Sitting of 14 December 1995

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

  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as were made by him in the last Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Thursday 11 January.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Hill Farming
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to encourage young people to enter hill farming. [4127]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I have no plans to introduce measures specifically to encourage young people into hill farming. However, the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, which came into force on 1 September this year, will encourage landowners to let more land. This has been reinforced by 100 per cent. relief from inheritance tax for land in new tenancies granted on or after 1 September. As the market in let land is freed up, more opportunities will be created for new entrants generally.
    Mr. Griffiths: I must tell the Minister that few young farmers will be cheered by his reply. The background to
    1084
    the Government's dealings with farmers in our hill country areas is that the livestock compensatory allowance has been cut or frozen over the last four years, grants in the less-favoured areas have been cut from 50 per cent. to 30 per cent., and farmers have less income than ever before. Instead of possibly making more land available, is not it time for the Government to do something to improve farmers' incomes, which have decreased in my own constituency and in other parts—
    Madam Speaker: Order. We have questions to get through today. We do not want statements.
    Mr. Hogg: As to the first point about let land, what really troubles young farmers is the knowledge that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) introduced legislation in 1976 which did enormous damage to the ability of landowners to let land. They will have been shocked by the Labour party's decision to vote against the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, which has done an enormous amount to free up land.
    Mr. Thomason: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best way for young people to enter farming, whether it is hill farming or otherwise, is for them to have the opportunity to have their own tenancies? Does not the Minister find it extraordinary that the Labour party should therefore seek to oppose that very move?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The 1995 legislation was agreed between all parts of the industry, and the Government would not have introduced it unless it had been so agreed. The Labour party defied informed opinion by voting against the legislation, and that was a disgrace.
    Mr. William Ross: Given that the land tenure situation in Northern Ireland is very different from that in Great Britain, does the Minister understand that the real concern of farmers in the hill areas of Northern Ireland has to do with the percentage of their net income that is at present derived from subsidies? What comfort can he give to those people over the long term?
    Mr. Hogg: I shall not refer directly to the question of farmers in Northern Ireland because I do not have the necessary expertise; that is more a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I can say that, in 1995-96, the real value of farm incomes in the LFAs is expected to rise by 4 per cent. On the value of direct subsidies coming into LFAs in the United Kingdom, there has been a steady increase from 1993—and, it is anticipated, until 1996—in the real value of direct subsidies to livestock farmers. Incidentally, hill livestock compensatory allowances form only a relatively small part of the overall direct subsidies to livestock farmers.

    Regional Speciality Foods
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to promote British regional speciality foods. [4129]
    The Minister for Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): As the Minister in the Department responsible for small businesses, I am especially concerned to assist this dynamic and growing sector of the food industry.

    1085
    We continue to support Food from Britain, which is broadening its active support for marketing groups and for individual businesses.
    Mrs. Lait: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful answer. Is she aware that France's wonderful regional products are supported by forms of producer co-operatives? In my constituency, we have wonderful lamb from the Romney marshes, superb fish from the sea, and great cheeses and fruit. Can my hon. Friend assure me that we will have more publicity and help for regional speciality food groups?
    Mrs. Browning: Indeed, the regional food groups have been very successful in bringing together many smaller groups and individual businesses. We already have the well-established Taste of the West, Taste of Anglia and North West Fine Foods. My hon. Friend will be especially interested to know that, in January, two more groups will be launched—Middle England Fine Foods and Taste of the South East.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Is not it true, however, that British food is not being supported enough? We have a huge deficit of £6 billion in temperate foods that we could grow in this country. If we put some money into Food from Britain, instead of cutting back, and supported our farmers as the French do, we would have a real advantage in selling our food abroad.
    Mrs. Browning: I meet Food from Britain regularly and I frequently go abroad to support that organisation and British companies that are exporting quality, speciality British foods with great success. It is interesting that that particular sector of the food industry—speciality foods and small food companies—employs 20 per cent. of the work force employed in the food industry.
    Sir Jim Spicer: My hon. Friend has rightly mentioned Taste of the West. Does she agree that the success and the value added to all those products rests upon people such as George and Amanda Streatfeild—whom she knows—of Denhay Farms, who play such a remarkably virile role in Taste of the West?
    Mrs. Browning: Indeed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who are they?"' I shall tell hon. Members who they are. They are farmers, a husband and wife team in Dorset, whom I have met. They have exhibited at many national and international exhibitions. Among their many excellent products, they produce air-dried ham, which the Italians think they are best at, but the Streatfeilds have beaten them to it in many awards.

    Milk
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to maintain the present levels of milk production. [4130]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): Yes. The Government's policy is to resist any cuts in the UK's milk quota allocation.
    Mr. Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that a number of milkmen, especially in the west midlands, are being put out of business, and that there will be a shortage of
    1086
    milkmen very soon, because the supermarkets are taking over the business? What does the Minister propose to do about that?
    Mr. Baldry: That is just competition in the marketplace, and nothing to do with EC milk quotas. At 26p for a four-pint poly-bottle of milk in our supermarkets, milk in the UK is cheaper than anywhere else in the European Community.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: Can my hon. Friend set out the Government's view on the future of milk quotas?
    Mr. Baldry: Our ultimate objective is to get rid of milk quotas, because we are prevented from making the most of the UK's natural advantages for milk production by the EC quota system. So we wish to get rid of milk quotas.
    Mrs. Golding: Is the Minister aware that a recent survey by the Co-operative Wholesale Society showed that 11 to 16-year-old children are consuming far too little milk and other dairy produce? Instead of working to deprive our children of milk, does not the Minister think that it would help the milk industry and the health of our nation if he stopped treating the dietary needs of our schoolchildren with such contempt?
    Mr. Baldry: That really is over-hyping it. The take-up of the scheme varied greatly between local education authorities so the benefits were already spread unequally. Those benefits have never been targeted on the basis of need. We do not believe that the changes will have any effect on the health or nutrition of British teenagers.
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what funding the United Kingdom will receive from the EU in 1995-96 towards the cost of milk in secondary schools and school catering. [4131]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We estimate that EU expenditure on the discretionary elements of the school milk scheme will amount to approximately £6.1 million in the United Kingdom in 1995-96. Doing away with the discretionary element will result in public expenditure savings of about £4 million.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that this subsidy, unlike much of the £3 billion subsidy to the dairy industry from the common agricultural policy, is an important and essential one? Will he take more notice of what nutritional experts say and make sure that this cut does not take place?
    Mr. Hogg: The scheme is neither important nor essential. We continue to subsidise milk for primary schools at a cost of about £12 million a year. As the Minister of State has just made plain, the take-up is extremely uneven: not all local authorities take up the scheme, and even in participating LEAs not all schools do so. There is no targeting of need, and the scheme is an inefficient use of resources.
    Mr. Marland: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is worth reiterating that any change in policy will have no effect on primary schools, that milk will still be available to them, and that it is not the Government's objective to force-feed teenagers with milk?
    Mr. Hogg rose—
    Mr. Marland: It is surely up to parents to decide whether they want their children to drink milk, and they have some responsibility in that respect.

    1087
    Does my right hon. and learned Friend further agree that any reduction in milk consumption at schools will make more milk available for manufacturing, for adding value and for creating wealth?
    Mr. Hogg: I apologise to my hon. Friend for getting to my feet too soon. I should like to focus on two of his important points. He is right to draw attention to the fact that we subsidise the consumption of milk in primary schools. His second point is basic: it really is up to parents to encourage their children to drink milk, if that is what they deem right for them. Theirs is the responsibility; we must go on emphasising that kind of basic fact.
    Dr. Strang: But surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that only two years ago a Minister of State in the Department was telling the House what a great scheme this was, and that we should encourage teenagers to drink milk in our schools—particularly young girls, to help reduce the risk of osteoporosis in later life. The Minister knows that the policy is wrong, and that we should be encouraging teenagers to drink more milk. Will he reconsider?
    Mr. Hogg: That is nonsense, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. What is more, it shows why the Labour party cannot be taken seriously when it talks about reducing expenditure and tax. The plain fact is that this is saving us £4 million which I can then spend on areas of greater priority in the agriculture budget. People should focus on schemes to determine whether they are good or bad. This one is not a good use of resources; that is why we have done away with it.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Harris: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to involve United Kingdom fishermen in discussions on future developments in the industry. [4132]
    Mr. Baldry: I regard dialogue and consultation with UK fishermen as imperative. I already hold regular consultations, meetings and pre-Council of Ministers briefing meetings with many of their representatives.
    Mr. Harris: I appreciate and applaud all that my hon. Friend has done in this respect. Still, can he convince me and the House that Her Majesty's Government appreciate the depth of anger of our fishermen, especially in the south-west, about the fact that as from 1 January 40 Spanish vessels will be allowed into western waters? Moreover, our fishermen almost certainly face significant cuts in their quotas; and to rub salt in the wound, taxpayers will have to pay large sums in compensation to Spanish interests for the removal of those wretched flag-of-convenience vessels from our register. Can my hon. Friend tell me and my fishermen what future the fishing industry has?
    Mr. Baldry: First, it is important that the House recognises that the Factortame judgment has absolutely nothing to do with the fisheries policy. It is a judgment, in the Advocate General's opinion, on the freedom of business association for individuals in the European Union. It has nothing to do with fisheries policy. Indeed, if we were to leave the common fisheries policy, the Factortame judgment would still stand. I of course appreciate the UK fishing industry's concerns that it must
    1088
    have a long-term sustainable future, and every part of every policy that I take forward is bent on that end. Certainly at the Fisheries Council meeting next week I am determined to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for British fishermen, consistent with the scientific advice and the need to sustain stocks for the benefit of future generations of fishermen.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the Government are always bragging about their opt-outs in the Common Market? Why do they not opt out of the common fisheries policy?
    Mr. Baldry: This House decided by a considerable majority in the early 1970s to join the European Community. In joining it, we signed up to the common fisheries policy. When the Labour party sought to re-negotiate our terms of entry, not a word was mentioned about fishing policy.
    Mr. Jenkin: I thank my hon. Friend for taking time to meet representatives of Kent and Essex fishermen earlier in the year. Can he give us any further news on the non-sector quota? It is restricting the supply of fish to such traditional fisheries, to the point that—I am afraid—today they are sawing up their boats on the beach.
    Mr. Baldry: I am trying to see whether there are ways in which we can allocate more quota to the non-sector fishing industry. I appreciate my hon. Friend's points. The industry has very real concerns and I am trying to see whether there are ways in which we can meet them.

