who is to reply, left with rather sticky problems. He is asked to defend the indefensible and to answer the unanswerable. We all know that nobody does it better than he and we like him for it. But I hope that we can persuade him to persuade the Home Secretary to think again and to leave well alone so that the probation service can go on with its excellent work without being fussed about.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for bringing this important subject before us for debate today. Perhaps my placing in the list is suitable because had I spoken earlier the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, would perhaps have been unable to say that he agreed with everything that had been said.
I have been on the Bench since 1968 and for much of the time since then I have been a member of the probation liaison committee. When I first joined we were a small Bench of 26, with two probation officers—an experienced middle-aged man and an exceptionally good woman. Our meetings with them consisted of a review of their current, and sometimes past, offenders in their care. Perhaps I may say at this stage that I cannot remember the word "client" being used in those days. They were always useful and informative meetings and I felt that our frank discussions led to a friendly and professional relationship.
But by the time we got to the 1970s everything seemed to go haywire, with a political agenda and some very different recruits. I suppose it was part of the "doing your own thing" syndrome. The attire of officers

219
with their informal approach certainly raised eyebrows. Some of us found it difficult to accept their very liberal recommendations offered in reports.
It seemed to me a great pity that they did not give realistic recommendations. They did not seem to emerge in their reports. Often when we believed that only a custodial sentence could be considered, never once was custody recommended. In fact, we were told that it was a disciplinary offence for an officer to take such a decision. If only that had been realised magistrates would have had more confidence if an officer made such a suggestion.
That lack of trust spread to the general public who saw probation as a soft option and offenders just getting away with it. However, over the years things have improved. Under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 probation officers have become very much more important in sentencing. The development of community sentences and community service orders has led to a more professional relationship with magistrates.
I have always felt that the probation service is essential for best practice in sentencing in serious cases. The pre-sentence report can reveal much of the background so that an effective sentence can be imposed by magistrates. I believe that we should always remember that it is the magistrates who take the final decision.
I am sure that some of your Lordships will find it impertinent for me to comment on the training of people who hold such an important and influential position. However, as a lay person perhaps I may be allowed to make a few observations. First, I believe that the work performed by probation officers is demanding and difficult and requires training that gives them the specialised skills and experience required. The competence they acquire should be recognised by the award of a diploma, but I do not know that it need necessarily be a diploma in social work. I also believe that people who are non-academic could gain qualification by training on the job.
Secondly, I find it strange that a probation officer must have a social work diploma but there is no such obligation for a social worker. Thirdly, it seems to me that to go straight from school to university to qualification is narrow. I should like to think that all probation officers will have had experience of life and a job in the wider world. Fourthly, I feel that sandwich courses with distance learning would be far more beneficial for the more mature entrants. Perhaps in that way they could be self-supporting and not face too great a drop in salary. Finally, I find it strange that community service organisers do not have the constraints of qualification. Of course, they cannot progress to become probation officers without undertaking a university course; but with training, why not?
We need people in the service with varied experience and backgrounds. A mother who has successfully brought up a family with all the problems that can occur could, for example, bring a wisdom and understanding that cannot be learned from a book. I am sure that the sharing of views would enhance the quality of the reports.
220
Probation officers are respected and valued by the courts but, I am sorry to say, not always by the public. Our role must be to ensure that people have confidence in the system. They need to feel that probation is not a soft option and that a community sentence is a punishment that provides really challenging unpaid work for offenders.
We have moved to a society in which people may have two or three careers during their working lives. I feel that the proposed measures should be developed and studied in detail and with care to take forward a service which has changed over the years and which now needs to adapt to the challenge of the proposals that are before us today.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I am a little confused because I was not the next speaker on the list. However, I thank my noble friend Lord Tenby for initiating this most appropriate and timely debate. We are in the middle of a consultation period and I hope that the Minister will take back to the Home Secretary the comments that have been made here today. We have heard from many respected speakers so far, among whose views I have felt very much at home until, if I may be frank, the last speaker. I became totally lost by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, who has served on a Birmingham Bench.
I rise to speak for two reasons. The first is that I have spent the past 25 years as a magistrate, about 20 of which have been spent in a small rural court—perhaps that is the difference between the noble Baroness and myself—latterly as chairman of that Bench. As my noble friend Lord Tenby said, 95 per cent, of the crime that comes before the courts of this country is dealt with in such courts, mostly by the lay magistracy. My experience is that about 40 per cent. of those who come before the courts and are convicted need help, not punishment. That is when I turn to the probation service.
Indeed, I have turned many times to the local probation service in Norfolk where I have received the most enormous help. I have not found the social services to be something airy-fairy. It is obvious to me that probation officers need a strong social service attitude. It is also obvious to me that what is most important is, as the right reverend Prelate said, the relationship between probation officers and their clients.
I am not soft on crime. I have had the unfortunate job as a magistrate of sending people to prison. I do not like it, but I am not soft. The work of probation officers must be based on mutual respect, fairness and commitment to both helping their clients and getting them into a frame of mind such that they want to help themselves. That is what the training is supposed to be about. That work must be kept quite separate from punishment. Punishment is not the job of the probation service. Under that heading, perhaps I should add that tagging has nothing to do with the probation service either.
My second reason for wanting to speak is that I have a daughter who is a qualified probation officer. I know that there are problems with the present system of training which can be expensive to families in terms of

221
both cash and relationships. As a chief probation officer said to me recently, the current system is not perfect, but that does not constitute a reason for rushing headlong into a similarly less than perfect alternative.
It is essential that probation officers have a university-validated and recognised qualification. That means that they can transfer to different disciplines in this country and that their qualifications are recognised in other countries, particularly in the EU and the Commonwealth. Here I must mention the University of East Anglia. I know that the Minister comes from that part of the world and that he is involved with the university. For 20 years that university has been producing the highest quality of probation officer for this country. Indeed, the vice-chancellor has told me that, contrary to the Dews Report, students there are not,
"too young and too female".
Indeed, its intake over the past three years shows an even balance of age and sex. I am horrified that the two-year MA course which my daughter took has now come to an end.
I should like to make a few positive points about change—I hope that the Government listen to this. We need to align training more closely with projected staffing needs. A far less cumbersome route would have been to devolve training money to allow services to second staff, rather than create the bureaucracy of the proposed training consortia. We need a variety of routes into qualification. The current arrangements discriminate against people who have commitments and who are unable to move to one of the few sites where the courses are run, and who then run the risk of not knowing when or if they will have a job afterwards. The move to demonstrate competence rather than to undertake a course is welcomed, but, given the will, that could have been built into a qualification which retained its social work link without the hurried and radical changes that are proposed.
At this stage of the debate, much has been said already and I am sure that much of what I wanted to say has already been said by others, but perhaps if enough people say it enough times the Government might hear. I shall be looking in the Minister's reply for a commitment to training which leads to a properly validated professional qualification for probation officers that is recognised in this country so that holders of the qualification are capable of transfer during their career paths to various other similar social service-based jobs. Furthermore, any such qualification should be recognised throughout the EU and, as is the case at the moment, throughout the Commonwealth. I await the Minister's reply.
5.28 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, as possibly the last noble Lord to put down his name to speak in today's debate, I feared that I could be shortening the time available for speeches to only six minutes, so I had better make sure that my contribution is worth while. My plea in mitigation is that I have done offender work in Scotland for many years, serving, among other tasks, as a probation supervisor, a social inquiry report writer,
222
a community service by offenders supervisor, a prison social worker, an aftercare licence supervisor and a project worker on an intensive probation project—that is, a 20-day group work project run by SACRO. I should confirm that probation work in Scotland is incorporated in social work departments and is not a separate service. However, we have separate offender specialists within our one-door approach to social care.
To enter a career in social work, in 1968, at the age of nineteen-and-a-half I attended an experimental three-year diploma in social work course in Scotland, following a year as a community service volunteer. That took place before the establishment of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. The course was experimental on at least two counts. It took school-leavers, or near school-leavers, and it aimed to give students who were entering their first careers a broad-based knowledge of the whole social policy area, as well as theoretical and practical training in social work techniques. I went to 16 different supervised practical placements during those three years, covering youth clubs, social work departments, residential homes and a Borstal.
First, I should like to comment on the age of my fellow students and myself. I was very keen, but far too young. Indeed, as a boarding school child brought up away from home, I was fascinated to study the family during sociology lectures and seminars. I am glad that the age of entry to social work courses has been raised. Experience of adult life is an essential prerequisite to effective social work, as is knowledge of the many different cultures and lifestyles of our citizens. Secondly, I am glad to have had a broad social policy education which includes economics, sociology, psychology, the organisation of central and local government, housing, education, health, leisure and recreation, among other things.
Thirdly, criminal justice social workers need to be knowledgeable about how our society organises itself. Only with that knowledge base will they be able to help offenders to keep to the terms of their orders; that is, by coming to terms with the effects of what they have done and who they have done it to, by planning a future lifestyle that does not impinge upon others and, most importantly, by implementing a probation plan making the necessary changes in their lives. This task requires considerable patience, encouragement and support as the probationer tries to move on, usually in the face of his delinquent peer group, sceptical neighbours and often from a position of disaffection.
By way of definition, I believe disaffection to be the feeling that success in life is for others, not yourself. I believe that any attempt to promote social change in individuals by state bullying is doomed to failure, because this client group has heard it all before. The idea that people may come in from the Army has been praised. I do not believe that the Army accepts probation officers without training.
In conclusion, I believe that success in social work with offenders depends upon having the right personality, a broad-based knowledge of life, social

223
policy issues and good practice and a determination to enable clients to understand their lives and to move on to something better.
5.34 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, this afternoon we are discussing the probation service and the training that is thought to be necessary for the future. In this country we have for many years seen an escalation of crime by citizens of all ages. We know that something must be done. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has given us a Green Paper that goes into present and future problems in depth. My 30 years in magistrates' courts and consequent four years on the parole board made me realise how enormously I relied upon and trusted probation staff for the guidance and education of offenders, both young and old.
Probation staff will be responsible on a one-to-one basis for organising the new community sentence, which appears to me to be a good idea. As all noble Lords who sit in magistrates' courts will know, they are also responsible for keeping in touch with offenders and their families if those offenders are serving prison sentences. They are also relied upon to supervise and guide a prisoner on his release. It is quite likely that a prisoner will serve only one-third of his sentence in prison, the remainder being served on parole. Often, this means that a weekly report has to be prepared, primarily to ensure that he is not reoffending.
The life of a probation officer is very full. He must be dedicated, determined, selfless, conscientious and caring, apart from having broad shoulders and a sense of humour. The suggestion has been made that the services should provide probation officer recruits, but there are many other avenues for finding suitable people to give up their time and their path in life to help those who have offended during the course of their lives. We need more probation officers to train the young in lawful rather than lawless ways. Those officers will be required to oversee community service orders imposed by the courts, having first produced reports.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, told us that 50 per cent, of the new intake were over 30 years of age. That is good news. They will have had some experience of life.
This afternoon much has been said about qualifications, diplomas, training etc. It is not in a spirit of jealousy that I declare that I have no university education or degrees. The Second World War got in the way of my higher education. But the standards laid down by Parliament and government have to be observed, and I am sure that we can rely on the probation service to implement those standards in future.
5.38 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, introduced this debate with such a powerful speech that in a sense all of the most important things were said at the beginning of the proceedings. He was followed by two former Home Secretaries, one of whom was a Conservative. If anything needed to be said which had not been said by
224
the noble Viscount, it was said by them. I missed what I was told was an eloquent speech by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. All of the other speakers added a lot of weight to the argument. No doubt the implications of the speech of the noble Baroness, who speaks with a great deal of relevant experience, will be carefully studied by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary.
One may ask what there is left to say. In that sense, I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. One can only say a few words from one's own angle. I mention just one aspect of the issue. It came to mind because a week ago I had a long discussion with four probation officers, all of whom were over 30. One of them was a trainee. That gentleman was 42. He had been in business for many years. He had plenty of business experience, but he was the first to insist that he needed professional training. I have been visiting prisons for 50 years and I suppose I have met a good many probation officers during that time, including many concerned with aftercare, and I have never met one who did not value the professional training he had received. To put it briefly, I agree with everything that has been said already about such matters.
I have had a further thought. In my view the probation service will have to expand a good deal in years to come. I suppose that that will happen when the present Home Secretary is laid peacefully to rest. I hope that the time will come when more enlightened counsels will prevail and alternatives to prison will figure more largely. That will mean more and more responsibility being cast upon the probation service.
When we were discussing the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, I moved a probing amendment. It was something about which I feel strongly. There should be a statutory obligation upon the authorities to provide aftercare for ex-prisoners. That will mean further responsibility falling upon the probation service. Its duties will be increased in future in any national plan. That, in a sense, is what I want to say about the detail.
When I look at the matter more broadly I am very much in sympathy with the approach of my noble friend Lady Hilton, although we might have an argument about the word "punishment". I have written two books on punishment, and I do not use the word in quite the same way as she does. But let us leave out the semantics, and let me say that I agree with her general approach.
I am sure that all Members of the House are familiar with the story of Lazarus and Dives in the New Testament. Noble Lords will remember that Father Abraham said to Dives, then resident in Hades:
"Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed".
He said that one could not pass from Hades to Heaven or vice versa. I feel more than ever today when we have these valuable discussions that there is this great gulf fixed between those who rely upon knowledge and reason and those who appeal to mob emotions or even feel those mob emotions. On the one hand, we have the judiciary, the more enlightened half dozen Conservative Home Secretaries before the present incumbent, and going back a little further the noble Lord, Lord Carr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who is to speak

225
later, and those who speak from what is usually called the progressive point of view. There are all the other experts. We have the probation service, the police, prison governors and prison officers and the other people who have knowledge of these matters.
Who is there on the other side? There is what is called the general public or the mass electorate, whoever they may be —those to whom Mr. Howard, under the tutelage of the Prime Minister since the 1993 Conservative conference, has decided to appeal. Then there is the party altogether, with the tradition of his six immediate predecessors, not to mention the noble Lord, Lord Carr, Lord Butler and his other great Conservative predecessors. So what do we find?
Let us take the mass electorate and where their views are represented. The Sunday Express recently had an article by someone called Judge Argyle. I do not know whether that name is familiar to anyone. He is a former judge. In his article he said we had been ruled for some time by the "pro-crook lobby". That would be strange news to the six Conservative Home Secretaries who preceded Mr. Howard. At any rate, that is what Judge Argyle said in the Sunday Express.
I rang up the political editor and asked to be able to reply. I pointed out that Judge Argyle's views would be ridiculed in this House where people would hardly be able to bear to listen to them. The political editor said that he was very popular with his readers. Well, he may be. I believe that the same gentleman has gone to town lately in the Mail on Sunday. There is a wide tabloid press for expressing such extreme views. That is, if one likes, on one side of the gulf.
The question is how we communicate with those people. How, in the language of Father Abraham, can we come from them to us or can they go from us to them? In due course the leaders of the tabloid press become ennobled. Editors, proprietors and such like come here. They join us. But we find it difficult to break into them. I submitted an article which I was told would receive favourable consideration, but of course it was not published. There we are. We have this gulf fixed. In the end, how will that gulf ever be bridged? It will not be bridged by the present Home Secretary or the Prime Minister.
I realise that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, cannot leap up suddenly and say, "As a matter of fact, I am on your side of the gulf. He is a loyal spokesman. The historian Lecky said of the union of Ireland that it was opposed by the whole unbribed intellect of the country. I must not use the word "bribery" here. All the same, one might say that Mr. Howard's policies are opposed by the whole unpaid intellect of this country. I cannot put it more plainly. I have no doubt used up my time.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I deplore the Dews Report's recommendation—endorsed by the Home Office in its discussion paper—to abolish the diploma in social work for aspiring probation officers. One point where I agree with Dews is paragraph 2.13:
"Probation officers are first and foremost officers of the courts and the courts' views are thus most important".
226
Unhappily, Dews states:
"We were unable to canvas the courts' views systematically".
Later, however, the Home Office research and planning unit undertook a study to measure the satisfaction of courts with the probation service. A survey was done of 498 lay magistrates. The key finding was that 89 per cent, of those magistrates were very, or quite, satisfied with the work of the probation service in their area. Moreover, 94 per cent. of the magistrates said that they had a very, or quite good, working relationship with the probation service. Those outstandingly positive results are a firm indication that magistrates are content with the composition and training of the probation service.
I am indebted to the chief probation officer for Greater Manchester for those findings which he gave in a speech to the National Probation Conference on 16th March. A request to the Home Office, on my behalf, to provide a copy of its report for today's debate was met with the reply that the report was not due out until the first half of May. As the Home Office has called for comments on its discussion paper by 26th May, that is a most worrying state of affairs. The report ought already to have been published. Parliament and all interested groups and individuals ought to have the full benefit of the courts' views long before 26th May. I request the Minister to say that he will use his best endeavours to have that vital report made available forthwith.
The Home Office fails to appreciate the crucial contribution of higher education to probation training. A thorough knowledge and understanding of a large body of statute law —the Criminal Justice Acts, the Children Act 1989, and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990—are necessary for trainees. Formal instruction in those laws is essential.
Moreover, increasingly the probation service is dealing with serious offenders who are in the community on licence following custody. Such serious offenders require intensive supervision and knowledge of ways to tackle their specific addictions or other failings. Higher educational establishments are best placed to teach the criminology and penology necessary for coping with these offenders.
The training institutions which carry out research into probation-related matters are able to teach their trainees the results of this up-to-date research. They can also teach their students a research approach; how to monitor their own effectiveness. The result is that when the trainees go into the field as probation officers they will have the analytical attitude necessary to evaluate what they are doing well and to pass their conclusions on to their colleagues.
A further point arises from the Green Paper, Strengthening Punishment in the Community, which envisages the courts playing a larger role in deciding on the detailed supervision of criminals. Paradoxically, the result of this policy would be that probation officers' pre-sentence reports, including information and advice on supervision programmes and their likely effects, will become all the more important. Higher educational institutions are best fitted to teach what to put into those

227
reports and how they should be written. As was recently emphasised by the chief probation officer for Greater Manchester:
"The work of probation staff is extremely complex and needs the kind of analytical approach that draws on a wider educational stance to learning".
Despite the opposition of practically every group which knows anything about probation, a Conservative Government and a Conservative Home Secretary are hell bent on destroying the diploma in social work. I ask the Minister to remind his colleagues of the venerable and singularly apt words of the second Viscount of Falkland:
"When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change".
5.52 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, as the 18th speaker almost everything that I wanted to say has been said, but with the agreement of your Lordships I shall make four brief points. As a director of social services I have worked alongside probation officers and, since retirement, have been closely in touch with their service. It is rarely realised that social workers and probation officers must often share cases. Social services deal with the mothers and the children who are obviously at risk and in trouble when the man in the family is in prison or subject to a community service order. Therefore, there must be an understanding between probation officers and social workers.
Probation officers and social workers have the same basic training, which helps them to understand one another. Then, of course, the probation officers specialise in the type of work which they have to undertake under Acts different from those relating to social service departments.
Home Office figures indicate that as regards young men of the same age who have committed comparable offences, 54 per cent, of those who go to prison re-offend. However, the 43 per cent, placed on probation with a community service order re-offend. That is sad, but there is a big difference between the number of those who go to prison and those who are under a community service order. Surely my noble friend the Minister agrees that we should increase the number of community service orders, that we should help the probation service to develop that service and that the necessary resources should be available.
As regards recruitment I suggest that, as mentioned by many noble Lords, we should embark upon the training. Will my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has been consulted? I and many other noble Lords have received letters from the universities. Have the universities of East Anglia, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, Nottingham, Kent and Exeter been consulted? The University of Exeter has as its Vice-Chancellor Sir Geoffrey Holland. It runs a course for probation officers and social workers and he speaks highly of the course and of the work subsequently carried out by the probation officers. I see no evidence of the universities having been consulted.
228
Surely the Home Secretary is wise to seek to reduce crime and we all support him in that. However, I beg him to look before he leaps, and not always go into uncharted waters.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. The quality of speeches, and often their passion, must reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, if he needed it, of the wisdom of choosing the subject for debate today. It demonstrates how useful this House can be in scrutinising small but important parts of government policy.
I must be almost the only Member of your Lordships' House speaking tonight who has had no experience of, or responsibility for, the probation service. I have always believed that probation officers carry out a difficult, unglamorous but essential job. I was under the impression that in recent years they had faced up to many changes and had become increasingly professional in the process. Therefore, when I looked at the Home Office discussion paper I found it difficult to understand what the Government had in mind. I was also puzzled when I read the Dews Report.
It will come as no surprise to your Lordships to learn that having heard all that has been said today I still find unanswered the question: why did the Government embark upon this course? Unless, of course, I understand only too well why they have chose to do so. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is not here today. I am sure that she has good reason for being absent from the House but she is the Minister responsible for these matters. I hope that she will read most carefully all that has been said and will find an opportunity of coming to the House and giving answers on aspects where the noble Earl's response does not entirely satisfy your Lordships.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that it is difficult to know what new comments one can make on the subject. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said that the proposals might lead people to believe that the probation service is in a bit of a mess when it is not. In a most powerful and tough speech, the noble Lord, Lord Carr, referred to widespread dismay and said that the offer of consultation was a sham. He asked, "Why upset the applecart?", and in doing so he summarised what most noble Lords have said. The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, asked what the document is for. That question is at the heart of the matter facing us. My noble friend Lady Seear spoke about NVQs, drawing on her great experience of them. In making the point that they are inadequate for the purpose now contemplated, she said that there was a need to understand human behaviour. She emphasised the linkage between academic and theoretical studies and practical training.
Having listened to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, I wish that he and others on those Benches would contribute more often to what he described as the theological dimension of social problems. We should benefit greatly from hearing what he has to say to us. He was cautious in

229
his remarks but referred to proper professional expertise, very special skills and thorough and appropriate training.
Before the Statement, we heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who referred to great risks being incurred if the Government pursue the course on which they appear to be embarking. That is a remarkable, powerful indictment of the papers before us, based on deep anxiety.
The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, was among those noble Lords who referred to the report which lies behind the discussion paper—the Dews Report. I too find it distinctly uncomfortable to be discussing a paper by two comparatively junior Home Office officials which is sandwiched between the decision of Ministers to set up the scrutiny review and their provisional decisions, as we hope them to be, described in the discussion paper.
By definition, the report is politically motivated. It is not a very good paper. But by referring to it, as we must today, we put two junior civil servants in the firing line and inevitably prejudice their careers. I ask the noble Earl to tell us in passing whether there is any precedent for two civil servants being asked to produce a report which inevitably becomes a matter of political debate and to what extent that is an unusual departure. Was the head of the Civil Service consulted?
Whatever the noble Earl's reply, it is extremely undesirable that such a thing should happen and it should stop. That is not open government. It would be open government only if Parliament were given access to all the Home Office internal papers on the setting up of the Dews Report and access to all the internal papers produced since that time. I should greatly welcome it if that were the proposal but it would come as a surprise.
It is a very odd document and shows signs of the authors struggling with themselves about where their duty lay. Inevitably, it shows signs also of discussions in the department with their colleagues. They refer to exemplary briefings and acknowledge the help of their colleagues in the introduction. Indeed, there is a certain amount of back-scratching which, again, is inappropriate.
In those circumstances, one can see the way in which the document was put together. At a stage when they were reporting, for the most part the probation service had a good clean bill of health but the authors had suddenly to change direction and say that despite only a few criticisms from within the service and academic institutions they had doubts about the service and that something must be done.
More seriously—and this is a point of which account should be taken—at paragraph 4.27 the authors state that,
"we have reached a different conclusion from the Industrial Society who thought the present arrangements quite effective".
One must then turn to Annex F which reports the findings of the Industrial Society. It states:
"Our research … suggests that the probation service is very effective in the training and recruitment methods it employs".
230
I cannot find any reference to the word "quite" in the report of the Industrial Society. I do not know on what authority the authors of the report translate "very" into "quite" in the principal part of the text.
My noble friend Lady Seear and the noble Lord, Lord Acton, referred very properly to the question of NVQs and to the nature of the proposals with regard to the education of probation officers in future. Indeed, that is the nub of the matter. Are we to substitute training on the ground for the academic training which goes together with the present experience of probation officers? I am, and remain, a strong supporter of NVQs at levels 1 to 3 but it would be a grave error to squeeze out highly specialised training of the kind probation officers have simply to make their system conform with the NVQs which are appropriate at a lower level but to which the Government seem to be increasingly committed. Probation officers need education and not only training. An NVQ is no substitute for a diploma.
All noble Lords in the debate have expressed the view that if we go down that track there is a very real danger of lower standards, diminished intellectual growth and, in the long run, a probation service which is less successful than it has been. There is still time for the Government to think again. I very much hope that they will do so.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, for the benefit of noble Lords following the speakers' list, it is obvious that I am not my noble friend Lord Mclntosh of Haringey, who apologises for his absence. I am Lord Plant of Highfield and I was to have spoken earlier.
I am sure that we should all like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for enabling us to have this very valuable debate. In particular, it has been enlivened by the very notable maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham.
Before embarking on my speech, I should declare an interest in that during a 28-year academic career I have intermittently taught courses for trainee probation officers at the Universities of Manchester and Southampton. Many of the students were mature students, and particularly in Hampshire many were ex-servicemen and women. However, I was slightly startled when I read the Dews Report to find that what I had been doing for 28 years was impossible, given that one of the courses which I taught to trainee probation officers was about values. Page 26 of the report states quite confidently that courses on values cannot be taught. So there we are. One must envy the intellectual self-confidence of the report in that both the authors of the report disclaim any knowledge or experience of teaching. They do not cite any evidence for the view that courses in values cannot be given. Therefore, I have wasted my time, and I am sorry for that.
The Government are proposing a root and branch reform of the probation service in the teeth of opposition from practitioners, senior managers, CCETSW and the universities. No doubt they will all be dismissed as vested interests. The reform is based on a Home Office review which most people—and, indeed, most noble