    Veal Crates
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken to work for an EU ban on the use of veal crates. [4133]
    Mrs. Browning: The Government have already achieved a review of directive 91/629 on the welfare of calves, bringing it forward from 1997. As a result, the Commission has obtained the advice of its Scientific Veterinary Committee and is on the point of putting proposals forward to the Council of Ministers. We shall press the Council for an end to the veal crate throughout the European Community and for changes to the unacceptable EU dietary requirements.
    Mr. Shepherd: I thank my hon. Friend for that comprehensive answer. Is not the way forward for it not to be necessary for calves to be trans-shipped to Holland or wherever, and that the issue should be tackled by having a robust United Kingdom calf-rearing industry, which will meet the market's requirements? Is work not being done in that respect at the Rosemaund experimental husbandry unit near Hereford? Will my hon. Friend tell the House what progress is being made?
    Mrs. Browning: The launch of the Rosemaund experimental unit has attracted much interest. We have worked with the Meat and Livestock Commission to target interest in the catering industry especially, where much of the Dutch-reared veal is used; veal reared in those unacceptable crates. I assure my hon. Friend that the unit has proved very successful in introducing to people who are interested in raising welfare-friendly veal in the UK ways in which to go about it in the most welfare-friendly manner.
    Mr. Shore: Have the Ministry and the Commission in Brussels never heard of the word subsidiarity? If they have heard of the doctrine of subsidiarity, why do not they apply it to the veal trade? Why does the Ministry not come forward with legislative proposals in this House to ban the export of veal under the present conditions and then wait to be challenged, if need be, in the European Court?
    Mrs. Browning: We took the decision in the House in 1990 unilaterally to ban the veal crate. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that if we are seriously interested in the welfare of animals generally in the European Union, it should be as much a matter of concern to know that just over the channel those deplorable practices continue. We in this country have led the way with the banning of veal crates, and we hope that as a result of our actions—this year I have visited other Agriculture Ministers personally about the issue—other countries will understand that we did it not from an emotional viewpoint but from one of very clear science that shows that it is not in the animals' best interest. We want to see that policy applied throughout Europe—not in little England with the drawbridge drawn up.
    Mr. Gale: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the personal efforts that she has made to try to bring an end to a vile practice? We had hoped to see a ban imposed on the use of veal crates throughout the European Union by the end of the year. When does my hon. Friend think that a ban may be possible? I ask her and her departmental colleagues to seek to ensure that farm animal welfare has a proper place at the intergovernmental conference next year.
    Mrs. Browning: I can assure my hon. Friend that at the meeting of the Council of Ministers next week my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be seeking to hear the results of the Scientific Veterinary Committee. We are hopeful that our policy will be taken forward in Europe. The presidency has expressed its interest and concern that progress should be made, as have, interestingly, the Italians, who will take over the presidency in January. There is continuity in Europe to take forward the policy.
    It has been the Government's policy to seek European-wide policies on animal welfare. But that is not the Labour party's approach. I shall share with the House a letter from a shadow Opposition spokesman. It was written only last month to Franz Weber. It reads:
    "Thank you for your letter about the transportation of live animals across Europe. I strongly support your call for an end to the current legal provisions which allow the export and transport of live animals for slaughter."
    Opposition Members should understand that the greater prize is to be concerned about the welfare of animals throughout the Community.

    Right to Roam
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce a right to roam; and if he will make a statement. [4135]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell): As emphasised in the recent White Paper on rural England, we believe that a general right to roam is not acceptable.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is already an excellent network of footpaths? Farmers have made much more effort to maintain those footpaths properly and consequently they have an excellent relationship with ramblers. Does my hon. Friend agree that a general right to roam would put at risk the present good relationship, break down trust and lead to quite of lot of environmental damage? Will he educate the Opposition? If they want to win votes in the countryside, they should drop the policy of a general right to roam.
    Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend puts the matter in a nutshell. There is already a wide and satisfactory network of footpaths. We would not condone any failures to keep footpaths open. We believe that any imposed general right to roam beyond the present network of footpaths would elevate one interest above all others, institutionalise rights without obligations, upset rural communities and cause a great deal of damage.
    Mr. Morley: Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) advocated introducing wolves into Scotland? It now appears that he wants to train them to attack people in cagoules walking across land. Surely there is a need to be reasonable. There are large areas of land that traditionally have been open. That was the position in the past. There has been access to them for generations. It is possible to have a right to roam that will not compromise crops or livestock. It would be balanced with the needs of the people generally and those of farmers. Let us have fewer smears in Government documents and more realism in understanding that a balance could be achieved.
    Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that freedom to roam in open country may be appropriate in certain circumstances. The vital ingredient that he omits is that of agreement. I know that it may come difficult given the Labour party's philosophy, but we think that agreement is the most important element. These issues are most appropriately decided by agreement between landowners and local people, as they conspicuously have been in many good examples.
    Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend have any plans in the near future to meet representatives of the Ramblers Association? If he does, will he tell them that it is not necessarily sensible for them to appeal against every order made by a county council extinguishing or amending the route of a public footpath? Does my hon. Friend understand that many farmers are prepared to deal with the Ramblers Association and to maintain rights of way as long as they do not interfere with their farming practices?
    Mr. Boswell: I strongly agree with my hon. and learned Friend that megaphone diplomacy is most inappropriate in these instances. Last summer, we invited the ramblers to discuss with officials any specific cases under our access schemes where they considered that provision was unsatisfactory. I regret that to date the ramblers have not responded to our invitation. They would be welcome if they came forward. We would like to hear their views in detail on that basis.

    Dairy Industry
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the dairy industry to discuss problems facing the industry. [4136]
    Mr. Baldry: My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister and his ministerial colleagues regularly meet representatives of the dairy industry to discuss issues of importance to them.
    Mr. Wareing: When the Minister next meets representatives of the dairy industry, will he bring to their notice the scandal highlighted in The Observer involving at least two farms that recycle milk which is past its sell-by date, mix it with fresh milk and sell it through supermarkets to the general public? Furthermore, will he carry out a thoroughgoing investigation to ensure that there are not other examples in other parts of the country, and enforce the dairy hygiene regulations that were brought into law this year?
    Mr. Baldry: If there are any breaches of the regulations, and the breaches are known about, prosecutions follow. It is as straightforward as that.
    Mr. John Greenway: During his discussions with dairy farmers, has my hon. Friend received any representations about the effect of bovine spongiform encephalopathy on dairy farm incomes? Does he agree that it is a touch inconsistent for the Labour party to complain that our schoolchildren are not being given enough milk to drink, when it considers it to be perfectly okay to ban beef in school canteens? Is it not about time that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognised that both the milk and the beef produced by farmers in this country are of very wholesome quality—the finest of any country in the European Union? The milk is safe to drink and the beef is safe to eat, and both should be available in all schools.
    Mr. Baldry: I just think that every local authority should calmly and quietly consider the chief medical officer's advice on the subject.
    Mr. Tyler: In view of those comments, will the Minister give us an assurance that the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), to me in the debate in July—
    "We have never ruled out categorically either vertical or horizontal transmission"—[Official Report, 13 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 1186.]—
    still represents the Government's position? What steps will he now take to reassure not only consumers but the many people in the livestock industry who are genuinely confused by the Government's advice, so that we can have some credible advice and guidance?
    Mr. Baldry: I do not think that there is any confusion whatever in Government advice. Any livestock farmer simply has to read the advice of the chief medical officer or the chief veterinary officer to see that there is no confusion. Any confusion simply comes from some sections of the media, and others who have a vested interest in causing confusion in that area. There is no confusion and no doubt; the message is clear from the best scientific reports by both the chief medical officer
    1092
    and the chief veterinary officer, and if people calmly and quietly read those, a sense of proportion will be brought back into the debate rather more speedily.