231
Lords—regard as being very thin and which draws inferences which are not supported by the evidence provided in the paper.
The proposals in the paper need to be looked at in three parts: first, recruitment issues; secondly, the place of probation in higher education; and thirdly, the relationship between probation and social work education and training. I do not believe that the analysis and prescriptions in the Home Office review paper are defensible in any of those areas.
Many noble Lords have drawn attention in their speeches to issues of recruitment. It is not necessary for me to reiterate points already made. However, the following points bear some emphasis. First, in the context of the new diploma in social work, 50 per cent. of recruits are over 30 and the number would have been larger if the Home Office had not discontinued the trainee salaries. The authors of the consultation report are keen to see more mature recruits entering the probation service, and that is being achieved under existing arrangements.
Secondly, it is claimed in the report that the existing training pattern is too rigid, but it is very difficult to believe that that is the case. The diploma in social work offers different routes into training, and there are ways of combining work and study on most diploma courses. Thirdly, it is argued that the academic structure of the course deters some sorts of candidates. But it is difficult to see why that should be so when the following points are borne in mind.
In the first place, prior experience or qualification of an appropriate sort—that is to say, relating to the competencies required for probation officers—is taken into account when recruiting on to courses, and exemptions are given in such cases. In addition, distance learning and modular based programmes are available and will become more so. Most universities are moving to modular courses and credit accumulation and transfer schemes. When they can afford the technology to do so, they are investing in distance learning mechanisms. It is also implied that people are put off because of the overly academic nature of the course. However, the course is not overly academic, but rather embodies a 50:50 split between supervised practice and a knowledge and understanding of the research base necessary to become an effective probation practitioner.
I now move on to the place of probation in higher education. Most—I suspect virtually all—practitioners would see themselves as belonging to a profession. They certainly work alongside other recognised professions in the courts. If they are to be regarded as a profession, it is necessary that they should have a close link to the knowledge and research base of their discipline. That may of course work to the detriment of ancillary staff who aspire to become members of the profession. But in how many other professions would it be suggested that recruitment could be broadened by undertaking a large-scale deprofessionalisation of the discipline into which it was hoped to recruit more people by undermining its link with the knowledge and research base, rather than by looking for ways in which the academic and practical side of the work could be made more accessible to groups of people who might want to
232
become probation officers? Such opening of access in a way not damaging to the profession is already being undertaken, as I tried to show in the first part of my speech.
It is also argued in the Dews Report that:
"Present arrangements were set up at a time when practical standards or competencies for probation officers had not been settled and predate the changes in work of the probation service introduced by recent criminal justice legislation. There is no direct match between these competencies and any current qualification".
That is simply not true. The diploma in social work originated in 1989 and has been updated twice since that date. It takes full account of the recently published competencies for probation officers published in 1994 and recent changes in criminal justice legislation.
It is also not the case that probation courses can be characterised as being devised either by ivory-towered academics or, worse, trendy social scientists with little experience of practice. That is not so for several reasons. First, the curriculum is designed and delivered with input, through partnership, from the probation service. As the report says on page 29, the probation service has a strong influence on training in the diploma in social work course via the partnership arrangements. Indeed, the evidence of the Industrial Society supports that view.
However, from the rather superior stance which, I have to say, comes through time and again in the document that claim is disparaged. Its authors argue that the universities remain in control. Formally that may be so, in that it is surely right that in autonomous bodies the formal validation of courses for a degree or qualification of that institution has to remain vested in that institution. But that formal position belies the practice, and courses have been devised in partnership with the probation service. I challenge the review authors or the Minister to show where a university has overturned such a curriculum developed in partnership with the profession. The control is purely formal. It is about the attainment of standards; it is not about the detailed content of the course. Certainly the professionals are entirely happy with the new arrangements under the diploma in social work.
It is also claimed in the report that the link between academia and the probation service has led to a lack of attention to probation issues. That is a wholly unsubstantiated criticism and is absolutely not a criticism that has been made by either students emerging from the new courses or by the practitioners involved in the design and delivery of the courses, as well as the supervision of the students.
The aim of the present arrangements is, as the report says, to produce reflective practitioners. The report says on page 25 that that model, linking practice with current research, is clearly valued in the service. But it goes on to say that that does not mean that it is the best model, only that it is the current model and that most professions will tend to favour training which perpetuates the current model. Again, I have to say that I find the idea that professions merely follow in a blinkered way what is in their own interests very arrogant and patronising. There is no conception in the report that people reflect on what they do and want to preserve a model because they think that it is valuable

233
or right. Again, a profession and its culture, as so often in recent years, have been reduced to just another vested interest, with a culture of professional self-interest governing all that it does. That is wholly unacceptable.
In the final part of my speech I should like to turn to the relationship between probation and social work. Here I believe that the report is inadequate as well as inexplicit. There are various elements in the report critical of the relationship, but the issues are not clearly spelt out. I suspect that the main reason why the report wants to move probation away from social work is that at the Home Secretary's instigation, as we have heard, people are suspicious of what they take to be social work values and the way in which those values might influence a more punishment oriented view which should pervade probation.
Perhaps I may say at the outset of this part of the discussion that I think it is absolutely vital that probation should be seen as part of the criminal justice system; that it is wholly right that there should be punishment of offenders and that such punishment ought to embody elements of reparation to society and deterrence to others; and that offenders should be made to feel responsible for their crimes, and that part of this involves confronting the impact that they have made on the lives of victims.
However, none of those commitments leads me to want to distance probation from social work. There are three main reasons for that. First, offenders should be made to feel responsible for their behaviour. That is central to the justice element in probation. But part of the existing responsibility of the probation service is to help prisoners to live law-abiding lives, and to work with other agencies in dealing with offenders and offences. If we are to make realistic interventions in the lives of many offenders to achieve those constructive goals, we have to be aware of the background circumstances in which criminal behaviour occurs. I hope that noble Lords will please note that I do not say caused; I am not seeking to excuse criminal behaviour. This was a theme of the speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham.
A recent survey of 214 probationers in Dorset undertaken by Professor Colin Prichard of Southampton University and Mr. Cox of the Dorset probation service found that 25 per cent. had suffered from depression which had required clinical help; that 6 per cent. had suffered from mental disorder requiring clinical intervention; that 35 per cent. suffered strong anxiety states; that 14 per cent. had attempted suicide; that 22 per cent. had learning disabilities; and that 46 per cent. had problems with alcohol and about 40 per cent. with other drugs.
If the probation service is not only to help quite properly with punishment and reparation to society but also to help offenders to live law-abiding lives, it is vital that some of those background problems are tackled. As far as I know, there is no better way of approaching this than through social work training. The report disparages all of this by blithely saying that a social work ethos leads to a concern with the needs of the offender rather than the victim or society. However, attending to the
234
needs of the offender is not a matter of bleeding hearts; it is rather crucial to trying to meet the needs of society and victims in attempting to remove some of the circumstances which correlate with criminal behaviour.
The second reason I have for wanting to keep the link between probation and social work is that it is quite false to imply, as the section of the report on social work values does, that these are in some sense soft values. They are not. The report states that social work emphasises individual choice and that this is inappropriate in dealing with delinquency. I have to say that this is just a parody of social work values. Certainly one of the values of the profession is that of client self-determination, but in the literature and in the teaching of what this means, to reduce that to individual choice is laughable: it is rather all about getting clients to take responsibility and to make choices which will enable them to live constructive lives.
Finally, the report speaks of the need for probation officers to work with other services and agencies. Some of these are social work agencies which will perhaps be dealing with the family of an offender. It is vital, first of all, that to allow proper inter-agency discussion and maintain matters like confidentiality, probation officers should be seen as full professionals. I think that the proposals in this report will decimate the professional status of probation officers. Surely a strong probation pathway through what is overall a social work qualification—given all the changes to the Diploma in Social Work—is the best way to facilitate inter-agency collaboration.
I conclude on the following note. I have two specific questions for the Minister which are entirely procedural. The first is: what does consultation actually mean in this context when the Government have already given notice of withdrawing these places from universities and that has basically settled the issue? Secondly, if the Government are not prepared to withdraw their proposals, what exactly is the mechanism for securing this change, and how will Parliament be involved?
6.22 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for having introduced this debate this afternoon on what is a very important matter. I think that all of your Lordships will agree that it has been an informed debate. On a personal note, I find it a pleasure to be catapulted back momentarily—as the Americans would say—into the cockpit of Home Office matters. That gives me the great pleasure of being able to debate with those with whom I used to share that happy experience on matters relating to the Home Office, even though the problems seem to have lost nothing in either their difficulties or their controversies. I might add that that applies to some of your Lordships in the contributions which you have made.
I am bound to say that when the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, says that, with two former Home Secretaries present, she feels a certain degree of humility in taking part in the debate, all I can say is that that is nothing to

235
what I feel, particularly when, in addition to that, there is one former permanent secretary of the department I used to be in—
Baroness Seear: Two!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that there are two. I do not know whether there are three, or perhaps just one. I think there is only one. The noble Baroness really must not try to upset me. It is most confusing. What I wanted to say was that I was not quite so frightened by what the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said because I am used to him always disagreeing with what his old department does. He does that conscientiously and in an agreeable way. I hope to try to point out to him that he need not be quite so concerned.
The debate was notable for the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. He correctly diagnosed the difficulties and what was needed to turn people away from crime. I thought it was a philosophical, theological and a practical speech. He ended by saying that we must write no one off, and of course he is absolutely right. He started off by saying that it gave him pleasure, in view of the buffetings which Bishops receive, to take part in such a civilized debate. The nearest circumstances which I am likely to experience as regards being a right reverend Prelate is sharing as a Minister the unhappy experience of being buffeted, which apparently is the experience that they also receive.
The proposed new arrangements for the recruitment and training of probation officers—and the place which they have in the programme of change in which the probation service is involved—are very important. I shall do my best to try to explain what it is that the Government propose and why. I know that changes often cause dismay. People like what they know and that is understandable. The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, in what I thought was a deeply impressive speech, and for a Minister an uncomfortable speech, thought that he saw the shades of Mr. Bounderby in the Government's proposals. I hope I shall be able to persuade him that that is not so.
I wish to assure your Lordships that we are not, as it were, throwing probation officers into a free fall. I wish to reassure particularly the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, that we wish them to be trained specifically to be probation officers rather than that they should have to undertake a course which is generally designed for social workers. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, made what I thought was an astonishing speech. She castigated my right honourable friend the Home Secretary for almost everything he has done. She criticised him for taking note of what people feel. I do not think I need apologise for my right honourable friend for doing that. The noble Baroness also criticised him for saying that criminals need discipline. I frankly think that they need discipline and they need help as well. But what really worried me was when the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that he agreed, almost word for word, with what the noble Baroness had said. That made me think that she must be wrong. The noble Earl applauded the progressive views of some people in a
236
somewhat donnish way —if I may say so—of which, of course, he has some experience, and suggested that everyone who took a contrary view was wrong and their views constituted the views of the mob.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, also talked a lot about the gulf between "them" and "us". He asked whether anyone could go from one to the other. He then introduced Dives and Lazarus. He did not say who he considered Lazarus to be, but I rather gather from the trend of his observations that he thought that he was Lazarus and that possibly those of us who took a contrary view represented Dives. All I can say to that is that I do not think I shall have to wait to die in order to discover what it is like to be roasted in the—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was going to say that I do not have to wait to die in order to discover what it is like to be roasted in the fires of hell, because I think I have experienced that this afternoon.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, will the noble Earl abandon his charming facetiousness and reply to the serious points which I and many other people made?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course I shall answer the points. I am sorry the noble Earl thought that I was facetious but it was he who started talking about Dives and Lazarus and I was merely questioning which he thought he was. I have a jolly good idea about that.
In recent years the probation service has been through a pretty fundamental change. It has changed from being a social work agency to being a criminal justice organisation. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Plant, felt that it should be part of a criminal justice organisation. That is a substantial shift. Over the past few weeks the Government have announced a series of proposals which aim to bring the service more into line with the proper expectations of the courts and of the public, and this will affect the future direction of the service. I am thinking here of the revised national standards and the Green Paper on community sentences. Today's debate though relates entirely to the issue of probation training.
Having announced our proposals for the recruitment and qualifying training of probation officers on 22nd February, we said that there would be a three-month consultation period during which people could give their views on the proposed new arrangements. Your Lordships* debate this afternoon will form an important part of that consultation exercise.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and my noble friend Lord Carr said "Tear it up". I wondered what it was that they wanted torn up and assumed that they meant the consultation document. The consultation document is a document for consultation and it would be a great pity if it were torn up.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, my noble friend Lord Carr and the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, were all concerned about whether there was to be consultation, as was the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. My noble friend Lord Carr said that we really must listen to people. It was stated clearly when the scrutiny report and the discussion paper were

237
published that the proposals were subject to a three months' consultation period and all the interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the proposed changes.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but if it really was a consultation period why were the universities told that the courses will stop? That is at the centre of the matter about which there was supposed to be consultation.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was just coming to that point had the Baroness not pre-empted me. The Government have to say what they think ought to happen, and then they consult on the subject. The Government said that they believed that those courses should come to an end. That is part of the consultation process.
We thought it quite right that those concerned, including the universities and people interested in becoming probation officers, should be warned of what the Government had in mind. Final decisions will be made after the consultation period.
A First meeting will take place on Friday between the Home Office and the main interest groups. Sponsorship of courses will continue until and including those starting in the autumn of 1995 and finishing when students graduate in the summer of 1997. We do not anticipate sponsoring new students in the autumn of 1996.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and my noble friend Lord Carr, wanted to know whether that is part of the discussion. It is part of the discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, asked whether it was a. fait accompli. It is not a fait accompli because, if it were, there would be no discussion. However, I am sure that your Lordships will understand that the Government have to say what we propose and then people can discuss it.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked whether universities have received copies of the report and the discussion document. All universities received the report on 22nd February. Their views are welcomed as part of the consultation process.
The noble Lord, Lord Acton, asked whether the survey of magistrates and judges carried out by the Home Office Research and Planning Unit will be published. Magistrates and judges were asked for their views about the standard of performance of various kinds of probation work. There was, in general, a high level of satisfaction. I can tell the noble Lord that the report will be published shortly.
Lord Acton: My Lords, will the noble Earl kindly expand on the word "shortly"?
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords, I cannot expand on "shortly". It is rather shorter than longer.
Lord Acton: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether "shortly" means during April?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot do that. The noble Lord will know that that is a perfectly normal parliamentary expression. If I could have told him that the report will be published in April I would have done so. I can tell him that it will be published shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, asked why it was necessary to review the present system when it is so new and also what evidence there is that the system does not meet probation service needs. As to the first question, although the Diploma in Social Work is fairly new, it replaced the Certificate of Qualification in Social Work on which the present system of probation service qualifying training is founded. That system has been in operation now for more than 10 years and has given rise to many concerns, which are summarised in Chapter 3 of the scrutiny report.
As regards evidence that the present system does not meet the needs of the probation service, the fact is that probation officers and social workers do different work. Previous speakers have stressed the specialised nature of the work and the skills required. The corollary is that it must be open to question whether it makes sense to have a common training regime and qualification. We do not accept that the revised diploma will necessarily deliver the core competencies laid down for probation officers.
Most of your Lordships seem to think that the proposed changes are an attack on the probation service. They are not. The probation service is a vital part of the criminal justice system, and the Government have a responsibility to support it and to ensure that it works well. We do not underestimate for a minute the dangers and challenges faced by the service in its work. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, from his personal knowledge, recognised that there were difficulties and that there needed to be changes. The fact that changes were necessary was also mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and my noble friend Lord Carr. I pay my respects to probation officers, because they do considerable work, often in very difficult circumstances under difficult conditions. I agree with my noble friend Lady Macleod that they have a difficult task and need broad shoulders.
Trying to reduce offending is a formidable task. The service will need to be highly professional, and it will require first-class training if we are to ensure that all probation officers will have the necessary knowledge and skills for their duties. We do not believe that the present sole requirement for probation officers to have a social work qualification is in keeping with the changes which the service is undergoing in becoming a criminal justice agency.
Here I agree with my noble friend Lady Seccombe. We think that that requirement deters many suitable applicants who have much which they can offer the service but are at present excluded, and that the current arrangements for training do not provide good value for money. For instance, a prospective probation officer can

239
be sponsored through university for two years but he or she has no strict obligation to join the probation service afterwards.
Last year we set up a scrutiny of recruitment and qualifying training. The scrutiny team was asked to consider how entry routes into the probation service might be enlarged in order to attract those with suitable experience, and how Home Office funding might be better directed towards qualifying training for the probation service. The scrutiny—or the Dews Report, as it has become known—was completed in September. It was published in February, and with it we produced a discussion paper which set out our views on the report and our proposals as to how best to proceed in the light of the report. It is usual for the authors of reports to be identified.
The Dews Report drew attention to some of the strengths of the present system, and rightly so. But it also highlighted some very important weaknesses. In particular, it said that the statutory requirement for the Diploma in Social Work inhibits the recruitment of many potentially valuable recruits. It also said that there is no direct link between Home Office sponsorships on Diploma in Social Work courses and subsequent employment in the probation service. In addition, it said that, despite recent changes, the Diploma in Social Work is insufficiently relevant to the work which probation officers are actually called upon to do. Those were pretty hefty criticisms.
Therefore, we proposed to remove the basic requirement that one had to have a Diploma in Social Work before one could become a probation officer.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, what were the qualifications of the people who made those criticisms? We need to know whether they were professionally qualified to criticise professionally qualified people.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that one has to be professionally qualified to criticise a professionally qualified person. The fact is that it is part of the duty of the Home Office to undertake scrutinies of organisations in order to see whether the right thing is being done. It happens all over the place.
We propose to remove that basic requirement that one has to have the diploma before one can become a probation officer. That does not mean, of course, that a person who has a Diploma in Social Work could not be recruited into the probation service. It merely means that that particular monopoly of training can no longer be justified.
I now come to a point which the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, dismissed but which I believe to be perfectly valid, as did my noble friend Lady Seccombe. Those who are employed as local authority social workers are not required to have a social work qualification. Therefore it is very difficult to see why probation officers should be required to have such a qualification. That does not mean that there is not a social dimension to probation work. Of course there is. But it merely highlights the fact that social work is not the only discipline which is relevant.
240
Probation work is, of course, special and distinct work, but we have to recognise that, as well as trying to rehabilitate offenders and addressing offending behaviour, community sentences are a punishment which involve significant restriction of liberty. I make no apology for that.
Of course, community sentences do, and must, involve a restriction of liberty. But the fact is that how to look after people serving a more punitive sentence, in which the freedom of the individual is restricted, does not fall happily, if at all, within what we might describe as the caring and enabling roles for which social work training prepares people. The work of probation officers needs specialised training. And it must combine practical skills as well as appropriate knowledge.
The competencies for probation officers, which were published in May 1994, include the skills, knowledge and understanding which are required. But there is no direct match between those competencies and any existing academic qualification. Many social work skills are relevant to probation work but they are not uniquely so and they do not provide a guarantee of competence so that it can be assured that the holder of those skills will be, in practice, an effective and competent probation officer. We think that there are advantages in relating recruitment and training directly to the required competencies, rather than trying to find a new or modified academic qualification which would of itself indicate that that person has the competence to practise as a probation officer. This should enable the intake to the service to be broadened, and it should enable people who wanted to pursue second careers to be able to apply to join the probation service. They may well have valuable experience and potential, but they may be people who were unable to spend two years at university or who may already be working as probation service officers.
I accept that the proposal not to rely on a new or modified qualification would, of course, be more radical than the scrutiny report suggests. But the link to competencies should ensure that the training which is given would be directly related to the work which they would have to undertake as probation officers.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, were concerned about the balance of mature and young people. I agree that the number of mature candidates is unusual. But there has been an increase in the percentage of under-25 year-olds from 1 per cent. to 25 per cent. of the intake in the past three years and that is a worrying trend if we look ahead towards a balance of the workforce.
The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, sought validated qualifications. Would the qualifications be recognised in this country and in the European Union? Probation officers can qualify as social workers but the Home Office will not pay for that. Social workers are not to be debarred from the probation service if they meet the standards of the competencies. There is no direct equivalent in the European Union. Therefore there is now no impediment, and none is intended.
My noble friend Lord Carr wanted to know the details of what we are doing. The proposed changes include the abolition of the requirement for a person to hold a

241
Diploma in Social Work, or its equivalent, before he or she could be appointed as a probation officer; and a new scheme under which probation services recruit trainees directly, following a regional selection procedure and an initial training period for up to two years. Probation services would have to maintain very high standards, but they would be able to draw on a variety of backgrounds, skills and disciplines in order to provide a well-balanced workforce. Individual training should be undertaken within an area probation service. Programmes would have to be used which combine practical teaching and theory with the disciplines of analysing and presenting complex information. Before achieving qualified probation officer status, trainees would have to demonstrate that they had the competence to practise on the basis of a thorough assessment of their knowledge and practical skills.
The central funds which are presently allocated to the sponsorship scheme would be devolved to probation services for the operation of the new scheme. Recruitment would have to be directly related to the central needs of the services. The sponsorship by the Government of new students on Diploma in Social Work courses at universities should cease after the intake for the academic year 1995–96. Those changes would be implemented without adversely affecting the employment prospects of existing sponsored students or those who will start courses in the coming academic year.
The abolition of what one might describe as a unique requirement does not mean that relevant qualifications—including social work qualifications—will not be welcomed. Of course, they will be. But the Government would like to see probation committees encouraging officers to acquire academic and vocational qualifications as part of their in-service development where these will be able to improve their competence and professional ability. I would not wish to rule out the establishment of a national vocational qualification at the proper level in order to recognise the competence and development of individual probation officers.
I stated at the beginning that there is a three months' consultation period. I can assure the House that the views that your Lordships have put forward today will form part of that consultation and that the Government will take note of what has been said. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, that my noble friend Lady Blatch will also take note of what your Lordships have said.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this topical debate. In particular, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham on his maiden speech. I am sure that it has made Oliver Twists of us all—wanting more. I hope that we may have more soon.
We have had some distinguished and, I hope the Government will feel, constructive contributions. It is perhaps a measure of the importance of the subject that the House has benefited from the thoughts and presence of no fewer than three former Home Secretaries. I am
242
very glad to be tussling again with the Minister in, I hope, a civilised way. He has defended a difficult section of the line with his customary courtesy, thoroughness and pluck. (I think that pluck is the right word in this context.) The military analogy is not a random one. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, whenever the going gets rough or the proposals are unpopular, it is the noble Earl who stands the Government's ground, to the applause, if not the general agreement, of the whole House.
I very much hope that the noble Earl and his colleagues will take careful note of what has been said today. There is a genuine and widespread feeling that what is being suggested in respect of the probation service is as a response to outside and ill-informed pressures and that the proposals, if I may be frank, owe more to the four-ale bar philosophers and tabloid leader writers than to rationality and experience.
The House will be relieved to know that I shall not weary it with a reiteration of the many points made. An important debate is waiting in the wings. But I am glad of the noble Earl's assurance that this debate will form an important part of the consultation period. If the views expressed today are anything to go by, the battle might be thought to be won. But that, alas, has not always been the case in recent months.
I beg the Minister to take these points to his colleagues for earnest consideration so that the seven-week period can see a genuine exchange of constructive views and so that the Government ultimately do not go down a turning they will later regret. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Arts and Heritage Funding
6.48 p.m.
Lord Palmer Lord Palmer rose to call attention to the general funding of the arts and in particular the architectural heritage, including historic houses; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is over a year since we last had the opportunity to debate the arts and the architectural heritage, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have put their names down to speak and indeed to those who scratched at the last moment and/or indeed resisted the temptation to put their names down in order to allow a few more moments for others to speak. I am delighted that the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, the noble Earl, Lord Hardwicke, and my noble friend Lord Rothschild have chosen this debate in which to make their maiden speeches. Three maiden speeches in a debate must be something near to a record.
I am grateful to my fellow Cross-Bench Peers for choosing this debate and I am proud to have the chance of introducing this important subject, as my family title was one of the very first which had an arts connection. The London Gazette of 23rd June 1933 cites my great-grandfather as being created a Peer for services to music. I hope that that now puts paid to the general