    Agricultural Efficiency
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the relative efficiency of agriculture in the United Kingdom and in other major EU countries. [4137]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I believe that United Kingdom farmers can compete effectively with their counterparts in other major countries of the European Union.
    Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for confirming the efficiency of the British farming industry. However, does he agree that the nonsense of the CAP distorts the free market, and that its cost—the billions that it costs British taxpayers—enables less efficient foreign industries to compete unfairly with the United Kingdom industry?
    Mr. Hogg: There are indeed serious defects in the CAP, to some of which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. We have been forward in pressing the case for far-reaching reform of the CAP, and Commissioner Fischler has now produced a paper accepting that the status quo is not sustainable. I welcome that fact, and we shall push for substantial reform.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: While we are talking about the efficiency of milk producers, if the Minister of State can really buy four pints of milk for 26p, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman advise his colleague to resign his seat and go into the milk business, to buy a milk tanker, take it round to his local supermarket and fill it up with milk in the half-gallon bottles that it sells, and then sell that milk to a farmer, so that the farmer can sell it on to a milk processor? If he did that, he would make a 100 per cent. profit.
    Mr. Hogg: It is quite plain that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I should add that my hon. Friend has many talents, and I am sure that he would make a splendid milkman.
    Mr. Dykes: May I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to visit the three very efficient farms in Harrow, East? It is always an interesting phenomenon to visit urban farms. Will he confirm that one of the ways of enhancing the efficiency of Britain's farms would be to adopt the single currency, bearing it in mind that the National Farmers Union now endorses such a policy?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has represented many interests in his time in the House of Commons, but I did not know that he was such a prominent spokesman for the agricultural community. I am delighted to hear that there are three farmers in Harrow, East. That community will be the easiest to meet in its totality.
    Mr. Simpson: I am glad that the Minister is keen to recognise the efficiency of our agriculture industry. Will he explain why this country currently has a trade deficit of £6 billion in food and drink, 63 per cent. of which is with countries that have no climatic advantage over the United Kingdom? Will he explain the compelling logic and virtue of agriculture policies that have seen imports from the EC increase by 20 per cent. since 1980 and

    1093
    exports decrease by 3 per cent.? If we have an efficient agriculture industry, what is the point of a policy that discourages Britain's ability to provide its own food?
    Mr. Hogg: There are two points to be made. First, the hon. Gentleman is enunciating a policy of fortress Britain, which—whatever else may be true about it—is incompatible with the policy of Opposition Front Benchers. Secondly, on a point of specific detail, if he contrasts food exports last September—the latest available figures—with the previous year, he will see that our exports have gone up by 10 per cent., whereas imports have gone up by 4 per cent. In other words, exports are doing rather well at the moment.

    Apples
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what efforts he has made to improve the marketing of British apples. [4138]
    Mr. Boswell: We have a range of assistance to help our growers. For example, we paid a marketing grant of £150,000 towards establishing the largest top fruit marketing group, and have seconded a leading horticulturist to boost exports. These complement the welcome efforts of the industry itself.
    Mr. Arnold: I welcome the Government's support for the marketing of apples because, as my hon. Friend knows, the best apples in Britain are grown in Kent. How does it help the marketing of those apples if massive subsidies are made for the production of apples on the continent? In particular, may I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the subsidy of FF240 million to French apple producers and the subsidy of 11.6 million Dutch guilders to Dutch producers? How do those subsidies help British producers get their excellent apples to the market?
    Mr. Boswell: Our help to the British apple industry and its exports and marketing is well targeted. Any assistance given by other member states to their producers—especially in areas of production and surplus—will be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny and, if necessary, will be referred to the European Commission.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is it true that relations between the Deputy Prime Minister and the chairman of the Tory party have sunk so low that the Deputy Prime Minister has been reduced to eating an apple a day?
    Mr. Boswell: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I advise him to eat an apple a day—he will then feel a great deal better himself.
    Sir Roger Moate: Given the general agreement in this country, on both sides of the House and in the industry that the present intervention system, particularly for apples, is quite intolerable—it is bad for the consumer, bad for the taxpayers and very bad for British apple growing—will my hon. Friend get a message to the Prime Minister in Madrid that we must not accept any deal that imposes for any length of time a continuation of that intolerable and unacceptable intervention system?
    Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend has great knowledge of the apple industry, which is an important interest in his part of Kent. I agree that the intervention system is harmful. We are entirely opposed to it and we have registered that opinion with the Community. We look
    1094
    forward to continuing negotiations towards a satisfactory outcome that removes the difficulties, costs and wastefulness of the current system.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total number of cases of BSE confirmed in the United Kingdom at the latest available date. [4139]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: As at last Friday, 155,832 cases of BSE had been confirmed in the United Kingdom. I regularly meet industry representatives to discuss BSE.
    Mr. Prentice: Those are disconcerting figures. How can the Government conceivably hope to reassure the public when they are ordering redundancies at the Institute of Animal Health in Edinburgh, where scientists are working at the leading edge on BSE and its human equivalent? They have been told that they have until next Thursday to come up with redundancies in order to meet the Government's target. The Minister has an opportunity now to repudiate that policy and say that it will be reversed. It is appalling.
    Mr. Hogg: There are two points wrapped up in that question. The first relates to the statistics. The number of confirmed cases is declining. This time last year there were about 28,500 confirmed cases; this month there are about 16,500. In other words, we are seeing a decline of about 40 per cent. That is certainly encouraging.
    On the substantive point, there are no financial restrictions on research. On the contrary, we have put another £1 million into research for next year. I asked Professor Pattison, the chairman of the independent advisory committee, whether he saw any financial restrictions on research and he said no.
    Mr. French: In tackling the problem of BSE, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it is one thing to pass regulations on the content of feedstuffs and slaughterhouse procedures but a different thing to ensure 100 per cent. enforcement of those measures? What recent steps has my right hon. and learned Friend taken to increase enforcement?
    Mr. Hogg: It is important to stand back on the question of BSE. There are two important points to make: first, we do not believe that BSE in cattle can be transmitted to humans. The scientific evidence is reassuring on that point, although it does not enable us yet to prove that it cannot be transmitted. Against the possibility that we might be wrong, we have in place very rigorous regulations to prevent specified bovine offal—the material capable of carrying the infective agent—from getting into the food chain. I have given clear instructions to the Meat Hygiene Service to ensure 100 per cent. compliance with the regulations. I called in the slaughterhouse operators on 9 November to give them the same message.
    Dr. Strang: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we welcome the tightening of BSE controls announced today? Does he agree that it was unacceptable that the existing controls were not adequately enforced, for which the Government must accept their share of responsibility? Does he agree that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to BSE? Will the Minister announce today that he accepts the recommendation of

    1095
    the Agriculture Select Committee that we should ban the brains, spinal cords and other specified offal of cattle under six months from entering human food?
    Mr. Hogg: On matters of scientific evidence, I follow the advice of the independent advisory committee. We have done so throughout, which enables us to say with complete confidence that British beef is safe. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he is doing himself no credit. There are no party runs to be scored on the matter. If he tries to score them, he will simply make a clown of himself.

    Tenanted Sector
    Mr. Alexander: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to revitalise the agricultural tenanted sector. [4140]
    Mr. Boswell: The Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, which came into force on 1 September, is designed to encourage landowners to let more land. The Act gives landlords and tenants much greater freedom to agree farm business tenancies that reflect their needs.
    Mr. Alexander: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is not the aim that he described rarely realised in practice? When a smallish block of 60 or 70 acres comes on the market, the young farmer does not get it because he is outbid by a neighbouring larger enterprise. According to the aims of the 1995 Act, one would have expected the younger person to be able to take it on.
    Mr. Boswell: The Act has been in force for less than three months and it is early to assess its results, but the survey carried out by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, preparatory to the introduction of the Act, forecast that there would be increased opportunities generally, with a probability of a 10 per cent. overall uplift in the amount of land available for letting on tenancies of longer than a five-year term. I have every hope that, as the market settles down, there will be opportunities for new entrants.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 December. [4157]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Paris signing the Dayton agreement on Bosnia.
    Mrs. Campbell: Will the Deputy Prime Minister unequivocally condemn the remark made yesterday by his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he said:
    "This bottom 10 per cent. always drive me up the wall"?
    Will he further apologise to that bottom 10 per cent., who have seen a real fall of 17 per cent. in their living standards since the Conservative Government took office?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was referring to those people who have significant wealth but
    1096
    low incomes, which can give a wholly misleading idea of their overall position and the standard of living that they enjoy. The hon. Lady is giving a false impression of what he was saying.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the best service that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor can render to the lowest 10 per cent. and, indeed, the highest, is to reduce interest rates as much as possible and that his decision is much to be congratulated?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is presiding over one of the most exciting periods of British economic potential. [Interruption.] I am sure that a wider audience will notice that Labour Members jeer at the fact that, for the 27th month in a row, unemployment fell. It was 20,000 less month on month and has been nearly 750,000 down over the 27 months. I should have thought that Labour Members would cheer on behalf of their constituents.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: As the Prime Minister was unable to give any figure for the cost of rail privatisation at Question Time on Tuesday, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the Government's figures, following the Budget, show that the long-term cost to the taxpayer will be £850 million per year?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Lady has the quotations wrong. Those quotations come from a Labour party press release. Like most Labour party press releases, they are unadulterated rubbish.
    Mrs. Taylor: Will the Deputy Prime Minister therefore take the trouble to look at the sources of the figures in those documents, every one of which is a published Government source? Will he further look at the report of the Select Committee on Transport published today, which also shows that, if rail privatisation goes ahead, taxpayers will have to pay hundreds of millions of pounds extra to keep services as they are? Is not the message clear: rail privatisation is a waste of taxpayers' money?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady and the Labour party are so against privatisation, why have they not got the guts to renationalise any of the industries that we have privatised? Why is it that every time we take the process a step further, they jeer and produce scare stories in advance, none of which stands up when we achieve the result?
    Mr. John Townend: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on the unemployment figures that he has just mentioned—8 per cent. and falling, whereas unemployment in France is 11.5 per cent. and rising. To what extent is that due to the franc fort policy and French membership of the exchange rate mechanism, while we have a free and floating pound?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to all those industrialists in this country who have helped to create the jobs in the enterprise culture that we have designed as a Government. What I find extraordinary about the Labour party and the issue of unemployment is that last month, when there was a 200 increase in unemployment, the shadow Employment Secretary put out a press release in which he said that that recognised
    "the final collapse of the Government's shuddering economic recovery."

    1097
    The fact is that those figures have now been revised and we have discovered that last month, as in each of the past 27 months, unemployment fell. Why does not the Labour party recognise that far from a shuddering economic recovery, we have a buoyant economic attitude in this country which is creating wealth at one of the fastest rates in western Europe?
    Mr. Beith: Have the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues considered the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that it would be an outrage if social security regulations that could make 10,000 people homeless and destitute were to be implemented before Parliament had had a chance to debate them?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Member raises an important question. I can assure him and the House that there will be an opportunity to debate these matters before they are implemented. I give that assurance.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Did my right hon. Friend notice in yesterday's Hansard a very good Bill on protecting those who wish to disclose information in the public interest? Has he further noticed that there are serious problems here in the House for those who might wish to do that? I particularly refer to members of the press corps who have been cajoled and coerced, I gather, by some strange people: a shadowy figure from Hartlepool and an ex-journalist from Today. Will he join me in encouraging them to break free from that and blow the whistle on that strange shadowy company over there?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Conservative Members have raised it before but no answer comes. Is it the intention of the Labour party, if elected to power, to put Alastair Campbell as a civil servant into No. 10 Downing street to inject Labour party propaganda into the presentation of Government policy?
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 December. [4158]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cunningham: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the £850 million on-going cost of rail privatisation would be better spent on improvements to the west coast main line, which serves my constituency?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: What I do believe is that offering the private sector the chance to provide the cash for the innovation and modernisation that we all want is much more likely to achieve the result than continuing with nationalisation, which I notice, significantly, has not achieved that result over the years.
    Mr. Rowe: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that of all the counties in England, Liberal and Labour-run Kent county council retains the largest share of its education budget at the centre? How does that sit with the oft-repeated complaints from the Opposition that too much is spent by the Government on administration?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is wholly consistent with the theme of what the Opposition say. Most
    1098
    conspicuously, they will not say that they will put up taxes but they constantly talk about the need for increased expenditure. They want it all ways, which proves that the sums do not add up and that they are not fit to govern.
    Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 December. [4159]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hill: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand my sense of shock this morning as I witnessed the evidence of wanton destruction and looting in central Brixton and parts of my Streatham constituency? Will he join me, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and the vast majority of the local community in condemning those acts of violence? For the sake of Brixton's reputation and future, will the right hon. Gentleman also affirm that the acts that we witnessed yesterday evening were not a re-run of the events of 1981 and 1985, as has been portrayed, but the actions of a small criminal element? Finally, will he confirm that there is no intention of backtracking on the regeneration funding committed to the locality and that Brixton's future will be reassured, as is the will of the local people?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I unreservedly join the hon. Gentleman in condemning the violent minority who attacked police officers and property in Brixton last night. I wholeheartedly agree with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, representatives of the local community and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), who spoke eloquently this morning in condemnation of those unacceptable acts of violence, which we all deplore. If we are to bring hope and opportunity to those urban communities, it is vital that they become attractive places for people to live, work and invest. All parties have made a massive attempt to bring that about in the past few years, and that process must continue.
    Mr. Luff: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that neither he nor the Prime Minister would ever contemplate threatening the Union by introducing an elected Scottish Parliament? If they were ever tempted by such an idea, will he confirm that they certainly would not think of giving it tax-raising powers and then try to deceive the British people by saying that they would not use those powers?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is extraordinary that Scottish Labour Members of Parliament are to contemplate a tartan tax to make taxes higher in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. I also find it extraordinary that English Labour Members of Parliament are prepared to give powers to their Scottish colleagues, which would be exercised by Scottish Members in England, while English Labour Members would have no such powers in Scotland.
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 December. [4160]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that it is not only with British Rail that

    1099
    privatisation has been taken too far? Is he aware of the anger and indignation felt by people in Britain at the appearance in an estate agent's brochure of the magnificent complex of buildings in Greenwich currently occupied by the Royal Naval college? Is he also aware that the Secretary of State for Defence refuses to reveal the organisations that are bidding to take over those magnificent buildings? As it comes hot on the heels of the fiasco of county hall, is it not clear that the nation's heritage is not safe in the Government's hands?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything. As the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, the preservation of the buildings at Greenwich is of prime national importance and nothing will be done to prejudice it.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: As unemployment has now been falling for 27 months in a row, has my right hon. Friend noticed the recent comments by the Director-General of the CBI, who said that a combination of increasing social regulations from Europe via the social chapter and a single currency would be "an employment-destroying disaster"? Does not that show the importance of the opt-out that we achieved at Maastricht and the hypocrisy of those who talk about creating jobs but then support policies such as the social chapter and European monetary union, as the Opposition do?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I shall have the opportunity tomorrow to lay the foundation stone of Siemens in the north-east. One of the reasons why a German company comes to invest and create jobs in this country is that we do not have the impost of the social chapter, whereas Germany has. I would have thought that Labour Members, whose constituencies have gained enormously from the inward investment coming to this country, would seek to enhance it, and not to destroy it.
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 December. [4161]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Has the Deputy Prime Minister noted the good news from south Wales that Tower colliery in my constituency, which was bought by the workers a year ago, has made a pre-tax profit of £3.5 million in the first year? [Interruption.] That has been achieved despite the fact that the right hon. Gentleman told those workers that there was no market for their coal. Is not the lesson to be learnt that if the conditions are right—[HON. MEMBERS: "Privatisation."]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must be heard.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Is not the lesson to be learnt that if the conditions are right, and if workers are given control of the means of production—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Hear the hon. Lady out. [Interruption.] Order. Hear the hon. Lady out.
    Mrs. Clwyd: If the workers are given control of the means of production they can turn in profits, whereas the capitalists throw in the towel.
    The Deputy Prime Minister rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Control yourselves.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not want to intrude on private grief, but perhaps the hon. Lady has not caught up with events. Those words have been deleted from the clause, although I realise that a large number of her right hon. and hon. Friends are just waiting their time to bring them back. The hon. Lady had better have a word with the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) because she has got the language wrong—the soundbite does not fit with the language of those on the Opposition Front Bench. The real message behind what the hon. Lady has just said, the real triumph, is that it is privatisation that has made those profits possible.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for the details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows—
MONDAY 18 DECEMBER—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Remaining stages of the Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill.
Motion on the Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations.
Debate on Her Majesty's Stationery Office in relation to its future work for Parliament on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 19 DECEMBER—Until 7 o'clock, debate on the common fisheries policy on a Government motion.
Motion relating to Scottish Standing Orders.
WEDNESDAY 20 DECEMBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, the first of which will be the traditional three-hour debate held just before a recess in which I have to answer for everyone on everything.
Proceedings on the Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill.
I expect to make a statement next week about business after the recess.
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that limited information. He will be aware that I am extremely pleased that we are to have a debate on HMSO next week, so that we can assess the feelings of the House with regard to the privatisation, and the impact it might have on us in Parliament. That debate will be on an Adjournment motion. Can the Leader of the House give us a promise that, before the privatisation takes place, the House will be able to vote on whether it is wise to proceed in that way, especially as that particular privatisation will directly affect the House?
Secondly, the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier this afternoon that the proposed regulations on asylum and the withdrawal of benefits are not to be implemented before being debated in the House. We are pleased that the Government have responded to our representations. Will the Leader of the House state exactly when those regulations will be laid, when they will be debated and when they are expected to come into operation?
Thirdly, I have raised on previous occasions with the Leader of the House the "Day of the Jackal" loophole in relation to access to birth certificates. The subject was raised again last Monday by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) in the debate on the Asylum and Immigration Bill. On Monday, the Home Secretary said that he would like to take action on that loophole, but that he did not think that there was sufficient legislative time. As we are not under great pressure during this parliamentary Session, may I press the Leader of the House on what the Government intend to do about that loophole?
The pressure on parliamentary time itself becomes an issue when we hear that the Government have, in an announcement in Committee today, delayed the
1102
implementation of the new student loans scheme. As we have not yet seen the Bill expected from the Department for Education and Employment on nursery vouchers, surely we are right to conclude that the Government's legislation is in chaos. If we could make practical proposals, surely discussion of them would be a better use of parliamentary time than debating some of the Bills that might not end up on the statute book or be implemented.
Mr. Newton: I shall take those questions in order. No specific parliamentary procedure is required for what the Government are proposing in relation to HMSO. The first step is, as the hon. Lady has rightly acknowledged, to allow the House a proper opportunity to express its views on House aspects of the matter, in line with Madam Speaker's request. That is how we should proceed.
The hon. Lady has heard and welcomed what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said during Prime Minister's questions about asylum benefits. The regulations will be laid before the House as soon as the Secretary of State for Social Security has had an opportunity to study the report, which he has only recently received from the Social Security Advisory Committee. We expect the regulations to come into force next year, but I repeat the firm assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister that they will not be implemented until the House has had the opportunity to debate them.
On the issue of what the hon. Lady calls the "Day of the Jackal" loophole, I have not had an opportunity to discuss the position since the exchanges on Monday. But I shall do so and give the hon. Lady an appropriate response.
Lastly, on the subject of legislation—particularly education legislation—I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said that the Government think that it will be appropriate to start the student loans scheme in 1997 rather than 1996. That proposal was made in Standing Committee this morning.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: Before the House rises for Christmas, will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on democracy? An article in yesterday's edition of the Daily Mail, following the sad death of our friend, Sir David Lightbown, said that the Labour party was thinking of getting the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) to resign and force a by-election. It stated that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon would—in the paper's words, not mine—be imposed upon—
Mr. Andrew Faulds: No quoting.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am not quoting.
Mr. Faulds: He is.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not quoting. He is attempting to speak if given the opportunity by other hon. Members to do so, and I shall see to it that he is given that opportunity. The hon. Gentleman should speak up.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: It said that the hon. Gentleman would be "imposed" upon South-East Staffordshire. I lived in Staffordshire for some years and I assure my right hon. Friend that the people there are very independent. I do not think that they would like to have a