243
assumption that our title was given for baking biscuits. His obituary in The Times of 10th December 1948 stated that he was,
"the first man to be created a Peer for services to music".
He was very largely instrumental in founding the Royal College of Music; and it is with music and the Royal College in particular that I wish to start.
Before doing so, I should like to say how fortunate we are to have the noble Viscount the Minister winding up for the Government tonight. I know how important he believes the arts and the architectural heritage are to this country. He was brought up in one of the finest houses in England with a magnificent art collection. Indeed, he was a distinguished artist himself. Few people are better qualified to wind up what I am sure will be a wide-ranging and fascinating debate.
For centuries the arts and architectural heritage have given enormous pleasure to the inhabitants of these islands and now, with air travel in the grasp of the masses, to people from all over the world. The vast majority of the 19 million visitors each year to this country come here to visit our great buildings and to enjoy our wide variety of arts. That in turn brings in £33 billion per annum. It is for that reason that the arts and architectural heritage must operate at a high level of performance and for that they need funding. The Government are constantly trying to encourage partnerships between the public and private sectors. I believe that the private sector is doing its bit and it is now time for the Government to do their bit a bit more.
When the Royal College of Music was founded in 1888, there were just 92 students. Today there are 517 undergraduate and postgraduate students. The majority of those students need an instrument of professional quality and many have to scrimp, save, beg and/or borrow to find the appropriate funds. Good string instruments now cost upwards of £10,000 and more.
Nowadays, the vast number of committed students, certainly in music, recognise the need to continue their studies at postgraduate level. At the moment, there is no logical system of postgraduate awards. The funding system has simply not caught up with educational developments. Postgraduates are dependent on local authority discretionary awards in order to cover their further tuition fees. Very few are fortunate in obtaining them. Postgraduate students have to find tuition fees of around £1,000 a year and a further £4,500 maintenance. That is a large sum of money for full-time students to have to find.
Britain's musicians are among the best in the world. As the recent document Overseas Earnings has shown, they contribute significantly to the British economy. Adequate funding for the education and training of musicians is not only a valuable investment in terms of what these musicians can bring to society as a whole but also a way of ensuring that this aspect of the British economy can continue to thrive. Net overseas earnings by the United Kingdom music industry in 1993 were £571 million—I repeat, £571 million. I ask the noble Viscount to look most carefully to see what he can do, particularly with regard to the funding of postgraduate students.
Since its inception, the Royal College has produced many famous musicians, such as Walford Davis, Vaughan Williams, Clara Butt, Benjamin Britten, the Lloyd Webber brothers, James Galway and John Lill, to name but a few. If we are to go on producing such talented people, funding must be kept at a high level.
Music is not the only form of art being starved of funds. It is depressing to read the latest available figures, which compare the percentage of gross domestic product spent on the arts in different countries. In France it is 0.22 per cent.; in Germany 0.21 per cent.; and here in the United Kingdom a miserable 0.14 per cent. Expenditure on the arts in the United Kingdom as a percentage of total public expenditure is therefore very nearly half what it is in France and Germany. Central government spending on the United Kingdom arts is half per capita to that of the Netherlands.
When one looks at the planned budget for the Arts Council this year, we are spending less per capita per annum than the price of two large gin and tonics. Viewed like that, it is surely pathetic. I also find it depressing and sad that the planned amount of money that the Department of National Heritage aims to spend this year is some £13 million less in actual terms than was spent in the years 1992–93. I do so hope that the Minister will be able to give us some cheer tonight.
I turn to the second part of the Motion. Here I must declare an interest as a director of the Historic Houses Association, a member of its executive council and chairman of its Scottish region; I also live in a Grade A listed house which is exempt from inheritance tax and has attached to it the country's very first maintenance fund.
Maintenance funds received Treasury approval back in 1978. Since then, only some 60 have been set up. Some have huge reserves and others, like my own, have minute amounts. The reason that more have not been set up will, I hope, become obvious. All maintenance funds serve the same purpose and that is to help to maintain the historic property with which they are connected. They are unable to carry out any form of commercial operation, which is right and proper. However, what is wrong is the tax treatment they receive. At present, the annual income from a maintenance fund is taxed at the basic rate plus 10 per cent. additional trustees' rate.
The noble Viscount said on 10th June 1992 (Hansard, col. 1298) that he would "study carefully" this point when it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold and myself. I believe that it is now time for him to take action. In an ideal world maintenance funds ought to be completely income tax free and, indeed, where investment gains are made and devoted to heritage purposes, they should be free of capital gains tax. If the Government cannot go that far in one fell swoop, they must at least remove the additional trustees' rate. I would urge the Minister most strongly to look at that again. With so few maintenance funds in existence, we must be talking about a very insignificant amount of revenue to the Treasury. I am only sorry that such figures, for various, obvious reasons, are not available.
It must not be forgotten that the settlors of maintenance funds have given away their own money, land and/or chattels in order to finance those

245
maintenance funds to help maintain their properties for the good of the visiting public. Even to have that extra 10 per cent. would be a major boost.
Where grant aid is offered and exemption agreed, there is often talk of personal gain to the owner of an historic house. Here there is no argument. Many, if not all, owners of listed buildings over the years have pumped a vast proportion of their own money into their properties for the enjoyment of the visiting public. They suffer great discomfort by trying to live in them, especially in the winter—I do speak from experience. We must not forget that most owners of open houses are heavily out of pocket at the end of the year.
There is no doubt that the visiting public do prefer visiting a house which is actually lived in. I shall never forget one visitor we had at home tripping over my wife's slippers in her bedroom, which was then open to the public. This visitor then had the gall to ask if we actually lived in the house.
The grant-aiding policy from English Heritage and Historic Scotland is difficult to follow and indeed at a rate of only 40 per cent. is derisory. Section 3A grants offered by English Heritage—and here I emphasise offered—to the private sector were just £1.7 million in the last year for which figures were available, which was 1991–92. To avoid any doubt at all I stress that this figure was provided by English Heritage. That £1.7 million offered is equivalent to 530 yards of motorway construction.
The Government's attitude to the privately-owned heritage is puzzling. Contrary to their privatisation plans, where the private heritage sector is concerned, the Government seem to favour public ownership. If the leader of the Labour Party favours dropping Clause 4 from its manifesto, surely this Government can be persuaded to treat the private sector in a less hostile manner.
The mechanics of capital taxation are indeed more favourable than they were. Some credit should go to Her Majesty's Opposition, who, when in government, implemented some of the Historic Houses Association's suggestions. Since this Government came to power they have indeed improved the heritage legislation in some respects, but in more recent years they have seemed reluctant to undertake measures that are now necessary to meet the high running repair costs of maintaining these great buildings.
I do so hope that the noble Viscount the Minister will give the private sector the help it so desperately needs and deserves. He has a great opportunity tonight at so little cost to the Treasury and I just hope that he will grasp that opportunity. I beg to move my Motion for Papers.
7.2 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am profoundly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for giving us the opportunity tonight to debate arts funding and architectural heritage, as well as for his magnificent and closely reasoned speech, with nearly all of which I
246
agree. I look forward to the maiden speeches, including that by my fellow distributor of the National Lottery funds, the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has got his timing absolutely on the button. The publicly-funded arts organisations are in considerable difficulty. But they are also on the threshold of a great opportunity. It is of course my job to dwell on the difficulties, but that does not mean that I am not immensely excited, enthusiastic and grateful for the opportunities. Perhaps the most exciting thing of all is that, in spite of the difficulties, the arts in this country are in rude health; creative, competitive, winning fame and often fortune for their practitioners and for this whole country around the world.
Allowing for the contribution to tourism, the arts are the second or third most successful industry. They are perhaps the first in being the best known. While Britain was always influential in terms of literature and drama, today she is —to borrow a Foreign Office phrase—boxing beyond her weight in music, opera, dance, architecture and the visual arts as well. If one includes the British element in American-backed movies, we should also include film.
Culture, like agriculture, depends on the soil and the weather. I am not too gloomy about the weather. I believe that the arts are moving up the political agenda of both the major political parties. The Government have delivered the lottery to the statute books with all-party support. They deserve credit, the Prime Minister especially, for doing so. Others, including myself 10 years ago, tried and failed. The Treasury was hostile. Its First Lord has now got it through. It is my experience from travelling throughout the country that even the fiercest political opponents recognise that achievement and welcome it. The Arts Council of England, even allowing for what some of its members must feel is the dubious political past of its present chairman, certainly does so. And the lottery is not just about buildings; it is about musical instruments, artistic commissions, films and many other things.
Then again, all my own contacts with Her Majesty's Opposition in this House and in another place, on the council itself and among the predominantly Labour-controlled local authorities, make me confident that Labour is serious in its intention and is looking at our industry right outside the context of electoral politics. So the outlook is in general good from both perspectives.
I shall now bite the hand that I know will make an effort to feed me better. Confident about the weather, as I have just said, I am extremely worried about the soil. As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said, the discretionary grant system at local authority level is in chaos. Investing in our artistic future through the educational system is vital. The Secretary of State for Education has been kind enough to see me and I am confident that she will do her best.
The Secretary of State for National Heritage was rightly praised for refusing to accept the commitment to stand-still funding which he inherited on taking office. He refused to say, as it were, with the Duke of Wellington, "They have their lottery; pass the port".

247
He fought for and won a £5 million increase in the Arts Council of England's base line funding. Unfortunately, at the likely inflation outturn of 3 per cent., that still represents a cut in real terms. It means, too, that we have not clawed back any of the unworthy and unnecessary cut made to the council's grant in 1994–95. Assuming that continuing real rate of inflation of 3 per cent., the council's grant will need to increase from £191 million to £207 million to get us back to where we were in 1993–94.
What is the argument for going back and not forward, even if modestly forward? It cannot be the need, with which I happen to agree, to cut public expenditure totals. There is a difference between £100 and 3p. It cannot be impatience with an insatiable lobby. The subsidised sector is the merest seedcorn in an industry which makes massive returns to our economy in the form of tax, overseas revenue and employment. Even the present Secretary of State for Employment—whom I find hard to criticise as he is as passionate about Wagner as I am—must recognise that the subsidy-job ratio in the arts is £483 to one. In agriculture, the next cheapest, the ratio is over £4,000 to one. And while overall employment has increased by 4 per cent. in the past 10 years, in the arts it has grown by nearly 50 per cent.
In art terms I am impossibly, perhaps foolishly, what used to be called "dry". I happen to believe that the Arts Council could manage to serve the arts on rather less money than my colleagues or the arts practitioners themselves believe. The lottery will improve current funding as venues get better. We, the consumers, will be enticed by good environments and exciting buildings to get off our backsides, to leave our tellies and enjoy the wonder, indeed the spiritual regeneration, that participation in living events can bring. That will help on current account, but it takes time. We have to get from here to there. We need £15 million on the baseline. Even if one extrapolates an increase of this kind across all the relevant cultural activities in this country, one is still left well short of 1 per cent. of public spending.
In conclusion, without a restitution of that kind we shall continue to preside over crisis management in our orchestras, our regional theatres and particularly our local art centres. One can manage crisis for a while; as a permanent atmosphere, it saps creativity. It is not much to ask, and I ask for it now.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Rothschild: My Lords, in March 1980 the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, wound up the debate in this House on what became the National Heritage Act by saying that it would prove to be the most important piece of legislation in the heritage field since the Second World War. Under the inspired leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, the National Heritage Memorial Fund made that prediction come true. The well nigh impossible task of following in the noble Lord's footsteps has fallen on me.
In those 12 years of his chairmanship our notion of this country's heritage was enormously extended. It covered not only historic houses like Kedleston, Calke Abbey, and in Scotland, Thirlestane and Fyffe Castle, but also Sir Donald Campbell's Bluebird, the first letter
248
that Nelson wrote with his left hand, a collection of trade union banners for the Museum of Labour History, and a rare breeding colony of the greater horseshoe bat in the roof of an old school kitchen.
For the heritage, the 1993 National Lottery etc. Act is likely, I think, to become even more important than the 1980 Act. Within just a few months the National Lottery has become an important factor in British economic life. Some 58 per cent. of the adult population are playing every week, spending just over £2 a week, and an estimated £3 billion in revenue seems likely to be raised in the lottery's first year. Our fund already has about £60 million available to it after 19 weeks in existence compared with the £8.6 million we received for the whole of last year. Quite soon, the National Heritage Memorial Fund may be giving away more than the Ford Foundation and the Getty Museum in the United States by quite a large margin. The National Lottery is well on its way, as someone said, to becoming one of those national events like the Grand National, the last night of the Proms, or the BBC's weekly "Match of the Day".
In addition to the lottery factor we have a strong following wind for the heritage. It has become a hugely popular movement. Consider for a moment the extraordinary growth of the National Trust, whose centenary is being celebrated this year under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. It now has 2.2 million members—a larger number than all the political parties put together.
Noble Lords may ask what principles should be guiding us in our allocation of resources. Before we get carried away with these large numbers, we should remember the vast areas to be covered: historic buildings, the landscape, museums and their collections, books, manuscripts and archives, industrial transport and maritime history.
Let us just consider for a moment one aspect of the built heritage, and perhaps I may take the opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for raising this important subject and for giving us the opportunity of discussing it- In addition to the subject of historic houses, which I know will be raised quite often in the debate, we want to help the Government over the rationalisation of their holdings of heritage significance. I wonder whether we have seen anything on this scale since the dissolution of the monasteries in the 16th century. The Ministry of Defence is withdrawing not only from Greenwich but also from Woolwich, Plymouth and a long list of great historic forts and sites. We want to help churches too and to think of uses that can be found for redundant churches in an increasingly secular society.
Close to this House, Westminster Hospital is just one splendid example of the type of building which is in need of a new future. The Lord Chancellor's Office wishes to find alternative uses for many 18th and 19th century distinguished law court buildings, often grade I or grade II.
The principles which will guide our grants are evolving all the time but some are already clear. We share the concern that has been voiced that lottery moneys provided by the less well off should not be

249
directed in the main towards the narrow interests of the better off. The lives of those who have provided the revenues should benefit from how they are spent. We therefore want to identify small local projects which will have a profound and lasting impact on the communities of this country and the people who live in them.
Popularism and elitism are often represented as irreconcilable but they need not be at odds with one another. For example, our citadels of culture, our great national museums, not only have great quality but are also hugely popular. They surely deserve our support.
On the whole we do not want to encourage grands projets like the French. We will be cautious about breeding herds of hungry white elephants which would require a great deal of feeding in the future. It is our incomparable existing stock and fabric which we believe should be our first port of call. We have been asked to concentrate on capital projects and will do our best to avoid adding to the problems of revenue funding when the arts and heritage sector is already so hard pressed. We welcome the freedom we have been given to provide endowment funds in exceptional cases.
We should concentrate on making our heritage more accessible, making use of the revolution in technology as an unparalleled opportunity to democratise knowledge and to break down walls. We wish to avoid the "UK lottery factory" in the international art market. Recently we helped to acquire and conserve for the future an area of great natural beauty on one of the west coast islands of Scotland. The cost of the site was £500,000. If we had acquired the original painting of it by Turner it might have been valued at £20 million. We felt that it was better to acquire the original original. International art prices are already high and our resources may well be better spent right here.
The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, began his first annual report of 1980 by quoting Sir Francis Drake, who wrote to Sir Francis Walsingham in 1587:
"There must be a beginning of any great matter, but the continuing unto the end until it be thoroughly finished yields the true glory".
May I, too, please conclude with this quotation as we begin the second chapter in the life of the memorial fund with our first lottery grants due to be announced on 26th April? As Sir Francis Drake wrote more than 400 years ago, we look forward to a,
"voyage of mercy with many ports of call".
7.19 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, it is a great honour and a pleasure, on behalf of the whole House, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, on his memorable maiden speech. The noble Lord was a most successful chairman of the trustees of the National Gallery during an important part of its development and he has also been a generous benefactor to the gallery. I believe that he was rather too modest, if I may say so. He was an ideal choice to succeed the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, in 1992 as chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The noble Lord is also chairman of the management committee for the National Trust House of Waddesdon, the great
250
Rothschild house, to which he has also been a generous supporter. I renew my congratulations and I hope that we shall have the pleasure of hearing the noble Lord on many other occasions.
I should like to say a few words about the British Museum and with particular reference to the built heritage which has been the subject of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. The British Museum will celebrate its 250th anniversary in 2003. The BM is one of four great museums of world stature. The only others in the same class are the Louvre, the Hermitage and the Metropolitan in New York. The BM attracts six million visitors a year, more even than the Louvre and the Metropolitan. As a nation I believe that we are surely very lucky to have inherited this wonderful museum although I am sorry to say that this has not always been recognised by governments in their funding.
I remember in the 1950s that there was considerable public concern about the inadequate conservation of many valuable objects at the British Museum due to the lack of funding. In recent years, I am glad to say, the grant-in-aid has become more realistic, but the British Museum's income has been eroded over the years by inflation. This shortfall will become more acute as funding for the arts passes increasingly to the lottery committees. I heard with great interest the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. Lottery money, while welcome, can only be used, as we know, to finance new capital projects, but of course these require additional finance for running costs.
When the British Library moves to St. Pancras it will make available 40 per cent. of the Bloomsbury building and will allow the Great Court, where the Reading Room was erected in 1852, later than the foundation of the museum, to be returned to its original conception, providing a central concourse for visitors with many badly-needed public services.
For the first time in 150 years there will be easier access between the north and south halves of the museum and visitors will be able to circulate throughout the building at ground floor level. The former King's Library will be restored to its original condition of 1828 and will house a new exhibition on discovery and learning in the Age of Enlightenment. The extensive ethnographical collection will be moved back to Bloomsbury from the Museum of Mankind in Burlington Gardens. These development programmes will require extra capital funding, I understand, of about £100 million, and a corresponding increase in grant-in-aid.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned France. During the last 20 years or so the French Government have funded 12 grands projets. Here I must beg to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. I do not believe that these are all white elephants. One thinks of Le Grand Louvre, to which a most magnificent extension has been arranged since the departure of the French Ministry of Finance to the Quai de Bercy, and one thinks of the wonderful pyramide in front of the Louvre.
One thinks, too, after what the French have done, of what might have happened to our own National Gallery extension if we had not had that very generous donation from the Sainsbury family. I am very glad that the noble

251
Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover, is going to speak in this debate. I believe that all the Government were prepared to do was to allow what they called a "mixed project", which means shops, and some offices with a few rooms allotted also to the National Gallery. But, due to the tremendous generosity of the Sainsbury family, we now have this beautiful extension. But that is no credit to the Government at all, while I believe we must agree that the French Government have come out well with what has been done in the Louvre.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will lift their sights a bit, take a long view and provide adequate and continuing funding for the splendid new projects I have attempted to describe which are planned for our greatest museum.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Davies: My Lords, I first declare an interest in that I am chairman of Welsh National Opera and a trustee of Cardiff Bay Opera House Trust. The first of these has given me considerable experience of arts funding. The second will add to the architectural heritage for the next century.
Opera provision, particularly outside London, has been one of the great developments over the past 20 years. The main regional opera companies—that is, Welsh National Opera, Opera North and Scottish Opera, together with Glyndebourne Touring Opera—now work to exceptional standards and have built a very substantial and enthusiastic audience in the main cities throughout Great Britain, but like most arts organisations their funding situation remains precarious. They have to plan their work, book and contract singers up to three years ahead, but their income levels, particularly grant levels, are not usually known until a month or two before the start of the financial year and sometimes indeed not until the year starts.
Over the years there have been various attempts to give longer-term funding commitments by the arts councils, but these commitments have always erred on the side of extreme caution, I suspect from Treasury influence. As a consequence, arts council companies have been unable to plan to them because to do so would have meant planning for closure. Fortunately, the events turned out to be less dire than forecast in most cases. Any permanent companies such as Welsh National Opera which, incidentally, employs some 250 people, is very sensitive to swings in funding levels. Relatively small cuts in funding result in relatively large cuts in output. An extra 1 per cent. of grant enables Welsh National Opera to increase audience by 6 per cent. All the companies work on a knife-edge, and the recent reductions in grants in real terms have made matters even more precarious. There is, of course, nothing new in this, but in the past the companies have only survived because after years of financial squeezes they have been forced to cry for help at the point of desperation, and that help has been forthcoming. Our worry is that our cry this time may not he heard or, if it is heard, not acted on.
Following cuts of varying degrees of severity, the three permanent companies expect to survive through the present financial year which has just started, but if standstill grants are applied to the next year, as presently
252
indicated, they are all going to be in severe difficulty and will have to make cuts to their quality and quantity of output, which will put at risk their very justification for existence.
Opera is inevitably an expensive art, but great opera can provide intense enjoyment and pleasure for its audiences. Opera done badly is simply not worth the money. How much more sensible it would be if the arts councils were to discuss with the companies how their work and output could be optimised and supply the modest increases in grants which would be necessary to achieve that. Unfortunately, even when the arts councils have the funds to do so they do tend to think that it is more interesting to spend their money on development projects rather than to maximise the benefits from what they already have. As we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, they have not even had sufficient funds to do that in recent years. I do hope that the arts councils and the separate arts councils in Wales and Scotland, are listened to and receive the support from the Government which they need.
The Government are to be congratulated on the great success of the National Lottery. Among the many good causes which the funds generated will support is the built environment in which the arts will be performed into the next century. That is something to which we can look forward with pride and pleasure. However, if we do not look after and cherish the great performing companies, which we have built up and developed during the last part of this century with such great success, the new buildings for the next century will he just silent mausoleums for our citizens to stare at rather than the vibrant and bustling centres to thrill and enhance the lives of the coming generations which they should be, and can be, if we take proper care of those who will breathe life into them.
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Gage: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking in this debate and I am delighted to learn that the National Heritage Memorial Fund will, as a result of the increased income from the lottery, be in a position to fund, among other things, the built heritage. The impact of such a large increase in the funds available for grants could be enormous on listed buildings and monuments in public ownership but will not directly benefit those which are privately owned.
Generous as the increase in funding may be, the grants will still be subject to the imposition of value added tax at 17.5 per cent., and I suggest that a more radical approach from the Government would be to reduce or abolish the tax. The question of whether VAT should be charged on the repair of historic buildings has been raised in this House on several occasions, recently by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich in his debate on 31st January 1995 to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, replied. It is not necessary to go too deeply into the arguments expressed so eloquently and movingly by the right reverend Prelate and many other noble Lords as they are well known.
However, one issue which has not yet been highlighted is the fact that at the moment VAT is charged on repairs but not on improvements. If it is

253
impossible to zero-rate both categories, should we not reverse the situation? Many of the buildings that are so important for the preservation of our heritage require frequent and expensive repairs rather than additions or Improvements. The current tax situation offers a disincentive to owners to effect those vital repairs while at the same time encouraging development or substantial reconstruction. That can in some instances lead to over-repair and alteration, damaging the historic aspects of the building. That was not the Government's intention when making the tax concession but, unfortunately, that is sometimes the effect. It is the repair and maintenance of historic buildings, more than improvements, which need the encouragement provided by such a concession.
The importance of historic buildings in our country is self-evident. As the chairman of English Heritage said at a recent anniversary conference, the evolution of the public consciousness and concern about the heritage has rapidly accelerated during the 1980s and early 1990s and has become a national cause. The tourist industry now vies with the oil industry as the biggest contributor to the balance of payments. Seventy per cent. of tourists who visit this country say that they do so to enjoy the countryside, ancient monuments, listed buildings, historic houses and churches—the mosaic of which our past consists. There are therefore sound economic reasons for encouraging the individuals and organisations responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the buildings.
Many listed buildings are not capable of generating enough income to cover the cost of their upkeep, let alone the 17.5 per cent. VAT levied by the Treasury. Some of our larger historic buildings—those which charge admission fees and run businesses—are able to escape the full effect of the tax by employing direct labour. It is on the smaller, less viable properties that the full burden of the tax devolves. I declare an interest, both as a tenant of a listed building that is open to the public and as warden of the local church. The trustees of the estate are lucky enough to be able to employ a direct labour force and therefore pay VAT only on the materials used in the repairs.
By contrast, the recent £50,000 repair bill for the ancient village church was fully subject to VAT; half of that sum was raised by the hard-working and committed parishioners and half came from English Heritage. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, much of the burden of repairs to our local churches devolves on very small congregations. Is it right that their charitable efforts should be subject to VAT? Further, in the same debate the Minister suggested that the preferred way of assisting fund-raising is to encourage charitable giving through deeds of covenant, Gift Aid and payroll giving, but many of our less well-off parishioners may not be in a tax bracket to benefit from those concessions.
The Government have remained unmoved by the many excellent arguments put forward in favour of the abolition of VAT on repairs on the grounds that considerable funding is already provided by the Government by grant aid and that it is not government policy to vary or reduce the rate of VAT. However,
254
attitudes are changing not only in the United Kingdom but throughout Europe. There is an increasing demand for more assistance towards the preservation of our often threatened heritage. Other countries, such as Belgium and France, already allow greater tax concessions to that end. Will the Minister reconsider the position in relation to the European Commission's policy on the application of reduced rates of VAT in certain circumstances or will he consider reversing the position in relation to repairs and improvements? Need the tablets be set in stone?
7.36 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and to congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. He spoke with conviction and clarity and, like other noble Lords, I listened to him with great pleasure and admiration and, for my part, with total agreement. I know that I speak for the whole House in expressing the hope that this will be the first of many such fine contributions from him.
By chance or providence what I have to say is, in a sense, a continuation of the noble Viscount's speech which I wholeheartedly applaud. I make no apology for returning to the subject of funding for the repair of churches. Indeed, I believe that no apology is necessary in a debate which embraces the nation's architectural heritage because the parish churches of England are a unique and significant part of that heritage.
There are, I believe, just over 11,000 Grade I listed buildings in England, of which 4,000 are parish churches—that is 35 per cent. of the nation's total. In addition, the Church of England alone cares for a further 9,000 listed buildings. That is a major heritage responsibility and, by any standards, anyone who represents the parish churches of England represents a huge heritage constituency. That fact is recognised by the Department of National Heritage, and we are enormously grateful for its co-operation, and for that of English Heritage with which we work closely. At a conference staged jointly by English Heritage and the Church of England last December, that close co-operation was further enhanced and the problems faced by the churches were recognised by everyone there.
A major contribution to the conference was made, as one would expect, by Mrs. Jennie Page, chief executive of English Heritage, to whose work I should like to pay a warm tribute. She referred to the parish church as
"the most important single type of historic building in England"
and went on to say that,
"what we have in our parish churches is too precious to lose …ecclesiastical buildings (especially the parish churches of the Church of England) are such an essential centrepiece of England's built heritage, every effort should be made to assist continuing church ownership and use".
She acknowledged the huge commitment of the Church to the nation's heritage through its care for ecclesiastical buildings. Indeed, it is very large. Although we are grateful for the grants that we receive, they cover only a small part of our repair costs. In a typical year, 1992, when we received about £9 million in grants, the Church spent £112 million on repairs. English Heritage and the Department of National Heritage do what they can, but

255
it is simply not enough if we are to preserve the nation's heritage. Their contribution is undermined by the Government's policy on VAT.
I remind your Lordships of a few facts which affect the churches. Although we receive grants from the Government through English Heritage for the repair of ancient buildings, the VAT on those repairs is far in excess of the grants given. For example, in 1991 churches of all denominations received £8 million in grants from English Heritage. That same year the VAT on repair bills amounted to £35 million. In 1994 the grants from English Heritage rose to £13.5 million. The bill for VAT will be close to £50 million.
Mr. Hugh Corner, of the Department of National Heritage, said at the conference that historic buildings were part of the common heritage of which the Church of England buildings were a uniquely important part. He also said that any failure to care for those buildings would be a defeat for the Government's commitment to the protection of that heritage. I am not anxious to see the Government defeated. One may ask what the Government can do to avoid such a defeat. The last time I spoke on this subject I appealed to the Government's higher motives and to natural justice and said that it was ludicrous and unjust that those who maintained the built heritage on behalf of the nation should have to pay back to the Government more than double the grant they received. That appeal has so far failed. Perhaps this time I may appeal to a lower motive. If what we say today filters through to the green-carpeted corridors, perhaps the message can be conveyed that there are votes in it. A survey carried out last summer by Gallup showed that 89 per cent. of people believed that historic buildings and places gave an area a sense of identity. As Mrs. Page has said, public interest and concern for the built heritage has never been higher. We are talking here about a popular cause, not a marginal one. A bold decision by the Government to abolish or lower the rate of VAT, especially on parish churches, would be greeted with popular acclaim.
The East Anglian landscape is punctuated by church buildings. Sometimes several of them are visible at a single glance. The towers of Norfolk and Suffolk and the spires of Lincolnshire that point to the sky are, I believe, precious symbols both of the presence of God among us and, in their heavenward orientation, reminders in a world where consciousness is bounded by three dimensions of a perspective that we badly need to recover. If the Government would help us in this matter we could do much to recover that perspective, and they would win a large number of friends.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for an admirable Introductory speech. I also extend my congratulations to the two maiden speakers we have heard so far. I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, had to say about the use that the Heritage Fund intended to make of the lottery proceeds. It is upon that subject that I speak, although I should like to speak more to the Arts Council than the Heritage Fund.
256
I suppose that we all agree that the purpose of publicly funding the arts is to help improve their quality, their accessibility and the public understanding of them. An important element in the furtherance of accessibility is the need to keep down the cost to the public of enjoyment of the arts, which means lower seat prices, admission fees and so on. I refer particularly to seat prices and take the case of opera. I believe this to be a particularly important, illustrative point.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships ever read a magazine called Opera. I recommend it. It is excellent. The current issue contains an editorial that deals with the recent Stevenson Report on Opera and Dance that has been commissioned by the Arts Council. The report stated that the audience for opera in London is at best static, probably declining and not large enough to sustain two big theatres. It noted a peak period between 1985 and 1990 when there was certainly a sufficient audience for two big houses, but there was a decline thereafter. The magazine criticises the report for not pointing out the obvious connection between that decline and the sharp rise in seat prices. It reminds us that recently in Paris three operas were performed—"Lakmé", "Lucia" and "King Arthur"—before houses full to the rafters. The reason was that seat prices were about half those in London. Seat prices increase because the subsidy has not been enough to keep them down, after every effort has been made to lower costs.
The problem facing those who decide arts funding policy is obvious. The lower the subsidy, the higher seat prices have to be and the smaller the number of people who can afford to go and the smaller the social justification for having any subsidy at all.
I come to my main point. Long ago I gave up any hope—perhaps it would have been the triumph of hope over experience to think otherwise—of achieving a real lift in public subsidy for the arts. Therefore, I strongly welcomed the idea of the national lottery. I joined the national lottery promotion company to help it along. I did very little but was keen. When the national lottery was set up everybody agreed that the proceeds should not be allowed to replace state funding but should be additional to it. The Government have publicly accepted the so-called principle of additionality. On the face of it, this is greatly to be welcomed. However, the method adopted to ensure additionality has been to confine the use of lottery funds to capital projects.
Of course, there is a tremendous backlog of capital improvements that are badly needed. A good example is the Arts Council's recent grant from lottery money to the Unicorn Theatre in London to update its safety standards and thus keep it in business. I also believe that the Royal Opera House's scheme to update its facilities is an essential capital improvement. I hope that in due course it will attract some Arts Council lottery money. For the time being, to confine lottery money to capital projects is understandable and reasonable, but it means that any hope that lottery money can be used to help bring down seat prices and make opera and the other arts more accessible to ordinary incomes is deferred. I wonder for how long. It would not matter if the

257
distributing agencies—the Arts Council in the case just referred to—had enough money to core fund (as it is called) all their main clients, but they have not.
I feel that the principle of additionality is being protected at rather a high cost. For example, it means that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, cannot use lottery funds to plug the gap created by the £3 million cut suffered by the Arts Council a year ago. If I were in his place—which 20 years ago I was—I would sooner have the £3 million for the things that I thought needed them most, even if it meant that the Treasury found it easier to breach the principle of additionality when deciding the grant.
I hope that we shall soon be able to use the lottery to supplement arts funding on the revenue side and make good chronic underfunding where it exists. I take heart from the Secretary of State's recent announcement of the possibility of endowment funding in special cases. It would be splendid if that concept could be more widely applied. I hope to hear something from the Minister at the end of the debate on that point.
7.49 p.m.
The Earl of Hardwicke: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me for being the third maiden speaker this afternoon. I can do no more than crave your Lordships' indulgence.
I welcome this debate on arts funding as it presents a very good opportunity to review the current state of the British film industry. It is particularly timely in view of the following factors. First, this is the centenary of the showing of the world's first film by the Lumiere brothers in Paris in 1885. Secondly, there is the strong British presence at the Oscars last week. Thirdly, there is yesterday's report by the National Heritage Select Committee on the future of the British film industry which highlighted a number of difficulties currently faced by the industry, and I hope that its constructive recommendations will find favour with the Government.
Of all the arts, film is of the greatest interest to the majority of young people. Eighty per cent. of all movie-goers in Britain are aged between 16 and 25. Film has a direct influence on our opinions, our education, our very outlook and values. That films can have such an impact was highlighted by President Woodrow Wilson in 1916 when he said:
"Film has come to rank as the very highest medium for the dissemination of public intelligence—since it speaks a universal language it lends itself importantly to the presentation of America's plans and purposes."
Perhaps your Lordships would allow me to reflect on a few interesting aspects of the current state of the British film industry because they highlight its unique characteristics. The film and video industry generates an annual turnover of over £1 billion; it is expected to outpace all other industrial sectors, with annual growth of 30 per cent. over the next 25 years; it also employs 220,000 people in Britain. But important as those facts are, they are essentially economic in nature. They ignore the central role played by the film industry in our nation's cultural life.
258
In order to give a balanced assessment of what needs to be done to assist the development of a British-based film industry we should recognise what the Government have done to assist the industry. That includes the creation of British screen finance; their contributions to the European co-production funds; and the establishment of the British Film Commission, designed to attract inward investment, together with contributions to the British Film Institute, the National Film and Television School and various European Union initiatives, such as Euro-image.
In preparing for this, my maiden speech, I have devoted considerable time not only to reading carefully the various policy papers and submissions made by members of the industry. I have also sought guidance and advice from a wide spectrum of its members, and in thinking about what I have been told I have come to the conclusion that there is a key question on which there has yet to develop a consensus —that is, whether the film industry in this country is deserving of special treatment. I believe that it is.
Film plays a pivotal role in our society, and the way many young people emulate their film heroes and heroines shows the ability of films to influence our behaviour and our cultural values. Therefore the expansion of the British film industry will contribute to the preservation of our national identity and cultural heritage.
Our film-makers deserve particular consideration because they have to compete with other nations whose governments give special treatment to their national film industries. When one considers the substantial assistance to the film industries in a number of European Union countries and also in countries such as Canada and Australia, it seems to me British film-makers are a very long way from competing on a level playing field.
But, above all, we have to recognise both the existence and the potential of our creative talent, our acting talent, our production talent and our literary talent, of which Britain can be justly proud. My fear is that in the absence of a more dynamic film industry this talent will continue to leave us for Hollywood.
The creative genius of our animators, for example, has been demonstrated by their winning four of the last five Oscars including one last week. Indeed, it is a measure of the creative talent and commitment, particularly of young people entering the film industry, that 90 per cent. of all graduates from the Film School at the Royal College of Art have succeeded in finding employment in the industry, despite the very real difficulties facing young film-makers.
It is for those reasons, and because the film industry is so culturally and economically important to our future, that I believe that it is deserving of special attention. One need only look at Ireland to appreciate the immediate effect legislation can have on boosting the industry. One year after the introduction of tax incentives for film production, investment grew from £3 million to £100 million.
Let me conclude with one point: the young people in this country, like most in the western world, are concerned about their prospects and our country's future as we go into the next millennium. I hope in a small way

259
to highlight those concerns and bring to the attention of this House subjects which affect the younger generation. Film is something that plays a very important part in our lives, not only by providing entertainment but also by offering many the opportunity to develop their creative skills.
On behalf of young people, and, indeed, all people, I would be delighted if we as a nation could actively promote and encourage the expansion of film-making in this country.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I am by no means the oldest Member of the this House, but I am securely in my 80s. It is for that reason that it gives me particular pleasure to congratulate, on behalf of the whole House, the noble Earl, Lord Hardwicke, happily in his early 20s and our youngest Member, on his admirable maiden speech.
One of the unqualified and unquestioned advantages of the hereditary peerage is that every now and then we have a young recruit who can put a bit of lively salt into our somewhat geriatric stew. The noble Earl is obviously a shining example of that principle, and I hope that we shall hear a great deal more from him in the future.
I hope that I may also be allowed to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, who, in his excellent maiden speech, said some very nice things about me. I was very much moved by his remarks.
I have three points to make. I no longer have anything officially to do with the National Heritage Memorial Fund, but I follow its fortunes with close and affectionate interest. My first point is one which I can make probably better than anyone else. It is that during the first 14 years of its existence—I was chairman for 12 of them—the National Heritage Memorial Fund, with a staff of only seven, managed to achieve a very great deal. It was able to do that for two reasons. The first was that it received marvellous support from Her Majesty's Government. The second was that once the Government had provided it with adequate resources, they allowed it to get on with the job, almost entirely without interference.
Things are different now with the lottery money. Within a very short space of time the fund has had to increase its staff from seven to 27. Because of all the money that is coming in, the fund has inevitably come under much more bureaucratic control. For the fund, that experience has been somewhat traumatic. In my opinion, it has come through it extremely well.
Let me say this to Her Majesty's Government: the fund has had an excellent and imaginative chairman in the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild; a body of wise and experienced trustees, of which the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, who is to speak later, is one; and a loyal and devoted staff, under the able and understanding control of its director, Miss Georgina Nayler, who has been with the fund for over 12 years. It is a thoroughly good outfit, so please, please, allow it to do its job with the
260
minimum of interference. I can assure the House that that, and that alone, is the road to success. Let the fund manage itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is to be warmly congratulated on his Motion. I share his concern for the architectural heritage. However, the question of whether the National Heritage Memorial Fund should contribute to private persons, in whose hands so much of the architectural heritage lies, is not easy. That is my second point. At present, the fund, which is still governed by the National Heritage Act 1980, is forbidden to give money to private persons. The law can be changed but no change will make the matter simple.
Perhaps I may give only one of several reasons for that. The lottery money is unusual stuff to be used in support of the arts and the heritage. In ancient days, the arts were supported by rich patrons. They built the houses and collected the pictures. Alas, there are few of them left and as a result the job has had to be taken over by the Government—who have created the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the Arts Council—and by such splendid bodies as the National Trust.
Possibly for the first time in history, the heritage will be sustained by Peter's pence; it is to be sustained by the money unsuccessfully invested in the lottery game for the greater part by poor people. Those poor people will see their lost money spent without their agreement. That means that the National Heritage Memorial Fund must be not less but more careful on how it spends its money.
I see that I have reached the end of my time and I shall make only one final comment. I ask the Government, please to restore the funds of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. It is the only part of the outfit that is a memorial. Do not destroy it.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, your Lordships will know that over the past 40 years I have been involved with historic buildings; first, as an owner trying to save his own home, then as the founder President of the Historic Houses Association, and latterly for eight-and-a-half years as the first chairman of English Heritage.
Tonight, however, I wish to restrict my remarks to those national resources which are at present allocated to conserve our built heritage, specifically for the private sector. I make no apology in referring to the problems raised by the National Lottery.
First, however, I should like briefly to remind the House that the post-war Labour Government set up a committee under Sir Ernest Gowers who recommended the principle of grant-aiding houses in need. Consequently, under strict Treasury rules, the first grants were offered in 1953.
Over the years, successive governments of every political party have accepted the important principle that houses left in private hands were often better and more cheaply preserved for the future than if they became a burden on the state. This policy, which was administered for more than 30 years with the assistance of the Historic Buildings Council, can be counted a great success story in the world of conservation.

261
Over the past 40 years, very few important houses have not benefited and those denied have usually been because the owner was disinclined to disclose his financial assets or refused public access. The very large majority of private owners have done the nation proud.
They have conserved their houses by sacrificing their privacy and becoming major players in attracting tourists, especially from overseas. They were specifically encouraged by government to follow this policy of accepting grants, carrying out repairs and opening up. It was certainly not done for profit.
Now, in the 1990s, I fear that this successful partnership is in danger of collapsing. Since 1953 the total value of grants in real terms fell because of more candidates such as churches, conservation areas and industrial archaeology, not forgetting the National Trust, which made increasing claims as their portfolio increased and their historic endowments proved inadequate.
I regret that during my time as chairman of English Heritage I reluctantly accepted the necessity of grants to private owners becoming a smaller proportion of the whole, although their share never dropped under 25 per cent. of total grants available and several houses, both private and National Trust, received individual grants of over £1 million during my time in office.
No grant, however big, is going to secure a building for ever. Maintaining an historic building permanently means continual inspection and repair. Ever-rising costs are going to make future maintenance increasingly difficult.
So where is the money going to come from? The public believed, as indeed did many senior members of the Government and Members of Parliament, that the National Lottery funds were going to make a great contribution, with eventually one-quarter of the proceeds devoted to all heritage projects. How mistaken they were! Due either to legislative error or misguided Treasury influence, the largest majority of buildings—those in private hands, the most deserving and most in need—have been excluded.
I say "deserving" because private owners, unlike the National Trust or local authorities, have to pay inheritance tax, income tax and all other taxes. They normally have to produce 60 per cent. of the cost of repairs, thus entailing the selling of assets or family heirlooms, or varying family trusts.
How has this inequitable situation come about? It is certainly not the fault of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, whose maiden speech I much enjoyed. When the National Heritage Memorial Fund was set up it was rightly laid down that funds should only go to charities or for the public benefit. Unfortunately, when the National Heritage Memorial Fund was given authority to administer heritage funds emanating from the National Lottery, it can only do so under its existing rules.
Thus, there is a clear conflict of criteria as to how English Heritage grants and heritage lottery fund grants are to be allocated. We further hear the rather strange principle being propounded that the private sector must
262
continue to be discriminated against because public opinion would never accept lottery money being given to private owners for repairs to their historic houses.
What nonsense! The public have accepted that many millions of pounds of their taxes have been used for such purposes for over 40 years and this has created great benefit to the community. Therefore, one would expect that the public would be even more content for lottery money to be used in such a way, as long as the grants were properly supervised.
I have no doubt that we need a revision of the National Heritage Act to give the National Heritage Memorial Fund flexibility to authorise the funding of any building that it sees fit. We have total confidence in the fund doing that. Forcing owners to form new charitable trusts is no way out and it may be legally impossible. Over the past years owners have been encouraged to set up maintenance funds, and adjustments can be made, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said. Could not these maintenance funds, if irrevocably attached to the house as an endowment, be eligible for grants out of lottery funds? In other words, lottery money would be used to help create permanent endowments.
In the meantime, perhaps my noble friend will discuss with my successor at English Heritage whether there is any possibility of increasing the proportion of grants allocated to the private sector without inequity to other types of applicants or problems with the principle of additionality.
To sum up, I believe that the part played by private owners in conserving their historic houses and buildings is one of which we can be proud. The future is less clear and there is a danger that some may give up the unequal struggle.
One is forever hearing well-deserved tributes to the vital part that private owners play in the conservation and presentation of our heritage and we will no doubt hear them again tonight. But a long-term denial of a level playing field for the lottery money is a slap in the face to those who have for many years made many sacrifices.
There cannot, of course, be a built-in right for anyone to obtain grants, which must always remain discretionary, but discrimination should stop and fairness must be the aim for the future.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, with a ration of six minutes, I shall restrict my remarks to the field of heritage. First, I should like to say something about our two main funding bodies—English Heritage and the National Heritage Memorial Fund.
I speak as chairman of the National Trust. We have a close and excellent relationship with both those bodies. It is a relationship that I should describe as being one of partnership. For example, as part of English Heritage's new policy, we have taken on from it 17 of its guardianship properties where that has made sound management sense.

263
With regard to repair grants, we have been severely rationed to an annual lump sum, although it is fair to say that we have had help in exceptional circumstances. I acknowledge the help which the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, gave us during his term as chairman of English Heritage. English Heritage's problem has been the restriction of its own funding from government but, again, it is well to recognise the way in which Jocelyn Stevens has managed to free up some extra money for grants as a result of efficiency savings.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund, under the truly imaginative lead of my noble friend Lord Charteris and now under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Rothschild, has been one of the most resounding successes of the 1980s and 1990s. I add my congratulations to the noble Lord on his outstanding maiden speech. His knowledge and advice will be very much in demand in your Lordships' House. He made some kind remarks about the National Trust and I take this opportunity to make some kind remarks about him and his family. Indeed, I congratulate him on the renovation of Waddesdon, which was triumphantly opened, as your Lordships will know, last weekend. In case the Minister thinks that anyone can do a Rothschild, I should tell him that there are not many who have my noble friend's capability and capacity to do what has been achieved at Waddesdon.
I can think of no other organisation with its scale of responsibilities which is as economical in its overheads and lack of red tape as the NHMF has been. I echo strongly what my noble friend Lord Charteris said in that regard. It has a total staff of a mere half dozen, mostly girls. So wise has been the investment of its funds that I believe it has been able to distribute more in grants than it has received from the Government. I see that my noble friend Lord Charteris nods.
The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, referred to the huge range of projects and bodies which have been helped. With regard to the National Trust, none of the major properties that we have taken on in the past 40 years would have been possible without the NHMF's generous help. Now of course it is taking on the much larger role of distributing the lottery money. Again, I echo what my noble friend Lord Charteris said. I hope that it can remain as unbureaucratic while retaining its brilliant flair. I ask the Government not to interfere with a real success story. That will be quite a challenge for both sides, I suspect.
I turn now to the problems of the typical private owner of historic buildings. It is an area to which the Government need to pay particular attention. That is where the pressure lies. Owners have obligations which go with listing. Those obligations include criminal sanctions. The private owner has to pay VAT. Originally, that was set at 8 per cent., which was perhaps bearable; now it is set at a swingeing 17.5 per cent. The private owner is rarely in a position to cover the VAT by set-off, as can the owner of a larger house with a higher throughput of income. Nor is it likely to be sensible for a private owner to be organised with charitable status. Therefore, he will have no access to lottery money or fiscal advantages. Furthermore, the maintenance fund route has been so hedged around with trip wires as to be,
264
in most cases, impracticable. In that regard, I warmly support the wise and sensible remarks of my noble friend Lord Palmer who initiated the debate.
The only source of support for preserving what is, after all, one of the most important parts of our national heritage is English Heritage. As we have seen, its funds are severely limited. Grants were originally set at 50 per cent. and are now only 40 per cent. Those are two issues which the Government need to address.
I, and for that matter, the trust believe that our heritage is best preserved by families—in fact, by plurality of ownership. The role of the trust should be only that of a long-stop should all else fail. Therefore, a healthy private sector is enormously important to us and to the nation.
I began by saying that the trust's relationship with the government agencies is one of partnership and how valuable that is. I should like to see the Government approach their relationship with the private sector in the same vein; namely, a partnership based on good economics and a fair contribution from both sides for the benefit of our great national heritage. I suggest that all that would be a fruitful subject for the Green Paper promised by the Secretary of State in a recent speech, which I warmly welcome.
8.16 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for his particularly timely introduction of this debate. I pay tribute to the eloquence and balance of his arguments and to those of the distinguished maiden speakers.
The timeliness of the debate relates to an interest that I should declare. For the past few months I have been a member of a working group pursuing the planned redevelopment of the English National Opera's home at the London Coliseum. This morning, at the same time as announcing next season's programme, ENO was able to disclose a vibrant start to this season with paid attendances up 31 per cent. over the equivalent period last year and a return to surplus in the financial year just ended.
The debate provides the opportunity to pay tribute to a Member of your Lordships' House—the noble Earl, Lord Harewood—whose retirement was also announced today after half a lifetime's remarkable contribution to ENO's development of an international reputation, first as general director and latterly as chairman.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of ENO and the provision of opera and dance in London at this point since the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and his colleagues on the Arts Council have been wrestling with the many difficult issues relating to that subject. The prospects of restoring Frank Matcham's great theatre, the London Coliseum, and potentially three other beautiful and important London theatres should be seen as a significant initiative in terms of our architectural heritage over and above the enhanced provision of opera and dance in the capital.
While I make no apologies for devoting the short time available to one specific subject, I believe that it also highlights one or two important and more general

265
principles in relation to the allocation of the proceeds of the National Lottery and to the process by which that takes place.
The financial stringency of recent years can only have exacerbated the pent-up demand of arts organisations for capital funding. Therefore, it was inevitable that once the National Lottery came into operation and the Arts Council and other distributing bodies could count on their share of the proceeds a traffic jam of monumental proportions would develop among potential applicants. The Arts Council sought advice on, among other matters, the particular problems which that presented for the provision of opera and dance in London through the commissioning of the Lyric Theatre Review and a committee chaired by Mr. Dennis Stevenson. In setting out a wide range of options, in some cases very hypothetical, and in considering some of the even broader issues behind the demand for large-scale opera and dance in London, the review was perhaps misunderstood. It certainly caused a degree of anxiety among a number of the Arts Council's clients, including ENO. However, it was an important step in trying to address the urgent needs of both ENO and the Royal Opera House for the redevelopment of their currently inefficient and potentially dangerous homes and, at the same time, provide a venue or network of venues for large and medium-sized dance companies.
The review and the responses it elicited have been of substantial value to the Arts Council in its continued consideration of what projects it might support and how those might be co-ordinated. Before that consideration is completed, there is therefore an opportunity for your Lordships' House to express its views. While the Department of National Heritage will understandably not wish to usurp the role of the Arts Council, I should be very pleased if the Minister felt able to comment on any of the issues that I or other noble Lords have raised on the subject.
The principle that lottery funds must be matched, at least in some proportion, by private sector funding, is an important test of each project's underlying support and appeal. On the other hand, the introduction of that admittedly specialised market test cannot easily be reconciled with an unduly interventionist approach by the Arts Council even where, for example, it has a continuing role in funding the company or companies using the theatres being redeveloped. It would be invidious, surely, to set timetables which favoured unnaturally one project against another in their appeal for private donations.
Therefore, although it is understandable that the preoccupation of the Arts Council has been to avoid the simultaneous closure of both the Coliseum and the Royal Opera House, a degree of overlap, if necessary, especially in the context of contemporary homes in London for both companies, may well be preferable to an unnatural and expensive delay in one project or the other.
A critical step in achieving the best possible sequence of restoration for both the Coliseum and the Royal Opera House may be the earliest possible redevelopment of Sadlers Wells Theatre—a cause which, in its own
266
right, merits the strongest possible support from lottery funding in the light of the historic role of Sadlers Wells in British opera and dance.
The imaginative decision taken by the Sadlers Wells board to seek Arts Council, lottery and other support for redevelopment commencing early in 1996 therefore deserves particularly positive consideration, both on its own merits and as a key to unlocking the potential logjam for the relocation of ENO and the ROH.
Finally, the lottery Act requires a clear linkage as regards the source of the funding generated by the public support for the National Lottery and the types of causes that benefit from such funds, as the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, made clear. None of your Lordships who attend performances of ENO can fail to be struck by the widespread and deep support for the company, with the audience drawn from all walks of life. The average lottery punter who spends around £2 a week on lottery tickets could attend 10 performances per year in cheaper seats at ENO for an equal amount of money, or attend at least four performances a year at the average price of seats. It is not a cause whose supporters and beneficiaries are distant from the providers of the funding.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Crathorne: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for introducing today's debate which has attracted three maiden speakers who have all made memorable contributions. I should particularly like to congratulate my chairman at the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, on his eloquent and statesman-like speech. As a trustee of NHMF, I have had the pleasure and privilege of serving under the noble Lord's chairmanship. In saying that he is a worthy successor to the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, I cannot give higher praise.
The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, spoke about his plans and hopes for the lottery. I should like to touch upon one or two points that he did not have time to cover. First, there is additionality, which has already been mentioned in the debate. As noble Lords know, it means that NHMF has to ensure that lottery money is not used as a substitute for government funding but is additional money bringing additional benefits to projects. Now that we actually have real applications to look at and have had a chance to consult widely, we are getting a clearer picture of what we can and cannot fund.
One of the areas where we have to be particularly careful is in our relationship from a grant-giving point of view with English Heritage. However, it is clear that there is a wide range of projects which are not eligible or which are not a stated priority for English Heritage funds; for example, Grade II buildings, interior works to decorative schemes, fittings and machinery, works to gardens and parks and settings of historic buildings and works to monuments, cemeteries and graveyards. We believe that we can complement English Heritage funding and avoid substituting for it. It is clearly important that we should not be seen to be providing exactly the same type of support but bringing about additional benefits to a project.