1103
turncoat "imposed" on them. A debate on democracy might provide an opportunity to flush out the Machiavellian princes of darkness who seem to inhabit the Labour party and who have such contempt for democracy.
Mr. Newton: I certainly understand why my hon. Friend has raised the issue: Conservative Members find the notion of imposing candidates from the centre quite extraordinary.
Mr. David Rendel: Following the Deputy Prime Minister's very welcome announcement that the social services orders will not come into effect until the House has had a chance to consider them, will the Leader of the House also give an assurance that they will not come into effect until the Social Security Select Committee has concluded its consideration of them?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give that latter assurance at the moment—not least because, according to my inquiries this morning, it is not clear precisely when the Social Security Select Committee . intends to conclude its deliberations. The assurance that the Deputy Prime Minister and I have given provides the Social Security Select Committee with an opportunity to express its views if it wishes to do so.
Sir Jim Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend find time in the new year for a debate on responsibility in local government? I ask for such a debate against the background of events this morning in Dorset, where the Liberal-controlled county council has forced through a ban on beef products in all of our schools against the advice of the chief medical officer and the committee examining bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The council, which is run by a small cabal who force their views upon the people of Dorset, issued a diktat and the schools had no chance to state their views. I believe that such a debate may prove very useful if we can find time for it.
Mr. Newton: I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said. There will be a further opportunity to debate local government matters generally when the local government finance orders are brought before the House in the usual way fairly early in the new year.
Mr. Alfred Morris: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to my early-day motion 144:
[That this House, mindful of the increasing needs of the United Kingdom's ageing ex-service population and the many problems of younger members of the ex-service community, in direct consequence of Options for Change, considers that there is now a pressing need for a sub-department of Ex-Service Affairs within an existing Ministry and with a designated Minister to be responsible, as the only fundamental and long-term solution for the care and welfare of ex-Service people and their dependants; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government now to respond positively to the Royal British Legion's urgent call for a sub-department to be established.]
It is concerned with the care and welfare of ex-service people whom the Royal British Legion supports so strongly. In particular, has he seen that the motion has now attracted the support of a virtual majority of Members of Parliament who are at liberty to sign such motions? Can we have at least an oral ministerial statement next week on the Government's response?
Mr. Newton: I do not recall whether the right hon. Gentleman was present when the matter was debated on
1104
the Floor of the House earlier this year, but ministerial comments were made during that debate. The Government believe that the creation of a Department that is specifically responsible for former service people in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggests would simply add another tier of administration without improving the present arrangements. We believe that the provision for former service personnel is best integrated with that for the community as a whole.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend enlighten us about the debate on Scottish Standing Orders to which he referred? Will that debate provide an opportunity for all hon. Members to discuss the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, in his recent interview and during his visits to Scotland, wholly repudiated the claim of right and personally humiliated the shadow Secretary of State?
Mr. Newton: It is not for me to pre-empt your views, Madam Speaker, as to what would or would not be in order during a debate on the Standing Orders, which are concerned principally with the role of the Scottish Grand Committee—but no doubt my hon. Friend will have a try.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Although I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) during Prime Minister's questions objecting to the violence in Brixton, it would be very foolish for hon. Members to believe that there was no just cause for it—yet another death of a black person in police custody. There have been more than 70 such deaths in the past decade and the families involved cannot get justice or even evidence of what has occurred. They believe that the system is rigged and if they cannot have the matter heard in the House they will take to the streets. When will Parliament debate black deaths in custody so that the system may be changed properly?
Mr. Newton: In view of the implications of what the hon. Gentleman has said, perhaps he should discuss them first with his hon. Friends who were sitting two Benches in front of him not long ago. They clearly stated that they considered that a small criminal element had been responsible for those activities, and did not attempt to justify them as the hon. Gentleman has. In my view they were right, and the hon. Gentleman would do well to reconsider what he has said.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is considerable concern among Members on both sides of the House—particularly Conservative Members—about the on-going influence and authority of the BBC's overseas service? While there might be grounds for adjusting its capital budget, many of us feel that there is no justification for reducing its operating budget. Will my right hon. Friend try to find time for a short debate on the subject?
Many of us are also concerned about cuts in capital spending, especially when they affect the future economic progress of our constituencies. Will my right hon. Friend try to find time for a debate on infrastructure capital spending? My constituency will be affected if urgent road projects do not proceed in the foreseeable future.
Mr. Newton: I shall always consider suggestions such as those made by my hon. Friend. I should point out, however, that funds for the World Service have increased by 50 per cent. in real terms since 1980. The current

1105
proposals entail virtually no change in the allocation for current costs—this deals directly with a point made by my hon. Friend—and are directed mainly towards the capital side.
I think my hon. Friend will acknowledge that, in this context as in others, there is significant scope for private funding under the increasingly successful private finance initiative.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will know that we have heard statements on Scottish and Welsh expenditure. Northern Ireland, however, has again had to be content with a press release. I understand that the House, not the press, votes Supply. In future, will it be possible for a statement on public expenditure in Northern Ireland to be made in the House rather than in a press release?
Mr. Newton: That question is linked with one that the hon. Gentleman asked me last week, to which I undertook to give further consideration. Let me answer them both at once. This year, the Secretary of State for Scotland made his statement about local government expenditure to the Scottish Grand Committee.
Mr. Toby Jessel: As to next Wednesday's debate on the Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill, I was the defeated Conservative candidate in the Hull, North by-election in January 1966, nearly 30 years ago. In the course of the by-election, Mrs. Barbara Castle promised to build a Humber bridge, which has already cost public funds well over £400 million—perhaps not far short of £500 million—which kept me out of the House for four years and which costs the taxpayer £100 million a year. Will there be time in Wednesday's debate for us to discuss whether that amount—nearly £500 million—should be charged to the Labour party and not to the unfortunate taxpayer, as a consequence of Labour's disgraceful electoral bribe?
Mr. Newton: I profoundly hope that there will be time for the matter to be discussed.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to an article in today's Glasgow Herald about the transfer of media monitoring from the Scottish Office to a private company, and the dangers of funding party political propaganda from the public purse? That directly contradicts the statement made to me by the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Scottish Grand Committee that he knew nothing about the matter.
I am sure that the Leader of the House did not intend misleading the Scottish Grand Committee to be one of the new Scottish procedures. Will he arrange for a statement to be made to clarify the matter?
Mr. Newton: I shall arrange to be better informed about it before next week's debate on the Standing Orders.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I support the earlier call for a debate on the imposition of candidates? During such a debate I would be able to highlight the plight of Gravesham Labour party, which has had a women-only short-list imposed upon it. That constituency party has responded with an overwhelming majority against the imposition. It sent a resolution to the Labour party head office in Walworth road opposing
1106
the imposition. The response was a diktat saying that it does not matter what Gravesham Labour party thinks about it—
Mr. John Austin-Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. My attention is distracted at the moment. I have a point of order, but I have not heard it. I shall take points of order afterwards. The point of order obviously relates to what the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) is saying so I shall caution him so that I do not have a point of order later.
Mr. Arnold: May I point out that the reaction of the local Labour spokesman was to say that, despite the fact that there had been an overwhelming majority vote against the imposition in the constituency, this is new Labour democracy?
Mr. Newton: I hope that I will not tempt any hon. Member to make a point of order. I shall merely repeat my earlier observation that, to Conservatives, the way in which the Labour party proceeds in these matters seems quite extraordinary and indefensible.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Leader of the House may recall that Madam Speaker kindly afforded me an Adjournment debate on the activities of Campbell's Soups in my constituency. He may know that I am campaigning throughout the country to advise the wider public not to buy Fray Bentos or Campbell's Soups products. I wish to teach Campbell's Soups a lesson: that it should reconsider its disgraceful decision to close a highly profitable plant in my constituency. In light of the fact that an American multinational company, in which the majority of shares are held by one family, took such a decision through its British subsidiary, is not there now a need to debate how multinational companies are able to operate within the free market system?
Mr. Newton: The United Kingdom has gained enormously over the past few years from investment by a wide variety of companies, many of which could no doubt be described as multinationals. They have provided many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of jobs. One of the reasons why they come here is that they feel that our business environment is one in which they can take decisions on a commercial basis. We would be very unwise to tamper with that environment.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Will my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity to have a debate on education so that I can draw the House's attention to the success of the application made by Beauchamp college in my constituency to become a technology college, as announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? May I also invite him to schedule such a debate so that we can draw to the attention of the parents of children attending the Robert Smythe school in Market Harborough in my constituency the benefits of grant-maintained status, a status already enjoyed by three other schools in my constituency and which I am sure will also be enjoyed by the parents, teachers and governors of the Robert Smythe school?
Mr. Newton: I hope to provide many opportunities to debate education in the new year when we publish the