267
Within our statutory framework, we believe that we shall he able to assist funding projects which are in principle eligible for English Heritage funding in the following circumstances: when the project requires such a massive scale of funds that it would swamp available English Heritage grants; when a major buildings complex is involved where English Heritage has made a grant to an early phase or phases but cannot offer sufficient resources to ensure completion within a reasonable time span; and when English Heritage has received many worthy applications under a particular grant scheme and simply cannot deal with them all —for example, conservation area partnerships or grants for historic gardens and parks and where there is no prospect in the future for English Heritage increasing the resources available to a particular scheme.
We shall of course be dealing with additionality on a case-by-case basis. We hope that it will become clear what we can and cannot do. If it turns out that we are too restricted, I hope that the Government will be happy to take another look at the matter in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, raised, as indeed did other speakers, the problem of private owners not benefiting from the lottery. In that matter, the National Heritage Act 1980 and the heritage Act 1993 are similar. In 1993, many noble Lords attempted to introduce a greater degree of flexibility with regard to private owners and NHMF, which would have been desirable. Although NHMF is restricted in the ways that it can help, there are circumstances where the fund can assist, and these have been mentioned; for example, if ownership is transferred to a charitable trust, as has been the case with Burton Constable and Thirlestane with great success. I believe that this is a serious option.
The other way that we can help is by making use of the in situ provision which enables us to acquire works which form an important part of a collection in a house with public access. The work of art can remain in situ, with ownership passing to a museum or an independent charitable trust. It is clearly helpful if the funds created are deployed for the benefit of the historic house, although that is not a hard and fast rule.
I should just like to mention one further point which is frequently raised at executive committee meetings of the Georgian Group, of which I am chairman. It is the old chestnut which has been touched on today by several speakers; namely, VAT on repairs but no VAT on alterations to listed buildings. Rather than repeat what has already been said, I thought that I would tell noble Lords about a friend of mine who was able to avoid VAT by taking the VAT man around a rundown listed cottage that he owned.
The VAT man explained to my friend that the criteria used was simply that, if a member of the public walking around a house, either inside or outside, was able to see that alterations had been made, then the cost of such alterations were free of VAT. In that particular case my friend walked around the property with the VAT man and agreed to increase the floor levels on the ground floor and the ceiling level on the upper floor. That meant that he avoided VAT. However, when it came to the walls, on which my friend had to carry out a particularly large amount of work by way of damp proofing and dry
268
lining, VAT was payable as the walls ended up looking the same after the work as before. It is quite a strange situation. It cannot be right that rules on VAT encourage owners of listed buildings to alter them unnecessarily.
Finally, I should just like to say how much I am looking forward to hearing the response to today's very interesting debate from my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I wish to point out that half-way through the list of speakers we are already well behind time. I make an appeal for speakers to try to keep to time.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Palmer for introducing this debate today, particularly as the National Heritage Select Committee has just reported on the British film industry. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on paragraphs 185 to 187, particularly with regard to write-offs, in that the report states that the Inland Revenue should regard expenditure on the production of a film as revenue expenditure, allowing it all to be written off as incurred. At present only a third is allowed in the current year.
Irish tax incentives have already been mentioned by one maiden speaker; namely, the noble Earl, Lord Hardwicke. On this side of the water, we are not looking for subsidies, rather that we should be able to compete fairly with our neighbours. The British Film Commission undertook a report to examine the growth of film production in Ireland, and it is all too easy to see why we lose out. Last year Mel Gibson's film "Braveheart" was due to be shot entirely in Scotland but relocated the majority of its production schedule to Ireland because of the more attractive tax concessions. That move cost the UK well over 30 million dollars.
The British Film Commission also brought across senior US production executives last year to see exactly what the UK has to offer in the way of locations and post-production facilities. As we know, our largest studio, Pinewood, alone has over 30 stages, so we do need to attract a great deal of production. I and other colleagues entertained them to lunch in this House and the message was quite clear. If the price was right, they would rather locate here, provided we could offer the same financial incentives that could be found across the Irish Sea.
Films made here promote the beauty of our countryside, towns and villages and encourage tourism which, as we already know, is one of our highest invisible earnings, as has already been mentioned by my noble friend. It also, of course, encourages more jobs. Last week, I, along with other members of the Media Group, saw a beautifully filmed picture called "Circle of Friends". The cinematography was exceptional and as a result County Kilkenny will have many more visitors this summer and Irish culture is there on film for audiences worldwide to see. I am simply re-emphasising the advantages that we, too, could enjoy.
We have already had a debate about Channel 4 and its funding formula. The majority of speakers supported a change. Channel 4 has invested over £100 million in

269
film since 1982. It has made 300 films, mostly for modest amounts. It invested £1.1 million in "The Madness of King George" and £800,000 in "Four Weddings and a Funeral". Those are sizeable amounts from a channel with only 13p in the pound for investment. I believe that a change in the funding formula would double its input. As it is, Channel 4 is investing £12 million in film this year alone. Thus TV has really kept film going. The Government intervene heavily in television but leave film largely to market forces. There are times that the US has intervened on behalf of its own film industry, particularly when that industry has needed a boost, for instance in the 1970s.
In order to spread the financial risk, we need to invest and produce in volume. One-off films are not attractive to investors; certainly the City is wary of them. But to produce in volume we need the right tax incentives. I believe that the City is at least showing some interest. As the noble Earl said in his maiden speech, Ireland has increased her involvement from £1 million in 1992 to £100 million in 1994. The committee believes that we, too, should consider introducing a scheme similar to the Irish Section 35 incentives. It is good to see how many of the recommendations made to the Select Committee by the British Film Commission and others have been accepted. I hope that the Secretary of State will take note.
There are film commissions in many major cities facilitating film-making, but we badly need the proposed London film commission to co-ordinate film production throughout our capital. Again, the report strongly recommends this.
I feel that I must say a word or two about the crisis facing the live arts, particularly in the regions. For example, the Salisbury Playhouse is closing down for a year. The Redgrave Theatre in Farnham is also closing, with no re-opening planned. Even the Molecule Children's Theatre, which explains science to children, will close at the end of this year. The list is endless.
Regional theatre has always been our most important training ground and part of our culture. We cannot afford to lose it. Even orchestras are at risk. Could we not find a way of using lottery receipts to prevent even more closures? Finally, I stress the importance of the industry, both now and in the future, by quoting the French actor, Gerard Depardieu, who said:
"This immense market in film, television and software will continue to grow. Of that there can be no doubt. Its significance in our lives will grow too. It's not just a great industry; it is at the heart of our culture and values. The images of film and television are a mirror in which we see ourselves and a window through which we see the lives of others".
8.35 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, like many other Members of your Lordships' House, I particularly welcome this debate. I welcome it because it has expanded the term "arts" to incorporate the architectural heritage. Too often when we deal with the arts we deal just with the performing arts. I suspect that possibly the case for the performing arts is made so well because the people involved are so articulate.
One objective of the arts as a whole is to enlighten. There are many others of course, not least to encourage those with artistic talent to develop that talent, and another could well be to endorse the national identity, as has been done to such great effect in France these past few years. But I wish to talk about the objective of enlightenment in the context of funding of the arts.
I know that funding of the arts is an emotive issue—indeed, I know it to my cost! Some people would say that I am particularly foolhardy coming back to this subject considering how my contribution to the arts funding debate in January 1994 ultimately resulted in my being unceremoniously ousted from my job. But at least I do not have to worry on that score any longer.
I shall not repeat the arguments that I made then about general funding of the arts at columns 995 to 998 of Hansard, which are available in the Library. Suffice it to say that, as stated in numerous press articles since, I gave "almost universal offence to the arts fraternity" on that occasion by suggesting that arts funding should be monitored and that the people receiving arts funding should be accountable. Those words appeared as recently as last weekend. What I also said of course in that debate was—and this is never referred to—that the arts are one of the greatest assets of this country and have an enviable international reputation. We have to make sure that we preserve and increase that reputation.
The arts will always need funding, sadly, but we must consider whether the funding is best spent, or is it a case of he who shouts loudest gets most? Rather like the statement, "No taxation without representation", I submit that, as every taxpayer funds the arts, the greatest number possible of those taxpayers should benefit from such funding. It is most difficult to ascertain the actual numbers attending performances by the performing arts sector. Museum and art gallery visitors are tracked but not the total number of people who benefit from classical music, drama, contemporary dance and ballet. Total numbers of those who visit our ecclesiastical heritage are, however, available, and most impressive they are.
The right reverend Prelate has given us a special description of the problems facing the churches in England. What the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich did not say was that some 27 million people per annum visit our cathedrals and churches. A huge proportion of those people will he greatly enlightened by the process. Our cathedrals and churches are a unique British art form. They were designed, built and embellished by wonderfully creative artists, architects, tapestry weavers, stained glass artists, stone masons and

271
gilders. People come from all over the world to visit our British cathedrals and churches and to listen to and marvel at our unique choral tradition.
So much of our nation's cultural life is not necessarily home grown. Our orchestras play music by other nations' composers, as well, of course, as music by our own composers. Quite a lot of the performances offered by the subsidised art sector are not home grown. In the case of our cathedrals and churches they are a totally home-grown part of the our cultural heritage and deserve to be supported, certainly as much as the performing arts. That, of course, is not possible. Resources are just not available. What is really needed is a firm commitment to this part of our heritage, and the allocation of a major part of lottery funds would help.
The sums for the maintenance of the fabric are, I fear, very substantial. It is estimated that St. Paul's Cathedral alone will need some £50 million over the next 25 years just to secure the fabric. The 39 City of London churches currently spend £1 million per annum to do just that, and it is not enough. Those are the harsh facts of life of our unique ecclesiastical heritage.
In general terms, our Christian heritage is just as important, if not more so, than our performing arts heritage. We badly need to reinstate positive values— biblical values—in our nation.
Too many people believe that contemporary culture is exemplified by the TV programmes on offer. Just looking at a normal evening's offering on our screens shows how removed we are now from biblical values— serial killings, serial marriages, marital infidelity, break-up of families and so on. Visiting churches can and does inspire many to rethink values, and one can hardly fail to be affected by the fact that in visiting our great cathedrals and churches one is surrounded by the results of talents used for the glory of God, talents which thankfully are still available, not only in London; churches encourage a great deal of local employment in rural areas. I appeal to the Government to do all they can to ensure that the huge financial burdens of maintaining the fabric of our Christian heritage are lessened by additional funding from the public purse, be it the lottery or taxpayer or council taxpayer funds.
As I said last year, public funding of the arts should be monitored so that there is accountability. The fact that we have now found a new source of funds does not relieve us of the necessity to ensure that those funds are well managed and well spent. We must ensure that our cultural heritage does not become blithely dependent on subsidy. A culture dependent on subsidy could so easily become a dependency culture.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, all of us interested in funding for the arts are most grateful to my noble friend Lord Palmer for introducing the topic as the subject for this debate. The issues raised are particularly relevant at the moment, for only last week we had the announcement of the first Arts Council lottery grants, which clearly affected both the general funding of the arts and the architectural heritage with which the arts are
272
inextricably intertwined. How happy the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, must be at the new potency gained by that much-maligned body.
However, two other events last week cause me to draw your Lordships' attention to the particular issue of disability and the arts. These are the completion of the passage of the helpfully amended Disability Discrimination Bill through another place and NCVO's worrying announcement that there has been a drop in voluntary donations to good causes of 15 per cent. since the advent of the National Lottery. On the first matter, I am confident that your Lordships will have further ideas for amending the Disability Discrimination Bill in order both to widen its scope and to ensure its effectiveness. On the second, I believe that it is up to the Arts Council Lottery Board to ensure that innovative projects aimed at improving access to the arts for disabled people do not fall by the wayside because of any voluntary deficit. I realise that this is a partisan plea, but I have never hidden my partisanship when it comes to matters concerning disability.
I want to turn briefly to the question of our theatres, which are surely at the heart of our architectural heritage in Britain, perhaps along with our churches. Theatre is the one art in which Britain has consistently excelled over centuries. An active theatre is a symbol of a healthy community. The reopening of a sleeping theatre has frequently served to restore confidence and investment in a neglected area, encouraging inner city regeneration and becoming a symbol of recovery. The presence of an audience encourages evening shopping, restaurant and cab trade and makes the town feel safer and better cared for.
We do well to look after our theatre wealth. Many theatres need major refurbishment and modernisation, and it would be a mistake to think that only the National Lottery should be considered to provide the needed funds. Investment in theatres at every level brings excellent returns.
In carrying out major works it is now understood that the needs of disabled people are taken into account, and this should be a priority in any such project. Where listed historic buildings are concerned it can be difficult to make the full range of provisions we would insist on as of right in new buildings, but architectural ingenuity can often solve seemingly intractable problems both for disabled members of the audience and for disabled performers and back-stage staff. Too often when arts are discussed in the context of disability, thought is paid only to the needs of disabled customers. As long as back-stage access is not addressed, arts will never flourish as a potential career for disabled performers or technicians.
Any of your Lordships doubtful about the possibility of reconciling severe disability with dramatic excellence should have joined the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in the Churchill Theatre in Bromley last October to see the Magpie Dance Group of people with severe learning disabilities—which will subsequently be appearing at the Royal Albert Hall in September—and Candoco. On that memorable evening a young man with no legs danced—from his wheelchair—alongside his able-bodied partner, and took the theatre by storm.

273
Let me end on a further positive note. A parent I spoke to last week listed the impressive number of concerts her profoundly and multiply disabled daughter had recently attended. She enjoys bhangra, Mozart, reggae, Peter Glass, Madonna—the list is endless. She goes with her carers at least once a fortnight to the Barbican, the Hackney Empire, the Coliseum and the South Bank. Like some other people with profound learning disability, she can be noisy and will sometimes scream and shout at moments when the performers are not doing so. Her mother told me that the Barbican in particular has gone to great trouble to accommodate her needs. She is taken off to the bar for a drink if she is getting too noisy. Her current tipple is, I believe, gin and tonic through a straw. The staffs wonderful response to this multiply disabled woman whose passion in life is music is driven by their sensitivity and flexibility. To them she is not a problem customer, she is a satisfied customer.
Perhaps that little story about a multiply disabled young woman, who attends concerts of her own choice, who is a home owner in her own right and by her own choice, also provides a comment on the recent discussion on the feasibility of choice for even the most severely disabled man or woman—where they might live and how they might pass their days and nights. The choice of theatre-going and concert-going must no longer be stymied by lack of facilities. My case rests.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: My Lords, I should like to comment briefly on the restrictions that limit grants of lottery funds towards revenue costs in the arts and heritage.
I welcome the fact that the original proposition that lottery funds should be for capital projects only has been somewhat modified and that now grants are allowed for revenue expenditure that arise from lottery-funded capital projects. The latter has been described by a Minister in another place as the revenue tail to a capital project.
I propose a policy more imaginative and proactive than revenue tails. I believe that revenue grants to arts and heritage should be permitted on a significantly wider basis, but without eroding the principle of additionality. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, I feel that the abandonment of additionality would provide far too good an excuse for a reduction in grants to the arts and heritage. However, I believe that additionality can be redefined and reinterpreted so that the principle may be followed, but not as it is at present.
We all know that there are likely to be a huge number of important and attractive capital projects seeking lottery funds. We have heard about those this evening. But the lottery is a very long-term source of finance. If the rules remain as they are, in time we shall be at risk of over funding new buildings while denying extra funds to allow better use, greater access and, most important, better maintenance of existing arts and heritage buildings.
274
Let me give two examples, regarding the first of which I must declare an interest as I have the honour of being the chairman of England's first ever public art gallery, which, as many noble Lords will know, is the Dulwich Picture Gallery.
This marvellous gallery with its fine collection of 17th and 18th century paintings has been grossly underfunded for decades. Until now we have received no public funding but for a contribution to our educational work from the enlightened Southwark Council. Now, under a new constitution, the trustees are determined to ensure that the gallery is endowed so that never again will its future be under threat.
It seems to me that such a cause—a gallery of huge historic significance, a Soane building of the greatest architectural importance and a picture collection that the nation should cherish—is an ideal candidate for lottery money for an endowment. We do not want to build an extension; we would not be allowed to do so anyway. What we need to do is to conserve and maintain the gallery, improve its facilities and make it more accessible to all while ensuring the highest curatorial standards.
The admirable National Heritage Memorial Fund has recognised that and is making a major contribution to our endowment appeal. But not a penny of that comes, or can come, from lottery funds. That fact obviously severely limits the size and number of grants that the NHMF can make for causes of that sort. I cannot think that that makes sense. The rules need changing so that cases of this nature are eligible for lottery funds.
My second example concerns funds for the performing arts. While recognising the need for many capital projects, large and small throughout the country, do not let us forget the good that lottery funds could do for the performing arts in expanding on existing funding from the Arts Council.
Why should lottery funds not be used to increase public accessibility, to reduce prices for students and young people in particular? It is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, raised. The importance of reducing entry prices is great. Why should we not also use lottery funds to finance contemporary works of opera and drama and to help art education? Those are all good causes which anyone who has been concerned with the financial problems of the Lyric Theatre will know can rarely be adequately funded, if funded at all.
Lottery money should be made available for such purposes, not suddenly but gradually. My proposition is that, starting next year, up to 10 per cent. of lottery funds allocated to the Arts Council and to the NHMF should be allowed to be used for revenue costs. That proportion should be reviewed annually with perhaps the maximum permitted being gradually increased so that eventually possibly as much as half the total funds could be used for revenue purposes, always depending, of course, on the judgment of the Arts Council and the NHMF.
Finally, perhaps I may say a brief word on listing. I applaud the Secretary of State's decision to allow public consultation on the listing of buildings. Greater openness and consultation were desperately needed. Generally the Secretary of State should only list

275
buildings which enhance the built environment rather than disfigure it, as many do which are currently out for public consultation. English Heritage should perhaps also maintain a list of important public buildings whose demolition could only benefit the environment. Perhaps lottery funds might even be used to encourage that. Top of that list, of course, should be the Department of the Environment building itself.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank my noble friend Lord Palmer for initiating this debate.
I want to draw your Lordships' attention briefly to an unresolved aspect of funding for the visual arts; namely, the nation's ability to purchase outstanding works of art as and when they become available.
In the current market, important pieces often cost over £10 million. Holbein's "Lady with a Squirrel", for example, was acquired by the National Gallery from 1992 to 1994 at a gross valuation of some £15 million, in a complicated arrangement involving several bodies. Although this was a happy outcome, it was by no means assured because of the precarious nature of the funding system, which has allowed us to lose such works as Edward James' unrivalled Surrealist collection and the Mantegna "Adoration". This year, Houghton's rare painting by de Troy, at only £3.5 million, is also likely to be lost. The National Gallery would have been its most suitable purchaser, but one consequence of spending so much of its resources on the Holbein was not being able to put in a bid for the de Troy.
Museums and galleries can turn to bodies such as the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which until recently had an annual budget of approximately £12 million, now cut to £8.6 million. There are many calls on this money from aircraft museums to stretches of wild country. Not surprisingly, only part of their budget can go towards individual works of art. The National Gallery was fortunate to receive £3.5 million, spread over three years, towards the purchase of "The Lady with a Squirrel".
But there may come an occasion when more than the entire budget will be required for one great work of art. At present there is no mechanism for funding such a purchase. In order to raise the £7.6 million to keep Canova's "Three Graces" in this country, the Victoria and Albert Museum with the National Gallery of Scotland spent much of both their purchase budgets for several years to come, and still had to get a grant from the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the National Arts Collection Fund, and public and generous private benefactions. That situation will occur again and again unless a proper system is devised now. Our major museums have purchasing budgets that do not allow them to compete on the open market with the vast purchasing power of far wealthier international museums.
Fortunately, in the past few years no two great works of art have come up for sale at any one time. But, were two collectors to die concurrently, it would be quite likely. Today Sotheby's have announced the sale of Luton Hoo's masterpiece, "St. Michael and the Dragon"
276
by Bartolomé Bermejo. It is the greatest 15th century Spanish painting outside Spain; its value quite imponderable, and we do not want to lose it. What would have happened if it had come onto the market last year? Offered for sale at the same time as the Canova, there would have been no way of raising the necessary funds for both.
I hope that I am right in assuming that the National Lottery will alleviate this problem. As of yet there has been no confirmation that funds from the lottery will be made available to the national galleries on a scale that will allow them to keep our finest works of art in this country. Although the lottery money is still to be allocated, what a mockery it would be if at the same time as building new museums with money from the Millennium Fund we allowed exactly the kind of art they were designed to house to leave the country. When works of national importance come up for sale, the Government must find some means of offering indemnity against later payment from the lottery.
Such a mechanism could be put into action when an emergency occurred—vital when it takes only three months for a work of art to pass through the process of auction. This, plus the six-month stop on exports, should provide enough time to get the money from the lottery. Moreover, there would be no need to establish a separate purchasing fund whereby money is put aside each year whether or not there are calls on it.
As the National Heritage Memorial Fund has so many diverse responsibilities it would be helpful to us all to have a reassurance from the Government that very substantial funds will be made available to the national galleries in emergencies. I do hope that the Minister can give us that assurance today.
8.58 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. However, once again I shall change direction and follow the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, on the subject of the theatre, which is also an important part of our national heritage. I must declare an interest as I am a trustee of the Theatre of Comedy—a wholly honorary position to which I succeeded on the retirement of the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
Tonight we have had three maiden speakers. I suppose that maiden speeches are rather like first nights—bundles of nerves. But I feel that they will all get good notices; and in the case of my noble friend Lord Hardwicke, who is so young, he should have a very long run.
It is interesting to note that the commercial theatre and the subsidised theatre are now much more interdependent than they ever have been before. Looking around the West End and the commercial touring circuit one sees the benefits of this mutual liaison. What is not generally known is that the subsidised theatre is producing much of its new work because commercial management is assisting with plays, star casts and money. As a result, grant money from the Government to the subsidised sector is a benefit to the whole theatre industry.