1107
Bill relating to nursery and grant-maintained schools to which the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) adverted in her opening question.
Mr. David Winnick: I am glad that there seems to be broad agreement in the House about the need to tighten legislation on knives. In view of the terrible tragedies that have occurred and which I mentioned on Monday, why is it necessary for the Home Secretary to nit-pick with my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary? Would not it be useful if the Home Secretary were to come to the House early next week and say that he will meet my hon. Friend to see what agreement could be reached, including the possibility—only the possibility—of making it more difficult to purchase knives in the first instance? Since there is broad agreement, why is the Home Secretary adopting a totally unnecessary confrontational style? The public recognise the need for action, and the House should deal with that.
Mr. Newton: I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has adopted a confrontational style. He has sought to assist in the rapid response to the considerable public concern about an important matter. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for indicating his support for the basic propositions in the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).
Mr. John Wilkinson: Why has it been decided to postpone the debate on the common fisheries policy, which my right hon. Friend announced last Thursday for yesterday, until next Tuesday? Do not the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and others involved in the European Fisheries Council meeting at the end of next week, need the maximum amount of time to consider the representations made during the debate, so that the Government's policy on fishing may accord as much as possible with the will of the House?
Mr. Newton: The arrangement of business for the three days on which the House is sitting next week has proved rather complicated—as the House will have realised from the business I read out. It simply seemed more sensible to do it in the way I announced this afternoon. Nevertheless, the fisheries debate will be in good time to meet the primary need for a debate before the Fisheries Council which, as my hon. Friend said, is later in the week.
Mr. Harry Barnes: As we are approaching the season of good will in which families are drawn together, should not we discuss the position in Northern Ireland, where at least 258 people have been placed in exile by paramilitary groups? The families of the disappeared are still seeking the bodies of the people who have been killed. Last night, two so-called punishment beatings took place in the course of which people were kneecapped. This would surely be an appropriate time to discuss those problems and to put the matter in the correct context.
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to find time for a debate, at least not next week. However, I am sure that there will be widespread approval in the House for the implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks—that we would all like an end to that kind of activity in the
1108
interests of the families and people involved, and of progress towards a satisfactory outcome in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on suitable locations for education referral units for secondary pupils, so that I can tell the House about the most senseless suggestion by Ealing's Labour council—that Oldfield primary school in Greenford is a suitable location for such a centre? The council's other suggestion is that a building in Islip Manor park, Northolt would be a suitable location for such a unit.
Mr. George Foulkes: Oh, God.
Mr. Greenway: I am being interrupted and shouted at by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). If he does not defend his constituency, I defend mine. Those units are not suitable for the places I mentioned in my constituency, and the unit should be referred to the Elthorne youth centre, which would be much more suitable.
Mr. Newton: If my hon. Friend, who is certainly a doughty defender of his constituency, were to choose to appear on Wednesday morning and raise that matter in the three-hour debate to which I have already referred, I shall try to ensure that I have an answer.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we debate the surprising information in a letter from the Minister for Transport in London which says that the Department of Transport, after careful, scientific calculations, has come to the conclusion that company cars are 30 to 50 per cent. more dangerous than private cars? That means an additional, probably avoidable, 6,500 to 9,250 accidents a year.
One would expect company cars to be safer, because they are driven by mature, experienced drivers; the cars are new and well maintained; and they are driven on motorways, which are safer than normal roads. Is not it vital that we have a debate to discuss how to avoid such a large number of accidents? Probably, the explanation is that the drivers do not own their cars and do not drive as safely as drivers with a financial interest in their cars.
Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman's explanation is right, I suggest that it gives rise to a number of general points on which Opposition Members might like to reflect. I have not seen the letter, and the right course for me is to draw the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend consider finding time for a debate on the operation of Standing Committees following the Nolan report? He will be aware that before I entered the House I was involved in the broadcasting industry for 20 years, supplying finance and services to broadcasting companies from Indonesia to Chile and from Botswana to Iceland—as well as to the BBC and Capital Radio here in London. Yet I now understand that I will not be allowed to serve on the Committee considering the Broadcasting Bill. Is that a general rule: do knowledge and qualification to discuss a subject constitute disqualification from serving on the relevant Standing Committee?
Mr. Newton: I have seen my hon. Friend's letter to Sir Gordon Downey—I hope he will not mind my

1109
mentioning it—which he kindly copied to me. I have no doubt that Sir Gordon will wish to draw it to the attention of the new Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which my hon. Friend will doubtless have been glad to note was appointed by the House and its membership agreed in a motion last night.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I again press the Leader of the House for an early debate on the state of the textile industry? Two weeks ago I told him about the 129 job losses at Bairdtex in Trawden, in my constituency. This time last week I told him about the 50 job losses at Smith and Nephew. This week 61 jobs are to go at the Carrington Viyella Holmefield mill in Barrowford, where colour woven fabrics will no longer be made in any quantity. Jobs are haemorrhaging from the textile industry, which used to be the economic mainstay of my area. That is a proper issue for an urgent debate.
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a dedicated debate, but I would once again draw attention to the opportunities next Wednesday morning, when the Leader of the House will have a chance to make some comments.
Mr. Foulkes: I should like to back up what my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) has just said. If there is such a debate, we can also, I hope, debate the carpet industry. In my constituency a number of jobs have been lost in the Richards carpet factory, thereby creating tremendous problems. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome an opportunity for such a debate, so I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give it serious consideration.
Mr. Newton: I always give serious consideration to points that deserve it—and those raised by both hon. Members undoubtedly do. For the moment, however, I must point yet again to Wednesday morning, which increasingly looks as if it is going to be quite a busy time for me.

Madam Speaker's Statement
4.2 pm
Madam Speaker: I too have a short statement to make about Wednesday mornings. As the House knows, under the new Standing Order No. 10 the period from 9.30 am to 12.30 pm on three Wednesday mornings in each Session is allocated to Select Committee reports chosen by the Liaison Committee.
The Chairman of the Liaison Committee has informed me that the Committee has selected the following Wednesdays for my approval: 7 February, 24 April and 26 June. I have agreed those dates, and I think it would be helpful if they were generally known as far ahead as possible. The actual reports to be debated on those three Wednesdays will be chosen by the Liaison Committee nearer the time and notified by my office a week in advance.
The three half-hour debates on these dates, from 12.30 to 2 o'clock, are unaffected and Members should submit topics to my office in the normal way.

Point of Order
Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, to correct the record. I ask the Leader of the House to accept that he was totally mistaken in saying that my motion on the care and welfare of former service people was discussed early this year. Will he also accept that when what the Royal British Legion is asking for was debated by the House the motion was carried, since when nothing has been done to give effect to that decision? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that caused great resentment not only in the Royal British Legion but among former service organisations generally?
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. I must not extend business questions, but I see that the Leader of the House is willing to reply so I shall allow him to do so.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, because he and I have been doing business for a long time, I would not have wanted to convey a misleading impression, and I readily accept that it was not his motion that was discussed. But the issue that he has raised, as he himself acknowledged, was discussed in a debate last year, and the Government's view was made clear at that time.

ESTIMATES DAY
[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
VOTE ON ACCOUNT, 1996-97
  Class XI, Vote 1

    Breast Cancer
    [Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Health Committee of Session 1994-95 on Breast Cancer Services (House of Commons Paper No. 324), the Government Reply thereto (Cm. 3007), and the Department of Health and Office of Population Censuses and Surveys Departmental Report 1995: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995-96 to 1997-98, (Cm. 2812).]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum not exceeding £13,948,653,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Department of Health on or in relation to hospital, community health, mental health, family health and family health service administration services, National Health Service trusts, and on related services.—[Mr. Horam]
    4.4 pm
    Mrs. Marion Roe: I am very grateful to the Select Committee on Liaison for recommending that the House debates this estimate in so far as it relates to the very important topic of breast cancer services. I shall, of course, concentrate on the report published recently by the Select Committee on Health, which I have the honour to chair. The recommendations of the report were unanimous.
    I should like to thank all my colleagues on the Committee for the very hard work that they put into the report, and for the very good spirit in which it was discussed. I should also particularly like to thank our specialist advisers, Professor Michael Baum of the Royal Marsden hospital and Professor Roger Blamey of Nottingham City hospital.
    I shall begin by outlining the main conclusions and recommendations of the report, and the main points of the Government's response. There are a few questions that I should like to pursue with the Minister, which I hope he will be able to address in his speech.
    Although the United Kingdom does not have a particularly high incidence of breast cancer—the disease is more prevalent in the United States of America, New Zealand, Canada and several other European countries, including France, Italy and Denmark—we have almost the highest recorded breast cancer mortality in the world. Breast cancer claims the lives of more than 13,000 women every year in England and Wales alone—more than any other cancer, and more than any disease other than heart attacks and strokes. None of our witnesses was able to offer any explanation of why breast cancer mortality should be so high in this country.
    The Government's target, set out in 1990, is
    "to reduce the number of breast cancer deaths among women invited for screening by at least 25 per cent. by the year 2000."
    It is clear from the very wording of that target that the national health service breast screening programme is at the centre of the Government's plans to reduce breast cancer mortality.

    1113
    No reduction in breast cancer mortality from the programme is expected to be observed until around 1997, as there is a "lead time", which means that the full benefits of the programme will not be observed until those women who have benefited from the early detection of their breast cancer begin to enjoy additional life years. None the less, we were impressed by the fact that the programme has met or exceeded all its interim quality indicators so far, largely as a result of its excellent quality assurance programme, and especially the efforts of its national co-ordinator.
    One of the great strengths of the quality assurance programme is that it operates not only in individual screening units but at district and regional health authority level. RHAs are responsible for purchasing quality assurance services and for the operation of the quality assurance reference centres in each region.
    In 1992, the chief executive of the NHS management executive told the Public Accounts Committee that the standards laid down centrally for the programme were "non-negotiable", and said:
    "If there are purchasers that want to try to step out of line"—
    that is, to try to purchase a service that does not meet national specifications—
    they must be brought back into line by the regions. That is the role of the region and we have made that extremely clear".
    The national co-ordinator of the NHS breast screening programme also told us that she occasionally had problems with district health authorities which were trying to purchase services that did not meet national standards. That is why the quality assurance programme is so important to the screening programme. It ensures not only that the service provided matches the service for which it is contracted, but that the service for which it is contracted meets the national requirements in the first place. We recommend that the QAP should be preserved in something like its present form after the dissolution of the regional health authorities next April. That could be achieved either by central funding of the programme or by bottom slicing from district health authority allocations.
    In their response, the Government said that they had issued guidance to the effect that
    "it is vital that quality assurance systems should continue to be funded and operated in the future to the same high standards as at present."
    The Government have also said, however, that they will move from the present system, under which RHAs are responsible for purchasing quality assurance, to a system of lead district purchasing, which will be funded through the common services levy.
    I recognise the steps that the Department is taking to ensure that the QAP continues to operate at all three levels, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister were able to assure us that the programme will not become simply a means for purchasers to check on provider units. We must continue to ensure that the service purchased meets the national standard.
    The Select Committee on Health recommended, on the strength of the best evidence now available, that the upper age limit for inclusion in the call and recall system for screening should be extended from 65 years to 69, and
    1114
    that the Department of Health must ensure that women over that age are aware of their right to a three-yearly mammogram on request.
    Professor Forrest's report, on the strength of which the NHS breast screening programme was originally established, suggested an upper age limit of 64, on the ground that there was lower acceptance of screening by women of older ages. It is difficult to understand what basis was used for that assertion, as the Swedish two counties study—one of the key pieces of clinical trial evidence on which the Forrest report drew—showed that 80 per cent. of women up to the age of 74 accepted invitations for screening.
    There are two good reasons, I believe, for including older women in the screening programme. First, the risk of breast cancer increases with age. Secondly, the cancer detection rate among older women is much higher than among younger women.
    Conversely, we found no evidence that extending screening to women under the age of 50 would be beneficial. None of our witnesses supported that proposal. Professor Martin Vessey of the advisory committee on breast screening explained to us that, apart from the lower incidence of breast cancer in women under the age of 50, it is also difficult to screen for breast cancer in pre-menopausal women, as
    "the hormonal environment in the breast is different"
    and the breast is much denser, making it more difficult to obtain accurate readable mammograms. The Committee was pleased to note the Government's response, which is to conduct clinical trials in screening older women.
    The NHS breast screening programme is a model service. It has strong central co-ordination, a set of auditable national performance targets, and a quality assurance programme that has been praised by the National Audit Office. However good the screening programme, however, screening alone will not lead to a reduction in breast cancer mortality.
    As we were completing our report, evidence emerged that breast cancer mortality was already beginning to fall in 1989. As I have said, such an effect could not have been generated after only two years of breast screening. It is probable that the welcome reduction in mortality is the result of improvements in the treatment of more advanced breast cancer.
    There are ways in which treatment for women with both screen-detected and more advanced breast cancer could be improved. There was a wholehearted welcome for the Government's policy framework for commissioning cancer services. The Government's plan is that cancer services should be arranged into three tiers—primary care, designated cancer units and designated cancer centres.
    The designated cancer unit will normally be a district hospital with a full range of support services for cancer patients. More importantly, however, it will have site-specific clinics for patients with the commoner cancers, led by a consultant specialist. Those will be clinics that deal with only one type of cancer, such as breast cancer or gastro-intestinal cancer.
    In practice, that means that, where there are several hospitals in one area, purchasers and providers may agree between themselves that a unit for certain cancers or groups of cancers will be established at one hospital, and

    1115
    a unit for another cancer or group of cancers in another hospital. Such clinics would also treat patients with related non-malignant conditions—for example, women with non-malignant breast problems, which account for about 90 per cent. of all breast disease, would be seen in a specialist breast unit.
    The cancer centre will be part of a large general hospital or a teaching hospital, and will offer the same range of services as the cancer unit. It will also offer specialist clinics for the less common forms of cancer, and a full range of support services for the local cancer units, including
    "those treatment regimens which are too specialised, technically demanding or capital intensive to be provided by the cancer unit."
    That could include radiotherapy, for example.
    The most important point to make about the policy framework is that it is based on sub-specialisation. It is not acceptable that a woman with a serious life-threatening disease such as breast cancer should be treated by a general surgeon who might spend most of his or her time dealing with a muddle of other surgical conditions. In addition to a specialist breast surgeon, the specialist breast unit should have a multidisciplinary team of other specialists with specific training in the management of breast disease.
    The advantages for patients in such units are manifold and great. Each unit will see enough patients to operate a dedicated clinic for new patients with breast problems each week—a one-stop shop, at which women can have all their diagnostic tests done at the same visit.
    Rapid diagnosis is of the utmost importance. It allows women who have breast cancer to receive treatment at the earliest opportunity, and permits the timely reassurance of women who do not have cancer. Patients who have breast cancer will receive a high-quality package of care planned by a multidisciplinary team of specialists, rather than what the British Breast Group report, "Provision of breast services in the UK", described as
    "ad hoc therapy being carried out by an individual acting without interaction with other members of a team".
    More importantly, there is evidence that patients treated in such units have improved survival rates. A paper in The Lancet last spring showed that women treated by a consultant who sees more than 29 new cases of breast cancer each year have a 30 per cent. better survival rate than those treated by a consultant who sees fewer new patients.
    The specialist unit also represents a very efficient way of treating breast cancer. Mr. Hugh Bishop, of the British Association of Surgical Oncology breast surgeons group told us:
    "a specialist breast unit is actually more efficient. It does fewer benign breast operations, it does fewer unnecessary investigations … and processes people more efficiently and in a more kindly way."
    That is the Government's vision for the future of breast cancer services in the United Kingdom, and it is a vision shared not only by the Select Committee but by organisations such as the British Breast Group, the British Association of Surgical Oncology breast surgeons group and the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund.
    While the Committee welcomed the Government's new initiative, we believe that it could be improved further. We believe that there must be some mechanism for
    1116
    ensuring that a hospital which is designated as a cancer unit or a cancer centre is providing the necessary services to the required standard. There is a real danger that every hospital with a consultant surgeon will simply hang out a sign saying "Specialist Breast Unit", and will designate itself as such, without having suitably trained specialist staff or the necessary critical mass of patients that is so vital to the good running of such a unit.
    The British Breast Group recommends that a specialist breast unit should see a minimum of between 75 and 100 new cases of breast cancer each year. That serves to ensure both that the general level of expertise among the team is sustained and that the unit remains cost-effective. By issuing a set of national mandatory standards for specialist breast units, the Department could ensure that all women with breast cancer receive the highest standards of care.
    During our inquiries, a definition of a specialist breast unit was produced by an ad hoc group consisting of representatives of various organisations involved in the management of breast disease, including several of the royal colleges. The Committee published the definition as an appendix to its minutes of evidence, and it can be found on page 191 of that volume. The same ad hoc group met again recently, and it has further revised the definition.
    I have praised the mechanism which the NHS breast screening programme has in place to ensure that all screening and assessment units provide a high-quality level of service through its quality assurance programme. It is a Rolls-Royce among breast cancer services. Unfortunately, many women whose breast cancer is not detected by the screening programme receive a second-hand Trabant service. They might be referred to a general surgeon at a local hospital who has no special training in the management of breast cancer, does not work closely with a team of oncologists, radiologists and cytologists, sees only a few cases of breast cancer each year, and is not subject to any external mechanism of quality control.
    In our report, we concluded that the QAP is one of the great strengths of the programme, as it operates at a level above individual purchasers and providers. We recommend that the remit of the national co-ordinator of the NHS breast screening programme and the regional quality assurance teams should be extended to cover the provision of services for women with symptomatic as well as screen-detected breast cancer.
    Such an extension of the quality assurance programme would enable the Department of Health to ensure that all hospitals which were operating specialist breast units met the minimum mandatory standards. My noble Friend Lady Cumberlege and the chief medical officer told the Committee that they were worried that a mandatory service specification might stifle useful innovations at a local level. I fully appreciate their concern, but the mandatory requirements which the Committee proposed are the minimum requirements. There is no reason why they should prevent units from providing a higher level of service than is specified.
    Perhaps I might draw an analogy with the patients charter. The charter lays down the minimum level of service that patients have the right to expect, but does nothing to prevent providing units from exceeding those standards. I am pleased that the Department of Health is