277
Unfortunately, the provincial theatre is in a much more precarious state. Attention was drawn particularly to that point by the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton. The recession and the drastic reduction in grants have taken their toll. That is very sad, as the provincial repertory theatre is where the seedcorn for future talent lies. Tonight we have heard much about the film industry but most of our great actors started their careers in repertory. If we allow the provincial repertory theatre to wither, we shall not be in the same position in the next generation. We must realise that the theatre is a very important attraction in our tourist industry. We must therefore consider the future and the opportunities for those talented youngsters who emerge from drama schools.
Much of this debate has been about historic buildings. It may come as a surprise to your Lordships to know that there are 27 grade II and two grade I listed theatre buildings in the West End alone. The Shaftesbury Theatre, which is the home of the Theatre of Comedy, is one of them. But none of those theatres can at present apply for heritage lottery funds for expenditure on non-profit restoration work for the public benefit. I hope that consideration can be given to correcting that anomaly.
I very much hope that the Minister will look into this matter. I did not give notice of those questions to my noble friend and I realise that he has a vast array of subjects to cover. Perhaps he will write to me subsequently about these matters.
9.1 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for giving me the opportunity tonight to speak on the heritage. It is my first attempt to speak as spokesman for the heritage from these Benches. In other circumstances, I might have chosen to speak on the plight of the film industry, but I have bored your Lordships on that subject previously. It is much more appropriate that that subject should be handled, in what I thought was an outstanding maiden speech, by the noble Earl, Lord Hardwicke. I congratulate him. It was very appropriate that he should speak about the film industry because something over 70 per cent. of film audiences comprise people under the age of 24. I thank him very much for his contribution in that area.
Perhaps I may also say to the noble Lord who introduced the debate that I was somewhat disappointed when he drew our attention to the fact that his forebear was granted his title for services to music rather than as a result of biscuits. If those services to music were as outstanding as the biscuits, which I enjoyed particularly when I was at school to supplement a rather meagre diet, then he was indeed deserving. But factories and biscuits lead on to the subject on which I wish to address your Lordships this evening; namely, the importance of our industrial heritage and the buildings and machinery that have been handed down to us, particularly from the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
278
Obviously, in recent years there has been a great change in public attitude toward our entire built heritage. That has been very beneficial in the fight to save the tangible remains of our exceptional island history. Before that all started—55 years ago, in fact— the National Trust began its invaluable work in conservation and preservation. It was mainly in the area of country houses, but even before the country house scheme came into place, there were a number of sites of industrial and historical interest under its umbrella.
I am aware that the National Trust draws upon itself criticism from time to time for all kinds of reasons and from all quarters. What great institution does not? This House should know something about that. The trust is known more for its work in preserving the coastline and great houses. What is less known is the continuing and useful work it has done, within very great financial constraints, to save valuable parts of our industrial archaeology. We need to pay tribute to that. It is wonderful that so many churches, great houses and gardens have been saved for us and our descendants to enjoy. Surely, few would deny our descendants the privilege of enjoying or even living in such beautiful buildings or worshipping in them. They are buildings which have come to us from a century notable for relative peace and a great growth in prosperity—not to mention the great talents of builders and architects during the same period.
Perhaps our industrial heritage is not so immediately attractive to the public at large. The cotton mills, water mills, paper mills, iron foundries, canal architecture and great beam engine pumping stations are enormously valuable reminders of that golden age. The industrial revolution which took place in this country and the momentum which created it are enshrined in those sites. They led to the undeniable greatness of this country in the period from the industrial revolution up to the First World War.
A great deal has remained of that heritage but sadly a great deal of it has disappeared, even though much of that building, like your Lordships' House, was of solid construction. There are still many cotton mills in Lancashire which have been almost totally ignored but, because of their solid construction, they are still there to be preserved. The National Trust has been working carefully and imaginatively for years within severe financial restraints but it cannot do everything and I do not suggest that it should. The greatest contribution in the whole area has been from groups of enthusiasts and independent bodies of various kinds. I believe that they should continue to show the way in this area, using the expertise of institutions such as the National Trust which has experience, particularly in estate management and so forth.
I, for one, hope that some of the lottery money will filter through to that important area. Those complexes and areas have received a great deal of public attention. The great water mill and 18th century complex at Styal in Cheshire has been going for a long time. In fact, it is one of the sites that came under the umbrella of the National Trust in 1940. A number of lessons have been

279
learned from that site; for example, how money runs away when one undertakes conservation of that kind. Nevertheless it is a prime example of what can be done.
Other schemes are now attracting a great deal of attention—not here but abroad—and particularly among the Japanese, which is something I hope the Minister will note. We should exploit—if I may use such an awful word—the interest of the Japanese in our history, and not only our industrial history. I am going to a Civil War re-enactment in June which is entirely for Japanese who are coming over to this country at great expense and showing an interest which one rarely finds among one's own countrymen.
We have so much of the great past to show our countrymen and visitors to our country and of course our descendants. They are very important and rarely mentioned, I notice, even in the Arts Council's briefing that I received today. It is our duty to preserve things for our descendants, I wished to speak when we discussed the bypass around Newbury recently, but I kept my head well below the parapet. Noble Lords were criticising the Government with enormous energy for delaying the scheme. Admittedly, I do not have to sweat and swelter in the traffic jams around Newbury. Nevertheless, if the bypass is built it goes across a prominent Civil War battlefield. People may think that cars are more important than battlefields. But will our descendants agree with that?
I conclude by saying that I am sure that the Government will give a great deal of support to many things that have been mentioned in this fascinating debate. I hope that they will think of our industrial heritage and that the noble Viscount will find time to carry that forward to discussions with his right honourable friend. I sum up by reiterating the words of the noble Lord who opened the debate. I hope that the Government will be able to do just a little bit more.
9.9 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I wish to join with others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for so fluently initiating this important debate, which, on the evidence, might have deserved a full five hours. It has been graced by three distinguished maiden speeches. I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and the noble Earl, Lord Hardwicke, upon excellent contributions. I very much agreed with the latter on the importance of the film industry. The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, gave me particular pleasure since we were contemporaries at Oxford, taking the same class degree in the same subject in the same year. I felt that the quality and elegance of his speech clearly demonstrated why, and how far, he has moved ahead of me in the subsequent nearly 40 years.
On the general issue of funding the arts, I wholeheartedly endorse the point of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that government support for the arts is and always has been inadequate. It is derisory compared with our continental European neighbours. We noted that last year the Government cut the Arts Council grant by £3.2 million, the first time in its history that it had been cut. This year some was restored, but still it was £2.75 million short in real terms.
280
We also note that the arts spend includes tens of millions of pounds down the new British Library drain. Most damaging of all is the squeeze on local authority expenditure, where local authorities spend more on the arts than the Arts Council. The consequences of that can be seen all over Britain. Major regional theatres, as has been referred to, have a collective deficit of over £7 million, with several closing or threatening to close. Some orchestras are in serious financial difficulties and the discretionary grants for arts training have collapsed.
The basic cause of those problems is the refusal of government—not just this Government but British society as a whole—to recognise the crucial importance of the arts or to develop policies to invest in them. The case for investing more in the arts can be made on cultural grounds alone. A well-cultured society is a good in itself. But even for more philistine people who share the widespread Anglo-Saxon anti-intellectual, anti-arts tradition, a compelling case for greater arts investment can be made on economic grounds alone.
The arts constitute a crucial sector in our service economy. Together with related and dependent cultural industries such as publishing, recording, filming and broadcasting, they employ over 500,000 people in Britain and are our fourth largest earner of foreign exchange after banking, travel and shipping. That is all on a total public subsidy of around £500 million, which should be seen as an investment. It is not much more than the Government have spent or will spend on privatisation consultants, which could hardly be defended as a similar investment.
If we take London alone, where my connection is through membership of the London Arts Board, we learn that there are up to 12,000 organisations in London involved in the arts, culture and entertainment. They employ over 200,000 people —6 per cent. of the total of the capital's employment—and are a bigger employer than the construction industry. Arts turnover is up to £12 billion—6 per cent. of metropolitan GDP—and city audiences for the arts total around 100 million. Overseas earnings are £4 billion and contribute to an arts balance of trade surplus of £1.2 billion. Government support for the arts should not be viewed as negative public subsidy expenditure but positively, as productive investment with high cultural and economic returns.
The British often view the arts as some frivolous gilt on the gingerbread. In fact, they are a critical part of our economy. That is why we believe that investment in the arts must be sustained and improved. Noble Lords may say—and it is true—that the lottery has improved those prospects. We support that and we certainly hope that it results in some exciting arts projects in the years ahead, especially in the architectural field. I am attracted by the initial plans for Richard Rodgers' new South Bank. But it should not and does not mean that the Government can reduce their responsibilities. Once again I should like the Minister, for the record, to give the House an assurance on the question of additionality—that the lottery funds are additional to maintain public funding in the sector. I should also like him to assure us—I look forward to hearing what he says—on the revenue costs of new lottery arts buildings, where the lottery provides the capital. Have the Government any further ideas on

281
the revenue side? I look forward in particular to how he responds to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, as we certainly do not want white elephants that no one can afford to run. Is there any hope, under the existing contracts, of diverting any of Camelot's huge profits to the good causes? Why should Camelot's gross take be bigger than that of the arts sector?
Specifically, on discretionary grants, I wish to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said. The future of our performing arts depends wholly on our young getting training—training in music, ballet and drama. The discretionary grants for those courses have been savagely cut because of the Government's squeeze on local authority expenditure. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, referred to his family's connections with music, the most profound of all artistic expression. Britain has recently enjoyed a golden age in music, with London hosting fine operas—I agree with what my noble friend Lord Chandos said in his advocacy of the case of the English National Opera—and also offering one great world-class orchestra—the London Symphony Orchestra, with which I should declare I have been connected for 16 years—and four other very fine orchestras. Will the supply of our young musicians be squeezed through the lack of discretionary grants? The London Symphony Orchestra has thrived on a combination of subsidy and a marvellous working relationship with the City Corporation. Its success on the world stage shows what subsidy and quality standards can achieve. That should be our aim in many other artistic areas.
On the other main issue of the built heritage, this side of the House is sympathetic to the points made with such conviction and experience by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. We shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply, who himself has considerable experience of the joys of life in great houses. I also take this opportunity to add that on the question of listed building status we do not oppose the Secretary of State's recent commitment to more consultation. However, we have two serious reservations: that any demolition proposals must be frozen during the consultation period and that the procedures for emergency spot-listing of buildings under threat must be made to work more efficiently.
On the lottery's potential contribution to private heritage houses, we have expressed before our concern that private owners should not be seen to increase their housing equity capital at public expense. But Labour wants to maximise the aid to the heritage. We therefore would suggest that the regulations should be amended to allow lottery proceeds to assist private historic houses provided there is significant and not token public access and provided owners who subsequently sell repay the grants which have been received for their property. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
As regards VAT, there seems to be a curious anomaly whereby repairs attract 15 per cent. VAT while alterations are zero rated. Owners of private historic buildings and parish churches state that the 15 per cent. repair tax is the biggest single obstacle to maintaining buildings. Has the Minister any proposals to remedy
282
that? For instance, what would be the revenue implications of having a single 8 per cent. rate for repair and alterations?
Finally, as regards the British Museum, I wish to reinforce the statement of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi that the British Museum is the jewel in our heritage crown. I hope that the Minister can assure us that in the immediate future the museum will be provided with the additional resources for its wonderful plans. Time slips by, the aesthetic delights of boxing still await some of us and I wish the Minister to be given full opportunity to answer this excellent debate.
9.20 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for initiating this debate. He plays a valuable role in helping to preserve the national heritage on both sides of the Border—as an owner of a splendid house and through his work for the Historic Houses Association.
The arts and our built heritage are of the greatest importance to this country. I welcome this opportunity to explain to your Lordships the government's policies for the funding of the arts and the heritage.
If I may begin with the national lottery, introduced only four months ago, it has already proved to be a tremendous success and has raised over £300 million for good causes in only 20 weeks. Last month saw the first announcements of successful applications. The money raised is now beginning to do the good for which it is intended—to have a positive impact on the quality of life of everyone in this country. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that it is additional to government spending.
Many of your Lordships have raised the question of eligibility for lottery funding for the built heritage and, in particular, for private owners. As your Lordships are aware, lottery funds are to be distributed by five different bodies. Repairs to historic buildings are eligible to be considered by the National Heritage Memorial Fund. We have had the pleasure of hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, who is the chairman, and I must take this opportunity to congratulate him on his maiden speech. It is particularly fitting that he should have been able to speak this evening in this debate.
It is for the noble Lord and his fellow trustees to interpret the extent of their powers and to set their priorities within the statutory framework and the Secretary of State's policy directions. Under the terms of the National Heritage Act 1980, private individuals and institutions or bodies established or conducted for profit are not eligible recipients. These powers apply equally to the distribution of lottery funds as to funding from the National Heritage Memorial Fund's grant-in-aid. In preparing the legislation for the lottery, the Government decided that it was not appropriate to seek to overturn that position. However, it is possible for private owners to arrange their affairs, should they wish to do so, in such a way as to become eligible for lottery funding. Privately-owned historic buildings may

283
be eligible for lottery funding if ownership is transferred to a charitable trust. As my noble friend Lord Crathorne said, there have been successful examples of that.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund may also consider applications for in situ purchases if it is convinced of the public benefit and if the proceeds of the sale are to be applied to the preservation of the building. I know that its trustees are keen to be flexible in their approach and to help private owners within the statutory framework.
I realise that these arrangements do not go as far as some of your Lordships would wish in help to private owners. However, we keep the arrangements for the lottery under review. But I must point out that we have no plans at the moment to amend existing legislation.
The range of our built heritage is extensive. As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, today we recognise that many different aspects of our past are important. We no longer think only of cathedrals and stately homes as our heritage but also of some of the great textile mills as well as our industrial machinery and other heritage. But, having said that, our wealth of country houses must be one of our greatest treasures. The landscapes in which so many of them stand are one of our greatest inventions. As places of interest for visitors they are unsurpassed, not least because of their splendid collections—and that includes the individual owners who are also an integral part of the attraction.
We are all aware of the vital role that the National Trust plays in preserving and opening up so many houses to the public. It celebrates its centenary this year, and we all congratulate its present chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. Indeed, I was brought up in a National Trust house. But, equally important, are the private owners who also open their doors.
The Government put great emphasis on ensuring that the public have access to our heritage. Many owners see themselves as trustees for the future and are proud to maintain and show their houses to visitors. The Government have long acknowledged their special position, and a range of measures is available to provide funding to help to protect this part of our heritage.
My department's principal expert adviser on the built heritage is English Heritage. It was established in 1984 to protect and encourage people to understand and enjoy England's architectural heritage and to have day-to-day responsibility for the execution of the Government's policy. I am extremely grateful for the welcome that was given by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury to our announcement about consultation on listing.
The principal responsibility for maintaining historic buildings rests with their owners, but support for private owners is available in the form of grants. Between 1984 and 1994 the Government's contribution to English Heritage increased substantially, from £49 million to over £104 million. English Heritage has also itself worked hard to increase its contribution towards the protection of England's heritage. This year it expects to raise over £17.9 million from income earned from its properties and membership. My noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, its first chairman, was responsible for setting English Heritage on its prosperous course.
284
English Heritage runs a number of grant schemes, including for outstanding buildings listed Grade I and II*. To ensure that resources are targeted to where they are most needed, English Heritage introduced a full and substantive needs assessment procedure in 1989.
I recognise that refocusing English Heritage grants on buildings at most immediate risk has meant that there has been a reduction in the amount of grant-in-aid going to private houses. But English Heritage's policy of targeting money where it is most needed must be right. However, I also recognise the need not to penalise owners of historic houses. English Heritage has been re-examining the needs of private historic house owners in the light of representations made in this House and elsewhere. I am currently considering its proposals.
I have also initiated discussions between English Heritage and the Historic Houses Association on the way in which owners' resources are assessed when calculating need. Jocelyn Stevens, the chairman of English Heritage will keep me informed of the progress of those discussions.
In addition to the assistance provided through the Government's expert advisers on the heritage, my department also provides help through the National Heritage Memorial Fund, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, until 1992. Since its creation in 1980 the fund has made substantial resources available for the acquisition, maintenance and preservation of some of England's finest architectural and historic treasures.
I have spoken about different sources of grants for the protection of the built heritage. But there are other important sources of funding. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned maintenance funds. This is a technical subject but also an important one, so I shall try to explain why they work as they do. The owner of an outstanding property is able to set aside income-earning assets in a discretionary trust for at least six years. The income is dedicated to maintaining the house, which remains in his ownership. The noble Lord stated that the settlers of maintenance funds have given away their own money, land or chattels and that this provides a public benefit. I do not deny that there is a public benefit. Indeed it would be wrong to grant the tax reliefs if there were not a public benefit.
I am aware of the burden on private owners because of their commitment to retaining their heritage. I admire and respect this commitment. The costs of repair can often be very high. The noble Lord referred to a debate in this House in 1992 when I promised to consider the points made in regard to maintenance funds. There have been discussions since then with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and representatives of the Historic Houses Association, and others. We believe that the present package of tax reliefs provided for maintenance funds strikes the right balance. There are now some 100 approved funds rather than 60. However, the Government will always be willing to look at any proposals to improve the tax regime, and particularly the way in which maintenance funds operate, to the benefit of the built heritage.

285
As my noble friend Lady O'Cathain said, the protection of our ecclesiastical heritage is a responsibility which the Government take very seriously. Substantial funding is provided to assist with the repair and maintenance of historic church buildings. For churches in active use, funding is channelled through English Heritage, and is for the most part directed towards buildings that are of outstanding architectural or historic interest: those listed grade I or II. English Heritage grant-in-aid, which includes a contribution to VAT, has saved many churches that would otherwise have become redundant or fallen into disrepair.
English Heritage last year made grants totalling more than £13 million for the repair of churches and some £4 million for cathedrals. This sum was part of the cathedral repair grant scheme launched by the Government in 1991 and intended to assist repairs of cathedrals. A further £4 million is available for 1995–96. No less than 53 of England's 61 cathedrals should by then have benefited from the grant scheme.
I listened with great care to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I recognise the concern expressed by him about VAT. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Gage on his maiden speech. He was also concerned about VAT, but about repairs more generally.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish explained during a debate recently that the Government remained opposed to a variety of reduced rates of VAT on anything other than domestic fuel and power. The European Commission has just published a report on the approximation of VAT rates having regard to the functioning of the internal market. The report also sought to establish whether distortions of competition between member states had arisen as a result of the operation of reduced rates in the single market. The review concluded that in the present circumstances there did not appear to be any justification for introducing major modifications in respect of the level and structure of the rate system or the scope of the reduced rate list. Under the relevant EC directive no new zero rates can be introduced. The Government's long-standing policy has been to favour a simple rate structure with a single standard rate and a zero rate.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said that the Government encouraged partnerships between the public and private sector. He is right. The past 20 years have seen a quite remarkable increase in business sponsorship of the arts. In 1976 business sponsorship stood at a modest £0.5 million. By 1994, business support was £70 million. The business sponsorship incentive scheme, which has been rechristened the pairing scheme, was established in 1984. The scheme has so far attracted over £85 million in new money for the arts. Since the principle of sponsorship incentive has been so successful in both sport and the arts, I have recently extended this principle to the built heritage by launching a pilot scheme. Run by the Association for British Sponsorship of the Arts, it is based in the north of England. We are providing £150,000 for matching awards under the scheme. It will bring together, in a new partnership, businesses and those undertaking projects
286
which widen access to, and assist in the repair of, the built heritage. We will be closely monitoring the success of this scheme.
Funding for the arts in this country has long been a complex animal. In terms of direct support for the arts, the Government's chief contribution is through the Arts Council. Our commitment has been amply demonstrated over many years, with substantial real terms increases in the Arts Council's grant. Since 1979 there has been an increase in real terms of over 40 per cent. This year the Arts Council of England will receive £191 million, £5 million more than in 1994–95 —evidence of the high regard in which we in the Department of National Heritage hold the arts.
The relationship between government and the Arts Council has always been based on the arm's length principle under which it is for the council to allocate the funds it receives to individual arts organisations. That is a great responsibility for the council and one which it continues to discharge admirably. Since becoming chairman, my noble friend Lord Gowrie has introduced a number of initiatives to ensure that the public and Parliament understand the processes behind the allocation of grants and lottery funding, which will result in a dramatic improvement in arts facilities the length and breadth of this country and will be of lasting benefit.
It is especially welcome that the first awards by the Arts Council should have been for such a wide range of projects, from national companies to small community projects. The lottery will provide the first opportunity for many arts organisations, particularly amateur ones, to invest in not only buildings, whether new or old, but in equipment, musical instruments, vehicles, renovations, improved access and much more.
I must point out to my noble friend Lord Sainsbury and the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, that those grants have been made under the existing rules. There already is flexibility. We keep all policy directions under Section 26 of the National Lottery Act under review and will monitor the success of the lottery.
We must not forget local authorities, because after central government support, the largest source of public funds for the arts is local authority funding. The total amount spent on arts provision by English local authorities is similar to that spent by the Government each year—about £180 million. I am pleased to see that, despite difficult times, in general their support for the arts is being maintained and in many authorities has increased in recent years.
Perhaps I may now turn to film, and in doing so I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hardwicke on his maiden speech. His speech too was apt because the Select Committee has just published its report on film. The Government will want to study carefully what the report has to say before we reach a decision on what shape the Government's approach should take in the future. But we are currently looking at how support measures now deliver the objective of encouraging the making of British films and whether they are effective in enabling those films to be seen by British audiences. The current position is encouraging: there has been a marked increase in production levels in the past three

287
years. In 1992, 32 British-produced films were made. In 1994, the number rose to 50. There is a growing audience for films in cinemas in this country. We are seeking to make this country as attractive a place as possible for film production. We set up the British Film Commission and we see its role as being of key importance in the development of the thriving production base.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred to the British Library's move to St. Pancras, which will enable the British Museum to utilise a further 40 per cent. of the Bloomsbury site. I can assure the noble Lord that any case made to the Government for extra funding will be considered in the normal way as part of the public expenditure survey process.
I am pleased to report that the terrible technical problems which have beset the new library building at St. Pancras seem—having said this before, I stress the word "seem"—at last to be under control. The construction is now on schedule for completion during the third quarter of 1996, with handover to the British Library planned for the last quarter of 1996.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, referred to the difficulties faced by students at the Royal College of Music in obtaining discretionary awards. Discretionary awards are a matter for local authorities and it is for them to decide which students to support, and at what rates, in the light of local needs and priorities. It is true that in recent years authorities have been giving greater priority to further rather than higher education in distributing the funds available. This has not, however, prevented a rapid increase in the numbers of students undertaking postgraduate study in recent years. I can tell the noble Lord that as regards students unsuccessful in obtaining a discretionary award, the Department of Employment's career development loans scheme is a widely available alternative.
No one can doubt the vitally important part that the arts play in all our lives. They have the ability to educate, stimulate, calm, excite, amuse or annoy—and sometimes they can do most of those at the same time. More and more people are using their leisure time to join in the arts and increasing numbers of people are attending operas, concerts, theatre, the ballet and so forth. Almost all our overseas visitors make at least one visit to a theatre, museum or gallery or to an historic property during their stay. Indeed, those form a major reason for their visiting this country in the first place.
Tourism's relationship with the arts and our heritage is a two-way street. For example, historic properties attracted £222 million from visitor revenues in 1992, and our national museums and galleries, some £44 million in 1993–94. We estimate that in 1993 West End theatres gained some £69 million from overseas visitors alone. I have not forgotten the contribution of my noble friend Lord Montgomery. Perhaps I may write to him on some of the technical points he raised tonight.
Noble Lords have raised a wide range of issues and all have had a fairly short time to speak. I too have had to canter rather rapidly round the course. I hope that I have been able to demonstrate the fact that the Government take the question of funding for the arts and the heritage very seriously. A thriving arts sector
288
and our unique heritage are vital assets and make an important contribution to the economic health of the country. The Government recognise that contribution and will continue to provide the substantial resources required to ensure that they are available for enjoyment not only by the present generation but also by future generations.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, it certainly has been a wide-ranging and fascinating debate and has lived up to all the expectations that many of us had tonight. We have been treated to three excellent maiden speeches. I am sure that we all enjoyed the opening performance from the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench representing the heritage sector. I was delighted too to hear the most encouraging comments from the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. They gave me great cheer tonight.
Naturally, I was disappointed that the noble Viscount was unable to give way on the treatment of income tax and capital gains tax on maintenance funds. I am afraid I must assure him that we shall continue to keep up the pressure. Indeed, I am sure that the right reverend Prelate will not return to Norwich and forget about VAT. The Government must expect more pressure, in particular on those two issues.
Almost all noble Lords mentioned the National Lottery, and have said what a shame it is that it cannot help the private sector. I believe that the Government have a moral duty to look at that again. I hope that tonight at least some seeds have been sown for the future. Let us hope for a more positive attitude towards the arts and the architectural heritage. I thank all noble Lords most sincerely for their contributions and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Boxing Bill [H.L.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. First, I should outline the purpose of the Bill, which is to prohibit professional boxing. It has nothing to do with boys' clubs or stopping amateur bouts. It is concerned simply with professional boxing and perhaps the debate could limit itself to the impact of professional boxing on our national life.
I speak with the full support of the British Medical Association. I suggest to your Lordships that the opinion of that authoritative body should be given some weight and consideration when making a judgment on the Bill.
The Bill has a long history. It was introduced by Lady Summerskill way back in 1962. I introduced the Bill in 1981 and again in 1991. I introduced it in 1991 because at that time most of us felt sensitive about that issue due

289
to the very serious injuries that were caused to Mike Watson, who is now in a wheelchair and who will never really recover from the injuries caused to him on the night of his last fight.
Since then, of course, Bradley Stone, a young boxer who hoped, by going into the ring in London, to be able to pay off his mortgage and get married, has died in the ring in London.
And then some of us no doubt saw the last exhibition of national note—the fight between Nigel Benn and Gerald McLellan. It was the experience of watching that fight which induced me again to introduce this Bill. I remember quite clearly watching the fight because Nigel Benn emerged into the ring with a great deal of excitement and hype and across his dressing gown were the words "The Black Destroyer". Therefore, there was no doubt as to what was his purpose in the ring. By the same token, his opponent, Gerald McLellan, who as a hobby raises bull terriers in the United States, had said:
"I get a buzz from knocking people unconscious".
That spectacle takes place in a ring. There is great excitement.
I received a letter this morning from a 16 year-old girl who is writing an essay on this subject at her school. I do not know who she is but she lives somewhere in Maidenhead. She quotes also Gerald McLellan:
"'When I am in the ring with another fighter', he said recently, 'I look across the ring and see this guy I have so much hate for. I have so much desire to knock this guy unconscious'".
Is that the kind of spectacle which we, in a civilised society, with some standards of human decency, should encourage or even permit? I am not a natural "banner". I am a bit of a libertarian. But there are certain activities which we introduce in our society which are stamped as being civilised. Boxing is not one of them.
Cases of damage to boxers are well documented in the literature of the British Medical Association. It is not only that people are killed in the ring, it is also the delayed effect on hundreds of boxers who subsequently suffer from dementia—the punch-drunk syndrome. The example of that which is known to most noble Lords is, of course, the sad and pathetic case of Muhammad Ali. He was a brilliant athlete in his day, but here he is today going about without much knowledge of what he is saying or doing. Muhammad Ali is one case which is well known. However, there are many cases of young boxers who are similarly afflicted. We must not only count the people who have been killed in the ring; we must also count those who have suffered long-term damage.
Very few boxers make money out of the business, although the initial incentive is that they hope to do so. That is particularly true now of young blacks, whereas it used to be more true of young working class boys.
In previous debates it has been pointed out to me that other sports are dangerous and people ask why we do not ban them. Of course other sports are dangerous, but boxing is the only sport in which people are committed to doing damage to other people. That is the purpose: knocking them unconscious. That is the buzz.
290
Of course, people are damaged by playing rugby football or other sports. But that is not the purpose of the sport; it is incidental to it. Other people have told me that boxing teaches discipline. But do we need that kind of thing to teach discipline? Is the only way that we can teach discipline to introduce youngsters into the ring to try to knock each other unconscious? People also say that it is a good thing that the boys' clubs practise boxing and that they do not do very much harm, indeed, they do some social good. I would concede that point. But the Bill is not about boys' clubs. I am not sure that it is the only way in which one keeps boys off the streets of the East End of London or Glasgow. There are other sports and other activities which could be encouraged and which are much more socially desirable than boxing.
If one considers, for example, the Nigel Benn versus Gerald McLellan fight, it will be realised that all such contests are created in an atmosphere of excitement and hype. What we are doing is glamorising violence in a world where violence is one of the greatest dangers to our society and to decency in that society. Let us forget about boxing being a noble art. The man who wins is the man who knocks the other fellow unconscious. That is the purpose of the sport.
Certain people have pointed out to me that if we ban boxing we will drive it underground. However, that has not happened in Scandinavia, where the sport has been banned. No one can believe that boxing would survive as an underground sport. We banned cockfighting in this country. Why did we do so? Why did we ban bare knuckle fighting? We did so because we felt that such things were offensive in our society.
The British people have shown a great sensitivity as regards the welfare of animals. We have seen that in recent cases involving the export of animals abroad. We have in the past banned cockfighting. I cannot understand the people who become all alarmed and excited about damage to animals and who are not equally and deeply concerned about damage to other human beings in a public spectacle. I would suggest to those of us who really want to see a better and more decent society that we should seriously consider why this so-called sport should not be banned. I leave it at that at this stage.
During the previous debate on this subject there was a most moving contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who looked at this matter—as inevitably he would—as a Christian. I try to do the same myself. I consider that our lives are a treasure given to us by God and we have no right to destroy this intricate mechanism or do damage to our bodies if we live in trust. I suggest to those noble Lords who profess the Christian faith that this is a most unchristian activity of setting one human being against another intent on doing him physical damage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Taylor of Gryfe.)
9.56 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at the end insert ("this day six months").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury is unable to be with us this evening but I draw comfort from his interest in the subject. Probably most noble Lords know that he spoke in the previous debate on this matter on 4th December 1991 when the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, introduced exactly the same Bill as is before your Lordships. On that occasion the Bill was rejected. It is only just over four years since your Lordships have had the chance to address the subject. We must ask what has changed to make it essential that we have to invest parliamentary time on the same subject again, and in such a short timescale.
I would remind your Lordships that last evening the Commons were presented with a similar Motion on a 10-minute Bill and that was defeated on a ratio of 2:1, or 120 votes to 60. That does not mean to say that we cannot have our own opinion.
My experience of boxing goes back to my school days. I have no hesitation in admitting that in those days I was feared when I went into the ring. However, I drew strength from being taught properly and from winning a couple of bouts at the end of the day. It was part of the character forming training in a school that prided itself on the number of old boys who ended up as members of the country's national rugby side, the All Blacks.
Today the sport suffers from the voice of the "banners" but it serves a function. It helps young men to learn discipline, responsibility and competitive skills, particularly, I understand, within the National Association of Boys Clubs. Even though the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, would rather we did not discuss this, and even though the proposal is to ban professional boxing, boxing as a sport has to be considered.
I believe that if the promotion of this sport were to be made illegal, as defined in this Bill, there would be a most dangerous result. The management of the sport would fall into the hands of the unqualified. It would be driven underground, and therefore be deprived of the valuable regulation that is required to avoid many of the obvious pitfalls inherent in what is a potentially dangerous pastime, as in the case of other confrontational sports such as kick-boxing. I understand that kick-boxing was banned in Ontario. It has now moved to Quebec, where it continues. Even sports such as karate and other closely allied Japanese personal confrontational sports are all, in essence, included in this Bill.
In considering the merits or otherwise of this sport of boxing we are not dealing with a recent phenomenon but a sport—some would say even an art form—that can be traced back to the ancient Greeks, even to 688 BC.
Since the 18th century boxing has been made very much more acceptable in the eyes of many by the use of padded gloves, the invention of which is generally credited to Jack Broughton, who was for many years champion boxer of England. There is even a thought
292
abroad today that gloves are not the answer and that bare knuckle fighting has the benefit of the protection of pain. That is a thought we shall dwell on another time.
The most popular 18th century teacher of the art was John Jackson, sometimes known as Gentleman John Jackson. Among his pupils was Lord Byron, who when chided for keeping company with a pugilist insisted that Jackson's manners were:
"infinitely superior to those of the fellows of the college whom I meet at high table".
It was around 1866 when John Chambers and the 8th Marquess of Queensbury drew up a code to cover all boxing contests in the United Kingdom. Those rules remain substantially the governing rules of boxing today.
If we were debating this evening the possibility of new codes of practice to tighten up the existing regulations concerning improved referee responsibility or tighter medical controls on the sport, I for one would be prepared to give the proposals a sympathetic hearing. So, I believe, would the British Boxing Board of Control, whose work has been unstinting not only in protecting the sport but also in going beyond even overseas control bodies in ensuring that the boxer is fit to undertake the task he faces and that there are no problems before he goes into the ring and as soon as the fight is over. Such protection is available right through the fight, and is an example to every institutional body of this type.
Sadly, that is not the case. The Bill we are debating tonight, as drafted, proposes an outright ban on boxing for profit. As I have said, that would have the effect of driving underground into an unregulated regime an activity which rightly requires a certain level of regulation. But it also requires a high level of exposure.
I have been advised that there has already been one case of a senior boxer, who fears the advent of this very Bill or similar legislation, who has been involved in such an unlicensed fight. If that continues, then we face real problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, spoke of Norway, Sweden and Iceland, where professional boxing has been banned. I do not know whether he is aware that the distance from Sweden to Denmark is a little over half-an-hour by ferry. All the boxer has to do is to go by boat to Denmark where he can be licensed; and with perhaps a little more money in his pocket he can come to this country. Therefore the question of this issue going underground has nothing to do with the situation in that country. In fact, our friends from Scandinavia may possibly be rather more law-abiding than we are, and for a very good reason. Their ethnic and cultural structure is more consistent than ours. Instead of going underground, those who wish to pursue a professional boxing career can simply get on a ferry.
I well remember when I lived in Sweden that Ingemar Johanssen was the country's hero at the time he fought for the world heavyweight championship. We are considering the future of an ancient sport which has shown itself ready and willing to adapt to sensible regulation over the years. Adaptation and not banning is the answer. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at the end insert ("this day six months").—(The Viscount of Oxfuird.)
10.7 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, in speaking to this Bill there are two matters that I have to make clear. First, I do not speak on behalf of my party. As I believe we are about to find out, it is a subject which will split all parties in your Lordships' House. I have an interest too, although non-pecuniary, as I am vice-president of the Lonsdale Club.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, stated that he was interested in professional boxing. Amateur boxing would not be able to survive for the simple reason that the Bill, as drafted, refers to no boxing matches for profit. Amateur boxing clubs survive on funds generated from their displays and tournaments. The noble Lord shakes his head, but let me assure him that that is correct.
The Bill totally fails to take into account the fact that many other full contact, striking martial arts take place in this country. If this measure has to be all encompassing, it should take those into account. I refer to kick-boxing or Thai boxing. The Bill would have to define—it does not do so—exactly what one means by boxing. As we all know, the way one gets round something that has an illegal name is to give it another name. The Thai equivalent in English—kick-boxing—would quite easily get around this Bill. There is also full contact tae kwon do and karate. Those sports are infinitely more dangerous because one is allowed to kick at the head.
One has to take into account that martial arts are the greatest growth area in sport in Britain. That is a fact. There is a great diversity of activity. When people go into a martial arts contest, they seek to achieve physical dominance. Most of those sports are regulated by a points system. The stoppage can be regarded as a way of terminating the contest when someone is unfit to continue.
The noble Lord made a good and well-crafted speech on the moral ground that one is seeking to destroy someone. Possibly the stoppage may be regarded as a safety valve. It depends how one looks at such matters.
No matter what is said on the issue, boxing is a martial art, if one defines such sports as karate as being a martial art. Such sports do not make contact all the time but limit contact until the higher levels of the sport. Moreover, how long will it be before we stop any game in which you drive at somebody or run at them, as happens in Rugby Union or Rugby League, to try to knock them out of the way? That is allowed in both those rugby football codes. I know because I have played those games. On occasions, you run at someone to knock him out of the way and another person will run at you to try to knock you flat. That is the sport.
On the grounds on which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has brought forward this Bill, those two sports of Rugby Union and Rugby League would have to be
294
stopped. So would American gridiron football as well. In those sports, players run at each other to knock them out of the way and achieve physical dominance. There is a line of logic that derives from the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord can see that. I cannot put it more clearly.
It may surprise noble Lords to know that the sport which carries the highest death toll in this country is hill-walking. Moreover, motor racing—and motorcycling, as my noble friend says in an aside—also carries risks. Many sports are inherently dangerous. I suggest that this Bill is fundamentally flawed in both its drafting and approach. We can discuss the moral arguments later. However, I suggest that the Bill itself does not address the issues raised in the noble Lord's speech. The Bill is too narrowly drawn. It is a blunt instrument and badly aimed. It aims at professional boxing but it will eliminate the way in which amateur boxing is funded.
I hope that, when noble Lords consider how they will vote on this amendment, they will take into account all the secondary issues. They should not simply consider the very good speech of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. As it is currently constructed, the Bill will stop any sport which is deemed to be boxing—or any martial art—at an amateur level because it will cut off its funding. We must consider this matter very carefully.
10.14 p.m.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Taylor reminded us, we have debated this topic on a number of occasions. The last time I went into some detail of the history of boxing in the United Kingdom. I do not intend to do that again tonight. It is rather late and I do not feel that we should profit much from it. In any case, the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, has done it for me.
However, I want to make clear at the outset that I am an administrative steward of the British Boxing Board of Control, a member of the area council of the Wales Boxing Board of Control and a patron of the Welsh Ex-Boxers' Association. I also have a number of other involvements in boxing. None of them is financial. Indeed, if there is a financial input, it comes from my pocket.
I have been fascinated by boxing ever since I was a very young boy. My uncle had a gymnasium in Cardiff in the area where I was born, which was a very much deprived area. I learnt a number of lessons as a result of being taught by my uncle how to defend myself. I learnt that it was wrong to bully. I learnt that it was wrong to suffer bullies. I also learnt humility.
I remember that, after I had been going to the gymnasium for a couple of years, I was bullied by someone in my school. He was the bane of my life until I could stand it no longer and we fought. I beat him; and I beat him because of the disciplined training I had received from the gymnasium I attended.
Let me bring that experience up to date. A couple of years ago a world champion was due to defend his title in the north of England. On arrival here it was discovered that he was medically unfit. The television

295
had been booked for the show and all the seats had been sold. I was asked whether I thought that a young Cardiff boxer named Steve Robinson would be a fit opponent to fight for the title.
At that time Steve Robinson had a mixed record. My answer was that I did not believe it would be a mismatch. I did not think that Robinson would win, but I felt that he would be a worthy opponent. In the event Robinson won the World Boxing Organisation featherweight title. Steve Robinson is a black boy from a council estate in Ely, a very deprived estate which had terrible publicity a few years ago. At the time he fought for the title he was earning £80 a week stacking shelves in a supermarket. He has gone on to defend the title five times, has earned hundreds of thousands of pounds and is now settled for life.
I cannot describe Steve Robinson adequately. He is one of the most humble young men I have ever met. A great deal of affection has grown for him in Cardiff. He is a role model for the many hundreds of young people on the Ely estate. But the irony is that about the time he won that title, two young thugs—contemporaries of Steve Robinson from the estate—were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for beating to death an innocent elderly man. I am not suggesting that Steve Robinson might have turned out to be a thug if he had not been a boxer with the discipline that had been instilled into him by virtue of that. But I suggest that if those young thugs had had the discipline that Robinson received in the gymnasium, one elderly innocent man might still be alive today.
That is one of the lessons one is taught. I am afraid that I was never very good at boxing. In fact I share a distinction with the late, great, Rocky Marciano, former heavyweight champion of the world. He boxed 49 times and won all 49 contests; that is 100 per cent. I boxed four times and lost on each occasion. That is 100 per cent. also, whichever way one looks at it.
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe says that Sweden abolished professional boxing and yet it has not gone underground. Of course not; it has gone across the border. Young men of ability in boxing who wish to make a career in the professional game have simply gone across the border to Denmark and taken out a licence. Ingemar Johannsen can be seen at the ringside at British shows commentating for Scandinavian television. So even if the Bill were successful, it would not stop young British boys turning professional and earning money boxing. They would simply pop over to France, Belgium, Germany or wherever, take out a licence, and the fights in which they were engaged in other countries would be beamed by satellite television to this country. That is the reality of life.
I am not suggesting that simply because we have modern innovations there is no merit in what my noble friend is trying to do. But the burden of the case is this. There are many thousands of young men in this country who go to boxing gymnasiums and learn the disciplines and skills of boxing. And if anybody believes that there is no skill in boxing then they should try it. I do not know of one champion at any level who was a mere slugger. One must learn the science of boxing to become a champion. There is great skill involved in it and we
296
would be doing a disservice to the youth of this country, a disservice to sport, if a Bill of this nature were ever to pass either this House or another place.
10.19 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is what we Scots call "a bonny fighter". I am not sure whether that is apposite to the Bill but we have been here before, as has been pointed out, and I dare say we will be here again. The noble Lord's views on boxing are consistent and very well known to your Lordships. I used to agree with him, but I have changed my mind, as he knows and as I have told him. So let me say, first, where I agree with him.
I agree that professional boxing is a barbarous sport. I do not really agree with my noble friend Lord Oxfuird, because there is no real protection against the brain damage caused by professional boxing. There cannot be. It is the closest thing we have to the gladiatorial games of ancient Rome. It is a mixture of skill and savagery. That is why it is popular; and, so long as human beings remain what they are, it is likely to remain popular. That said, no one today becomes a professional boxer without being aware of the risks of long-term brain damage. It is voluntary, unlike the gladatorial games, and often very rewarding financially. It may be, and often is, that when the boxer has amassed his fortune his damaged brain does not allow him to enjoy it very much or possibly keep it for very long. If he is not aware of these risks at the start, he will probably be too stupid to be a good boxer and his brain, such as it is, will remain unimpaired.
I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, because he wants the sport to he banned. We are at the stage today when far too many people want to ban activities of which they disapprove. I hasten to acquit the noble Lord of being one of those as his views have been consistent over very many years. But here we are. We have smoking, drinking, fox hunting, boxing—I could go on. There is a long list of activities which are now legal but which various pressure groups wish to make illegal. That cannot be a healthy state of affairs in a free country.
I have recently received letters which the British Medical Association has been good enough to write to me. I dare say that I am not alone among your Lordships in that. The latest was, predictably, on boxing. As I recall, the letter started with the proposition that the case against amateur boxing is not proven. It ended with the statement that the British Medical Association seeks a ban on all boxing. Why all boxing? I suppose that it would like us to end up with notices depicting a pair of boxing gloves with a red line through them in all boys' clubs and gymnasiums, in the same way as the ubiquitous no smoking notices.
I am aware that doctors have to be there to pick up the pieces when we fall ill owing to our own foolishness, but I would say to the BMA that it knows better than most of us that life is a very uncertain thing. There is a certain randomness in the way in which the British Medical Association chooses those activities of which it disapproves. I shall not say much about this, but we all know that sodomy leads to AIDS. However,

297
there is no campaign against it by the British Medical Association. There also seems to be a tendency to disregard anything which may be found in favour of any activity which it happens to dislike. No facts which tend to show that smoking may in certain cases be beneficial are allowed to disrupt the seamless web of its disapproval. The fact that boxers, as we have heard, may possess a certain nobility of character and courage beyond the ordinary and that those qualities are desirable, especially in young men, is brushed aside. I sometimes think that some of these researchers start at their conclusion and then work backwards.
Free men have a right to a free choice. Smoking, boxing, fox hunting and drinking alcohol all carry risks. But people have a right to take those risks. Whether we approve or disapprove of those activities is up to us, but I do not believe that they should be banned by law.
10.24 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, if this Bill gets its Second Reading, as I hope it will, we shall certainly be in for an interesting Committee stage. My noble friend Lord Addington will see to that.
I was discussing professional boxing the other day over the lunch table with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and I was saying to him that I could not understand why anyone wanted to spend £100 or more on a ringside seat when if one liked that sort of thing one could see it for nothing on the box. The noble Lord said to me, "You are forgetting something. With a ringside seat you have the added thrill that you may be bespattered with blood". I must say that that is one of the things that would not appeal to me.
The fans will tell you that they do not go to watch anybody get hurt—oh no! They go to watch the skill. Why is it that most of the big fights are between big men? Do not the little men exercise just as much skill as the big men?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, more
Lord Airedale: My Lords, or more so indeed, but they are not so strong or likely to knock each other unconscious and so the crowds tend to keep away. I believe that that says something about the crowds who turn up for big fights between big men. Whether professional boxing can really be called a sport at all I rather doubt. It is certainly part of the entertainment industry, but whether it is in truth a sport I would doubt.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, said, the doctors are going to win this argument in the end. They have won it already over smoking. There is a little way to go, but smoking is becoming increasingly unacceptable in society and the doctors will go on pressing home the point that if your object is to knock people unconscious you are going to damage the brain and that is going to inflict permanent injury. The doctors will win this argument in the end. I wish that they could win it much sooner than looks likely.
10.27 p.m.
Earl Grey: My Lords, noble Lords will not be surprised if I slightly disagree with my noble friend Lord Airedale. I would like to declare that I have an interest as I am president, and my noble friend Lord Addington is vice-president, of the Lonsdale International sporting club. In my case too it is purely an honorary position. The club's aims are to promote all sports, which includes boxing, at amateur and professional level and to raise money for such organisations as the National Association of Boys' Clubs which encourage boys to have a worthwhile purpose and a role in life.
I am not going to dwell long on opposing this Bill. Most of the arguments against it have already been raised. If passed, I believe, as my noble friend Lord Addington has emphasised, that this Bill will affect amateur boxing. It will prevent money being raised at these events for charitable purposes. I agree that boxing is a rough sport. Unfortunately, boxers have been seriously hurt and, tragically, some have died. That is a well-known risk which these people take and they are fully aware of the consequences.
It is my belief that boxing must be regulated from within. I must give praise to the British Boxing Board of Control for its continuous monitoring of regulations and safeguards. As regards injuries, a body of neurological surgeons has set up a working party to examine the board's requirements relating to head injuries et cetera. Britain has a high reputation for looking into the safeguards of the sport, and I believe that that should be noted.
A great many members of the public watch these events whether on television or at the actual event itself. If there was an overwhelming feeling against the sport and if people really opposed boxing, whether amateur or professional, they would stay away and boxing bouts would lose money. That is the answer: if people do not like boxing, they do not have to watch it or be involved in any way.
Professional boxing is big business and more money is involved in it than in any other sport of which I can think. It is not surprising if a young man with ability decides to pursue boxing as a career. I am satisfied that, especially in Britain, the controls and regulations are continually being monitored and conducted responsibly.
Mention has been made of boxing going underground. In some respects it is already an underground sport in that unlicensed boxers already take part in bouts that are watched by a great many people. If boxing is banned, that will happen to an even greater extent and will be an even greater danger to those involved. I shall not class boxing with such things as cock-fighting (which takes place in my part of the world, the west country) or with badger-baiting. However, although both of those barbaric sports have been banned, it is a well-known fact that they continue.
As I have said, other sports involve a higher degree of injury and death but I hear of no moves to ban them. In many cases I would not want to do so. For a number of years I was the manager of a power boat team involved in inshore power boat racing, such as on the

299
Bristol docks. It was a highly dangerous sport. Over a period of two years about 12 or 13 years ago, eight drivers were killed, but nobody made any moves to ban that sport. Although a great many more drivers are killed or injured than boxers, there has been no outcry about that. It is obvious that I oppose the Bill.
10.32 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I must declare an interest as an appeal steward at the British Boxing Board of Control, unhappily with the same rather negative financial consequences as those suffered by the noble Lord, Lord Brooks.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, offers the House yet another return contest for this Bill—a similar Bill was defeated in 1962, in 1981 and most recently on 4th December 1991. On each occasion, it was soundly defeated on points. While admiring the noble Lord's persistence, I do not admire his Bill now any more than on the last occasion. As before, the Bill seeks to create a new criminal offence—that of organising boxing for profit. I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that before creating any new criminal offence it is necessary to think carefully about the need to do so and the consequences of so doing.
This Bill is concerned only with professional boxing, although It is not clear to me why the professional sport is singled out. Presumably there is something in the professional element of that sport which the noble Lord finds particularly distasteful—
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, surely the noble Lord sees that there is a major difference between allowing people to fight each other for the sport of it and allowing society to pay them money—often a lot of money—to risk their lives and those of their fellow contestants. Does he not recognise that there is a strong moral difference between the two?
Lord Meston: My Lords, I do not see that there is a major difference. There is a difference between the two sports, such as the difference in the length of the rounds. There are certain other differences. There is, of course, a difference in that there is a commercial element in professional boxing which does not exist in amateur boxing; but, as was pointed out in the 1991 debate by the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and has been pointed out this evening by, among others, my noble friend Lord Grey, the Bill's impact on the amateur sport has apparently not been properly considered. As I said, that point was raised in 1991 and there has been no attempt to deal with it in the drafting of the Bill before us tonight during the intervening three-and-a-half years or so.
The arguments for and against boxing in general, and professional boxing in particular, have not much altered, and they are unlikely to improve with age or repetition. I prefer the arguments that allow professional boxing to continue. For example, there is the argument based on the fundamental right of people to choose to enter a boxing ring knowing the risks and possible rewards. There are also the economic and social arguments based on the undoubted fact that over the years boxing has provided a living and opportunities for those from the
300
most disadvantaged sectors of society and is a disciplined, skilful sport that requires fitness, agility and determination.
There are also comparative arguments. Other sports are responsible for more fatalities. During the previous debate in 1991 the then Government Minister gave figures for air sports, motor sports, mountaineering, ball games and horse riding. One can only presume that there are also relatively high levels of serious injury in such other sports. Moreover, some of those other sports endanger third-parties in a way that boxing does not. Motor sports endanger spectators, and mountaineering, potholing, and sports of that nature, endanger rescuers. Other comparisons can he made with the so-called martial arts which, with all due deference to my noble friend Lord Addington, I believe will be untouched by this Bill. Finally, there is the very strong argument that to criminalise boxing will drive it underground. Against that, it has been said tonight that apparently there is no illegal boxing in countries that have banned it. But those countries tend to be ones where there is little inherent boxing tradition. In this country, there is a long-standing, deep-rooted tradition which will defy criminalisation. We have to consider whether we want a legal sport carefully and responsibly run, as it is now, or an illegal sport without rules and safeguards that is conducted in remote and unsuitable venues.
We have within the British Boxing Board one of the best regulating bodies in the world. It always puts the interests and safety of boxers ahead of anything else. It is always alert to the latest neurological research. Without such an organisation the clock will go hack. There will be no rules concerning the length and number of rounds, the size of gloves and weights of fighters. There will be no proper matchmaking, medical checks or medical scrutiny. There will be none of the contractual protection that is now provided to boxers by the board. There will be none of the high standard of alert refereeing that is required of licensed referees. Of course, in a small number of cases things go wrong. The British Boxing Board constantly seeks to ensure that there are the best possible emergency procedures on hand at all major tournaments, and that the supervision provided by its officials is of the highest vigilance. The noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, asked what had changed. What has changed is that, if anything, the procedures are even better now than in 1991.
I briefly mention the role of the appeal stewards, because that is the area with which I am most concerned. I have been involved in appeals by boxers who have had their licences revoked because it has been considered that they have lost too many fights. Likewise, I was recently involved in an appeal in which a referee of great experience and long standing was considered to have acted a little too slowly in stopping a fight. His licence was revoked. Whether or not to allow him to continue to referee was a difficult decision. It was decided, with great regret, that he should not be allowed to do so. That indicates the degree of vigilance and care provided by a properly organised sport that one will not have for an illegal sport.

301
I am not concerned—none of us should be—to give an unduly romantic view of boxing. It is a hard sport, but it is still a sport that puts a premium on skilful scoring, rather than on brute force. It is still a sport which channels aggression, rather than creates it. It is still a sport which creates respect and self-respect. It is still a sport which is conducted largely in front of essentially well-behaved crowds.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said that the object of boxing is to knock out one's opponent. Perhaps I may remind him that some of the best boxers, at all weights, have been boxers who have not always won all their fights by knock-outs. Some of the greatest boxers seldom scored a knock-out, and, with respect to my noble friend Lord Airedale, I would say that boxers at the lighter weights attract crowds which are there to admire their skill rather than their aggression.
I do not often agree with the Government's approach to things, but on this occasion I suggest that there is a great deal to be said for self-regulation rather than anything more drastic.
10.40 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I do not believe that he can seriously put forward that the injuries or fatalies suffered from boxing, as compared to other sports or pastimes mentioned by noble Lords, can justify the banning of boxing, whether it be boxing for financial reward or not. He takes a moral stand, and I respect that, but I do not share his views.
I am but a relatively obscure hereditary Peer with some fairly plebeian tastes. I like gambling, boxing and stand-up comics. I suppose that there is a connection among all three. I became keen on boxing as a young boy when I would get away from school on one pretext or another and go to watch the fairground booth boxers who no longer exist these days. That was stand-up comedy, if you like.
Since the noble Lord brought up the subject, the late Lady Summerskill, who was such a doughty campaigner against boxing, wrote a book called The Ignoble Art. Even at this late hour, perhaps I may get away from the main theme of the debate for a moment. The term "ignoble art" was not an idle term. It related to the 18th century when boxing, as we understand it, originated. It is a fairly modern sport. It was then something of a noble art. Unlike France and other other countries where, if disputes arose between the nobility and lesser mortals, there was likely to be a serious conflict involving weapons, we are told of many instances, particularly in the excellent work by Lord Knebworth—a standard work on boxing—of members of the English nobility (I am not sure about the Scottish nobility) who would settle such affairs with their fists.
There is the well-known case in the 18th century of the Duke of Grafton, who took a coach for hire and had a dispute about the fare—much as one would do outside London Airport today. Both he and the coachman took to their fists with a will. It is recorded that the Duke of Grafton won fairly and squarely. That tells us a good
302
deal about the origins of boxing. It probably tells us even more about the unique character of the peerage compared with the nobility in other countries. It goes some way towards explaining how it has survived in the curious way that it has, even in your Lordships' House.
Boxing for money developed at the end of the 18th century. I had an ancestor—my great, great, great grandfather—who died in a duel, I am sorry to say. I wish that he had stuck to boxing. He would gamble with his contemporaries on fights between professional pugilists who used to meet by accident, or on purpose, on various heaths where the fights took place.
The injuries which occurred in those days rarely resulted in brain damage. The reason is simple. The human fist is not made for striking the human head, which is a delicate organism. The noble Lord, Lord Brooks, who spoke so eloquently and with such knowledge, may agree that the cause of brain damage is the revolving of the head as a result of being struck by a large glove. I suggest that if one wishes to reduce such accidents one must return to using a smaller glove, but that may not be possible. There is no question of returning to bare-knuckle fighting.
I know that the sport is looking at all those issues and at all others related to injury. I watch boxing closely and I know that the medical attention that is available at professional fights has improved greatly, even during the past three years. I suggest that the unfortunate boxer recently injured in a middleweight fight may not have survived five years ago because the attention that he would have received would not have been so prompt.
Surely we do not want to drive the sport underground. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, cannot seriously believe that it will not go underground. After all, fights involving small men can attract up to 11 million television viewers. I do not believe that, in the light of such interest, professional boxing would just disappear if it were banned. With such interest it is bound to go underground or abroad where it will be beamed to television sets in this country—
Lord Renton: My Lords, has the noble Viscount considered the fact that if it were to go underground there would be no hope of the large rewards being made to professional boxers?
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the rewards available to boxers would not be so large. Indeed, one of the aspects of professional boxing which I do not like is the enormous amount of money in the game. One must watch that most carefully. Perhaps the Minister in summing up will comment on that aspect. Where there are large pools of money and gamblers—and I know something about them—there is likely to be some skulduggery sooner or later. However, the authorities which control boxing watch that closely too.
I have nothing further to say on the subject. I enjoy boxing as do millions of other people. I do not take a moral stand about it and I do not feel inferior tonight because I do not have a moral reaction to it. I conclude by saying that if your Lordships want to hear about real violence they should ask a policeman how much violence he sees on Friday and Saturday nights as a

303
result of the misuse of alcohol. How much enthusiasm do we have in this House for the control of the misuse of alcohol? How many impassioned speeches, such as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, do we hear on that subject? There are other areas that we can usefully look at to deal with violence.
10.49 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, there is a certain nostalgia about this debate. I came back into the Chamber especially to listen to it. To my personal knowledge, we have had such debates for more than 45 years. It is interesting—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the noble Lord seeking to speak in the gap?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, have I done something wrong?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, there is a list of speakers. Is the noble Lord seeking to speak in the gap?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is there a gap?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no, the noble Lord has missed it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, while the list of speakers is something I support, and it makes this House particularly good, it is not absolutely sacrosanct. What is sacrosanct is that when a debate is taking place which is of some importance to the nation, every Member who is legitimately entitled to be here shall be free to express his point of view. That is what I am doing.
I merely wish to say that this is not a new subject. But what is new is that all noble Lords who have spoken are male. I used to enjoy these debates—and the arguments used were very similar—when Lady Summerskill on the one side and Mrs. Braddock on the other really showed us what knuckle-fighting was all about. I am delighted that my noble friend is to put the distaff side of the argument when she winds up the debate.
Baroness Trumpington: Am I Mrs. Braddock?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lord, my noble friend asks whether she is Mrs. Braddock. She was a noble person who made a great contribution to Parliament over the past fifty years. My noble friend is also a noble person who has made a great contribution to our parliamentary procedures.
I felt that Mrs. Braddock always won the argument. I believe that her argument is as strong today as it was then; namely, that an organised sport is to be preferred to a disorganised sport. If this Bill is allowed to proceed as currently drafted, it is quite obvious, as it was 50 years ago, that the sport will not cease. We shall merely replace an organised sport with a disorganised sport. That would not be good from any point of view.
10.51 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, raised for us the appalling spectre of
304
female violence in institutions. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned policemen on a Friday night and other forms of violence. I do not know whether he has ever witnessed women's hockey. I have played virtually every sport that it is legal to play but I have never had the courage even to watch that.
I should stress that when I speak on boxing I am speaking personally, since your Lordships will be surprised to learn that the Labour Party has no official policy on the subject. I have discussed the matter formally with Labour's national heritage team. I know that what I say is in accordance with the views of my honourable friend in another place, the Shadow spokesman in the Commons, Tom Pendry. Both Tom Pendry and I boxed when younger. I believe that he did so for longer and certainly more successfully than I did. Some noble Lords may feel that my boxing experience is itself sufficient evidence of the brain damage risk involved.
There has long been anxiety about the medical aspects of boxing, which so genuinely concern my noble friend. When I was a founding member of the original Sports Council in the late 1960s chaired by my noble friend Lord Howell, we had long discussions on the subject led by Sir Roger Bannister, himself a distinguished neurologist. Like the country as a whole, we shared the anxiety but were divided as to what to do about it. I believe that there was a firm majority against banning the sport and I think that that would still he the view across society.
I have noticed that such concern becomes more active whenever there is a highly-publicised injury or fatality. As we have heard, Bills to ban boxing came before the House unsuccessfully in 1962, 1981 and 1991. Public concern was recently revived, as my noble friend pointed out, by the disabling injuries suffered by Gerald McLellan earlier this year against Nigel Benn. Before that, we remember Michael Watson against Chris Eubank. In the previous 15 years, Britain has seen the deaths of Johnny Owen, Steve Watts and Bradley Stone—a total, I believe, of 14 deaths in the 50 years since the war. I saw all of those recent fights on television and can vouch for how disturbing the experience can be.
The public is understandably concerned. However, there is an enormous difference between expressing concern and wishing sport to be safer—which I do—and actually taking the vast step to ban boxing. I do not believe that the facts justify that step. Thousands of sportsmen participate in boxing each year, the vast majority of whom never get near a professional championship or even a professional ring, never earn much money, and, indeed, never suffer serious related injuries. Especially in socially-deprived areas, boxing has always provided for many young boys a focus, a purpose, and a sense of achievement and self-respect. It often provides the first discipline in their lives which they willingly accept. Anyone who has seen the boys' boxing clubs in the deprived areas of our cities, as I have done, will know the truth and value of that.
Admittedly, boxing is, as has been said, a hard and demanding physical sport. It involves some physical risk. As was pointed out at the beginning of the debate,

305
it is also unusual in that one of its objectives is to try to knock unconscious the opponent. That fact has always troubled me. However, it is not the only objective and most fights do not end that way. Certainly more would end that way if boxing were officially banned and driven underground, where fights would often be timeless until a knock-out took place, and without proper refereeing and medical supervision.
I should point out to my noble friend that boxing is not like cock fighting. Cocks do not choose to do it: boxers do. No one compels boxers to fight or spectators to watch boxing. If people are deeply offended by it on television, I recommend that they exercise their fundamental right to switch it off.
On the question of injuries and fatalities we must also, as others have done, set boxing in the context of other sports. Boxing injuries are usually highly publicised because they are witnessed on television by millions of viewers. But other less publicised sports are actually more dangerous. For example, fatalities and injuries in motor sports and water sports far exceed those in boxing.
I have heard it said that there are even more such injuries in fishing. That may arise from fishermen being pushed into the water by those animal rights terrorists.
More climbers were killed in the Scottish Cairngorms in 1994 than the total number of professional and amateur boxers killed since the war. So, as has been asked: do we ban climbing? Rugby football has a worrying injuries and fatalities record, especially in schools, which led to the recent public expressions of concern by the Stoke Mandeville Hospital for special injuries. I believe that more schoolboys are seriously injured playing rugby than is the case with boxing. But do we ban rugby in schools? As a former rugby player, often injured, I would certainly oppose that.
On a more general level, I should like to add that I find somewhat distasteful the growing fashion in some political quarters which I shall not specify to ban anything which upsets anyone, whether it is country sports—fishing, hunting, shooting, coursing—or cigarette smoking, though I personally practise none of them. I have a fear that sex will be somewhere next on the list.
This is a slippery slope which we know we must resist. This puritanical, politically correct—not that I would accuse my noble friend of anything as foolish as that because we know his concern is personal and genuine—way of thinking, imposing personal attitudes on the way others choose to lead their lives and take risks (what I call a kind of McCarthyism of the Left), is not attractive. Perhaps we should think about banning all bans.
Having got that off my hairy chest, I want to see the boxing authorities do everything possible to protect the health of boxers. The British Boxing Board of Control, which contains three distinguished parliamentarians, including my noble friend Lord Brooks. has introduced many regulations and procedures to reduce the risk of serious injury in professional boxing, for example, the annual medical examinations, including brain scans;
306
medical examinations before and after a fight; and fully equipped ambulances, which almost certainly, as has been said, saved Gerald McLellan's life.
Perhaps more can be done. Perhaps referees can be instructed to stop fights sooner. Perhaps fights should he stopped after two knock downs, not three, of eight seconds a round. I am not convinced that headgear will help. It prevents cuts but impedes vision and does not necessarily reduce concussion. I note that soccer players head the football as often as boxers get punched. Are we to ban heading at football?
Insurance compensation for damaged boxers is another area where I believe improvements could be made. At present I believe—certainly this was the case when evidence was given to the Select Committee—that the maximum insurance compensation for a fatality is around £40,000 and for a disabling injury there is no insurance compensation, just a small benevolent fund. That is totally inadequate in my view. An industry which receives £12 million a year from television could devote more to compensation for the men who put themselves at risk to generate it. I believe the British Boxing Board of Control should take urgent steps at least to quadruple insurance compensation. It says it receives none of the promotion millions, and that is true, but it could stipulate that compensation payments be made as a condition for giving assent to a boxing tournament.
I reiterate that I share the concern of my noble friend, but I believe that banning is unjustified. It would be illogical given the greater danger in other sports. It would be dictatorial given the fact that no one forces men to box. Like mountain climbers, they have a right to take risks. Seventeen million viewers recently watched a boxing match on television. Are they all wrong? Is the puritan minority right? Should we ban their right to enjoy this pleasure? I think not.
11.3 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I can do no better at this time of night than to emulate my noble friend Lord Oxfuird when I quote what Byron said of his mother-in-law; namely, that she had lost the art of conversation but not, alas, the power of speech.
First of all, I should like your Lordships to know that the Government cannot support this Bill. I should also like the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to be aware that of course we share the views of those who are concerned about the safety of boxers though we do not believe that the sport should be banned.
Some of your Lordships have recalled a most stimulating debate on boxing on 4th December 1991, when the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, last called for a ban on professional boxing. The Government's view on boxing remains as it was then. We believe strongly that in a free society—which this country thankfully enjoys—individuals should have the freedom to participate in the sport of their choice so long as it is within the law and they are fully aware of the risks involved. It is paramount that the element of risk attached to boxing is controllable and that the proper medical safeguards are in place.

307
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I should like to say that I am well aware of the BMA's report published in 1993. I should like to highlight the fact that the British Boxing Board of Control's medical safeguards are among the most rigorous in the world and are constantly under review. Following meetings at the end of 1991 between the then Minister for Sport, the BBBC and a number of medical specialists, the BBBC not only strengthened its medical safeguards but converted them into firm regulations.
In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, the professional sport is, of course, driven in part by financial considerations, but the British Boxing Board of Control is there to ensure that money is not of primary importance but that safety is paramount. The Government are confident that the BBBC's medical safeguards do all that is possible to ensure the boxers' safety.
The BBBC continues to review its research on methods of continual assessment of brain functions to detect possible chronic deterioration that may occur during a boxer's career. It has now extended the scheme, which was originally piloted in Wales and which aims to minimise acute brain injury by the compulsory attendance of an anaesthetist with the necessary equipment at the ringside. Indeed, John Sutcliffe, the neurosurgeon who operated after the Benn/McLellan fight, said that he believed that the introduction of those improvements helped to save the boxer's life.
The Government believe that there is absolutely no case for singling out boxing for a ban. To ban boxing would drive the sport underground and remove from boxers the very important safeguards which now protect them. Furthermore, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that, as my noble friend Lord Oxfuird and the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, said, even if boxing were banned in this country boxers could still compete anywhere overseas—which is what Swedish boxers did when boxing was banned in Sweden. It is important to note that medical safeguards in other countries may not be as stringent as in this country.
Let me deal first with the question of fatalities. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, will be interested in my update of the figures given in the last debate. Figures provided by coroners to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that from 1986 to 1992 there were fortunately only three deaths in England and Wales from boxing. In the same period there were 77 deaths in motor sports; 69 in air sports; 54 in mountaineering; 40 in ball games; 28 in horse riding. Alas, I am unable to inform the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, as to how nearly he dices with death when he rides his motorbike, but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, appreciates that both ends of horses spell danger.
The Government have no hesitation in accepting that, sadly, there are instances where long-term medical problems can be attributable to boxing. However, boxing is not unique in that respect. The simple fact is that there is a risk attached to any physically challenging activity, and to remove the risk would for the most part remove the challenge itself.
308
No one can be complacent about the issue of boxing safety. The Government believe strongly that the utmost attention must be paid to safety, not only in boxing but in all sports where risk is a factor.
I was very interested in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, about insurance. How about an injured boxers' fund as with jockeys? Perhaps we could explore that possibility a little further. That is a personal note which I should probably not have included in this speech.
It is recognised that, like any physical contact sport, boxing has an element of risk. What is paramount is that the element of risk is controllable and containable. Medical safeguards are already in place to protect the health and safety of boxers before, during and after contests and to monitor boxers for long-term medical problems. There are a great many medical examinations which I could list for your Lordships, but, again, I am well aware of the time of night. I believe that noble Lords are aware of the extremely severe medical precautions which are taken not only at the ringside but before and after a boxer enters the ring.
Some claim that boxing is repugnant and morally wrong in that the sport deliberately encourages individuals to inflict injury to each other. This is a matter of judgment. However, let me make a couple of points very clear. Boxers in this country compete within the strictest medical safeguards and regulations imposed by reputable governing bodies. They do so under their own free will and within a sporting code that emphasises skill rather than aggression. Furthermore, boxers pose no threat to the general public.
I hope that I have convinced your Lordships that while the Government are not complacent about safety issues in boxing, we believe that it would he a gross infringement of civil liberties to deprive individuals from participating in a properly constituted sport of their choice. I hope that I have also persuaded your Lordships that there is clear evidence that the boxing authorities in this country are determined to continue to make the sport as safe as possible.
11.11 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. Many of the issues were also discussed in an earlier debate to which there has been reference. Indeed, some of the speeches—including my own, I suspect—had distinct similarity to those in an earlier debate.
Let me say this to your Lordships: we shall be back. As the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, this is a continuing debate. With the assistance and encouragement of the British Medical Association, and all our medical advisers, we shall continue to campaign against this sport.
It is said that the Bill is an infringement of personal liberty. I was interested in the speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, about the Duke of Grafton and others. An article in The Times recently by an eminent QC under the heading, "What's so special about boxing?", takes us back to 1981. The article states:

309
"Lord Lane, then the Lord Chief Justice, stated on behalf of the Court of Appeal that it was a criminal assault for a man to punch another during a fist fight in the street, even though each of them consented to the fight as a means of settling a dispute".
In this country it is illegal for any man to go out and have a fight in the street with another man. But it is not illegal if it occurs in a boxing ring; the man can punch the other fellow as hard as he likes. There is something wrong with that situation. If it is an infringement of the rights of people—they should not punch each other on the street corner—can we defend such a restriction as a prohibition on the rights of the individual? We must consider the argument very seriously. I include the argument that one would drive boxing underground. What way is that to make legislation—that if we pass such a law one would drive the issue underground? That is protecting the criminal. It is not respect for the law and the judgment of the country.
Let us not exaggerate the argument about driving the issue underground. Professional boxing thrives on the glamour, excitement, television coverage and the large amounts of money spent. I include the £50 million or £60 million that will be spent on the promotion of this criminal, Mike Tyson, who is about to descend on us in this country. Is that the mark of a civilised society? I ask noble Lords to ask themselves this question. Supposing Mike Tyson arrives here and knocks a man unconscious, or even kills a man, in the ring, which he is quite capable of doing, would noble Lords feel pleased and proud at that? I do not think so.
Let me say a final word. It is not a defence to say that something might be driven underground. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made a very interesting contribution. He said that the Bill was badly drafted and could be changed. That is what we are talking about; we are not talking about motor racing, mountaineering or any other sport. We are talking about a simple Bill to which we want to give a Second Reading. That would enable the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to define more clearly the purposes of the Bill, if he feels that its drafting is inadequate and wrong. That is all that we are asking: that this Bill be given a Second Reading so that we can examine the full implications of it.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I do not think that there is any doubt of the professionalism that has been demonstrated this evening, with the skill, understanding, knowledge and experience associated with this subject. I have no other course than to press my amendment.
11.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 7.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Courtown, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Donoughue, L.

Annaly, L.

Falkland, V.

Balfour, E.

Gisborough, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grey, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lucas, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Meston, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Monson, L.

Chesham, L.

Oxfuird, V. [Teller]

Clanwilliam, E.

Rodney, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Stockton, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gage, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

Hacking, L.

Renton, L. [Teller]

Brightman, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Natural Resources Institute
  Natural Resources Institute
  Armenian People of Turkey: 1915 Genocide
  Armenian People of Turkey: 1915 Genocide
  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Right of Individual Petition
  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Right of Individual Petition
  UN Human Rights Committee: Report on Dependent Territories
  UN Human Rights Committee: Report on Dependent Territories
  Diego Garcia: US Equipment Afloat Ships
  Diego Garcia: US Equipment Afloat Ships
  Burundi
  Burundi
  Turkish Attacks on Kurds in Northern Iraq
  Turkish Attacks on Kurds in Northern Iraq
  Biological Warfare: Japanese Wartime Experiments
  Biological Warfare: Japanese Wartime Experiments
  Royal Naval College Greenwich
  Royal Naval College Greenwich
  Armed Forces Review: Bett Report
  Armed Forces Review: Bett Report
  Sub-strategic Nuclear Capability
  Sub-strategic Nuclear Capability
  Civil Service and Armed Forces: Relaxation of Entry Requirements
  Civil Service and Armed Forces: Relaxation of Entry Requirements
  Guernsey: Rejection of Proposed Law
  Guernsey: Rejection of Proposed Law
  Jersey: Deportation Power
  Jersey: Deportation Power
  Professional Footballers: Bribery Allegations
  Professional Footballers: Bribery Allegations
  Barristers: Legal Aid Fees
  Barristers: Legal Aid Fees
  The Local Plan Process
  The Local Plan Process
  Fire Safety Legislation: Evaluation of Proposed Changes
  Fire Safety Legislation: Evaluation of Proposed Changes
  Water Charges after 2000
  Water Charges after 2000
  Town Centres and Retailing: Revised Planning Guidance
  Town Centres and Retailing: Revised Planning Guidance
  Radioactive Waste Management
  Radioactive Waste Management
  Pepper v. Hart Judgment: Changes to Ministerial Practices
  Pepper v. Hart Judgment: Changes to Ministerial Practices
  OP Sheep Dips: Epidemiological Research
  OP Sheep Dips: Epidemiological Research
  Tokyo Nerve Gas Attack: Study of Health Implications
  Tokyo Nerve Gas Attack: Study of Health Implications
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Orimulsion: Application for Use at Pembroke Power Station
  Orimulsion: Application for Use at Pembroke Power Station
  EU/US Bilateral Air Service Agreements
  EU/US Bilateral Air Service Agreements
  Shipping: Proposed European Community Register
  Shipping: Proposed European Community Register
  Unleaded Super Premium Petrol
  Unleaded Super Premium Petrol
  Transport of Dangerous Substances: Proposed Directive
  Transport of Dangerous Substances: Proposed Directive
  RAF Northolt: Business Aviation
  RAF Northolt: Business Aviation
  Habitual Residence Test
  Habitual Residence Test