    1117
    working to develop service guidance for the common cancers, but I shall be grateful again if the Minister will assure the House that this will be sufficient to stop hospitals simply hanging out a sign.
    Breast cancer is almost unique, in that a quality assurance system operating at national and regional level is already in place within the screening programme. The Select Committee believes that an extension of the functions of the quality assurance programme and the office of the national co-ordinator to include services for women with symptomatic breast disease could lead the way for other site-specific specialties. It is perhaps surprising that that proposal was supported by many of the doctors who gave evidence to us. They want their work to be subject to rigorous quality control.
    Dr. Mike Richards of the British Breast Group told us that he would favour a national co-ordinator for all breast cancer services. Mr. Hugh Bishop of the British Association of Surgical Oncology told us that such a development was "absolutely essential". It is a pity that the Department is proving reluctant to build on the success of the screening programme in that way, but I await the Minister's response on the matter.
    During our inquiry, the Committee learned that at least one regional health authority—North Thames—is extending the role of its regional quality assurance manager to encompass the provision of treatment for breast cancer patients. It told us:
    "Women should be offered the same standard of care from the breast service in both screening and symptomatic investigation and treatment."
    The Committee considered ways in which clinical research in breast cancer might be improved. Although our inquiry related primarily to breast cancer services, our recommendations on clinical research will inevitably have benefits for many researchers working in other fields. We heard from researchers and from the Department of Health that one of the obstacles to conducting good clinical research was disputes over who was to provide indemnity for the clinicians and trusts involved in that research. The present system of providing indemnity for clinicians and trusts engaged in research is ambiguous.
    The Department of Health told us that NHS indemnity covered all NHS-provided health care professionals for negligent harm resulting from research undertaken as part of their NHS contract, and that the employing NHS body—for example a hospital trust—is expected to meet the entire cost of defending, and if necessary settling, a claim where negligence is alleged.
    Ultimately, it is for the employing body to decide whether to allow research to proceed or not, and a trust may decide not to allow its employees to participate in a trial if it does not wish to provide indemnity for them. Mr. Richard Gray of the clinical trials service unit at the university of Oxford told us that many trusts refused to allow their doctors to take part in trials unless they received indemnity cover from the study sponsors.
    In some cases, that has led to the absurd situation in which doctors have been permitted to use conventional treatments and new treatments of unproven effectiveness in an ad hoc manner, but have not been allowed randomly to assign patients to control and study groups in a way that would allow them to gain useful information about
    1118
    the effectiveness of the unproven treatment. That clearly militates against the Department's efforts to encourage the practice of evidence-based medicine, of which I am sure the whole House would approve.
    Good clinical research is of benefit to the whole NHS, and the Select Committee did not think it fair that the indemnity cost of that research should be provided only by those NHS bodies which participated in it. We therefore recommended that indemnity for NHS bodies and their employees participating in research which is approved by the relevant research bodies—in the case of breast cancer research, the United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research—should be provided centrally by the Department of Health. The Committee was pleased to learn from the Department that it will be considering that option in its current review of research indemnity. I hope that the Minister will be able to report the latest progress of the review to the House today.
    The Committee also recommended that the Department consider ways to streamline the system of ethics committees. Ethical review is an essential part of clinical research, but representatives of the UKCCCR told us that the present unwieldy structure of that committee system puts people off entering patients into trials. For a large multi-centre trial, the approval of as many as 40 local research ethics committees might have to be obtained.
    There are a few good reasons why a research proposal might be allowed to go ahead in one area and not in another. The provision of information leaflets in ethnic minority languages for patients is liable to be an essential part of a trial conducted in some parts of the country, but not others. Likewise, some hospitals may have the appropriate facilities to participate in a trial and others may not.
    The fundamental ethical considerations surrounding a research proposal, however, will not vary from one region to another. Breast cancer research is changing—moving towards the examination of smaller and smaller sub-groups of patients of different tumour types. It is therefore becoming necessary to involve more and more research centres in clinical trials.
    I know that the Minister shares the Committee's concern about the unwieldy system of local ethics committees, and that the chief medical officer is considering ways of streamlining the system. Perhaps the Minister might be able to give the House a little more detail about that review this afternoon.
    Finally, I should like to say a few words about the United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research and, in particular, its breast cancer trials and cancer screening sub-committee.
    The UKCCCR consists of the Cancer Research Campaign, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, the Medical Research Council and several other cancer research charities. It was originally chaired by Professor Sir Patrick Forrest, who was instrumental in establishing the NHS breast screening programme. The Department of Health and the Scottish Office Home and Health Department have observer status on the committee. The UKCCCR provides a forum for the exchange of information on the policies and plans of member bodies, recommends proposals for the co-ordination of policies, and offers advice to the member bodies on any matters that might come before it.

    1119
    Although the breast cancer trials co-ordinating sub-committee of the UKCCCR runs some trials of its own—such as those that are being conducted to examine the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ and the use of tamoxifen—and endorses and co-ordinates large, multi-centre trials, it does not distribute the funds for such trials. After researchers have obtained approval from the UKCCCR, they must scrape around trying to find out where they can fund the research, going to committee after committee, at the mercy of the weakest of those committees, and all before they have to go through the system of local research ethics committees, which I have just described.
    The UKCCCR breast cancer trials co-ordinating sub-committee can be seen as the parent body for breast cancer research, representing most of the main sources of research funding. The Select Committee believes that it would be a step forward if the UKCCCR were to have its own budget for funding trials, so that it could act as a one-stop shop for researchers wishing to undertake a trial.
    We recommend that the Department of Health and the Medical Research Council identify their budgets for breast cancer research, and distribute the money through the UKCCCR in the expectation that that will provide an incentive for other research funding bodies to do likewise.
    I understand that neither the Department nor the MRC has a specific budget for breast cancer research, but I cannot see why it would not be possible for them to identify the amount which they currently spend on breast cancer research, and devolve that amount to UKCCCR. The whole Committee agrees that that would be a welcome development, which would make it easier for researchers to gather vital information about the effectiveness of new treatments at the earliest possible opportunity.
    I know that colleagues from the Select Committee wish to contribute to the debate, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. In my introduction, I have attempted to focus on the main conclusions of the Committee's report, but I look forward to hearing the views of other hon. Members, and, in due course, those of my hon. Friend the Minister.
    4.35 pm
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this important debate. Breast cancer services for women in the national health service are an important issue. As the Health Select Committee acknowledged in its report on breast cancer services, we have learnt that although England does not have a particularly high rate of breast cancer occurrence, it has almost the highest recorded breast cancer mortality rate in the world.
    Currently, almost 30,000 women are diagnosed with the disease annually and around 14,000 die of it. It is responsible for about 5 per cent. of all women's deaths throughout the country. Understandably, breast cancer is an emotive issue. It is also a very real issue for the tens of thousands of women who have the disease and the thousands who die from it.
    We must set this debate against the background from which it emerges—the increasing inequalities in public health. Since the Black report was published, socio-economic differences in health have increased. The difference in mortality rates between the deprived and the
    1120
    affluent has increased substantially. The recent widening of health inequalities mirrors the gross upward redistribution of wealth since 1979. It is vital that patients should have access to the same standards of health care throughout the country, irrespective of where they live or to what socio-economic class they belong. Inequalities in health should be targeted and eradicated.
    In the Government's "The Health of the Nation", mortality rates for women suffering from breast cancer are targeted as a leading priority to be reduced in the long term. The Government have recognised the importance and significance of mortality rates for women suffering from breast cancer. They know that the figures are illustrative of the condition of the public health services.
    In "The Health of the Nation", targets were set for a reduction in mortality of those screened for breast cancer. In progress reports on "The Health of the Nation", the Government are, I believe, complacent in stating:
    "progress to date has been in the right direction".
    Yet statistics from the House of Commons Library show that 60 per cent. of district health authorities are unlikely to meet those targets. Of the 112 district health authorities in England, 54 will fail to meet the target of a 25 per cent. reduction in mortality rates by the year 2000.
    The Government's comments are therefore misleading and superficial. The Government's document on variation in health, in commenting on variations in breast cancer, stated:
    "with respect to mortality there is relatively little variation around the England and Wales average".
    "The Health of the Nation" dedicates only one page to regional variations but socio-economic variations show that, although the incidence of breast cancer is higher among the wealthier classes, the lower classes are more likely to die from the disease.
    Leading health professionals are concerned that breast cancer services continue to vary considerably throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. David Congdon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hughes: No.
    Department of Health public health common data showing regional and local mortality rates from breast cancer illustrate the huge variations between local health authorities and, on a wider and more significant level, large variations between regional health authorities.
    I am particularly concerned about those alarming figures because they highlight the high rate of breast cancer mortality in and around my constituency. Although the registration rate for breast cancer in Doncaster is some 7 per cent. lower than the national rate, we have a disturbingly high mortality rate from breast cancer. For most of the past 11 years, the rate has been significantly higher than the national average. In 1993, it was 13 per cent. higher than the national average yet in neighbouring areas mortality rates from the disease have been consistently below the national average. The figures for North and West Yorkshire, for example, are significantly lower.
    The House of Commons Library has analysed the progress made towards "The Health of the Nation" targets and assessed Doncaster as having made negative progress. Indeed, it is moving away from the targets set in 1990.

    1121
    A snapshot assessment of breast cancer mortality for women aged between 50 and 69 in 1993 puts the rate in Doncaster at 118 per 100,000 women, one of the highest rates in the country and the fourth worst for that year. The figures for 1994 are 82 per 100,000 women. Despite the reduction, Doncaster will still fail to meet the national standards set by the Government in their report. The Government are failing to meet their standards and failing badly the women of Doncaster.
    Figures for the Trent authority show that, once again, there has been a higher than average mortality rate for the past 10 years. Let me compare those statistics with those of the neighbouring health authority. Northern and Yorkshire's statistics show a consistently below average mortality rate for each year in the past 10. The Government must recognise that those variations exist and begin to assess the local rates. They must set local targets rather than rely on a national target that could be set by a collection of varying mortality rates around the country, and seek to achieve those local targets. Perhaps they are too frightened to do so because local targets would emphasise what the Labour party has illustrated—that regional variations mean that many district health authorities would fail the Government's test.
    As in any area of the health service, it is vital that women throughout the country receive the same standard of treatment wherever they happen to live. It is important that the Government make progress in meeting the targets that they have set. Why do not they publish local targets? Why has it been left to the Labour party to put those variations in the public domain? Are the Government too ashamed of the progress that has been made? We talk of statistics, but those represent people—in this case, women who suffer and die.
    Access to health care and a chance of survival must not depend on where one happens to live. They must be accessible to people in all areas. The Government must monitor more effectively the progress towards their targets. They must deal with those regional variations in health care. We have shown that they have not dealt with those issues. They must now begin to do so.
    4.44 pm
    Mr. David Congdon: I was appalled by the speech of the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), who refused to accept an intervention when he was using statistics selectively. The Select Committee asked to see the regional differences in rates of breast cancer and those are published on page 239 of the Select Committee report.
    In no area of health care can it be argued that an average figure will be the same for each area of the country. There is no reason why it should be. The population profile of each area differs and it is naive and ludicrous for the hon. Gentleman to think that all areas should conform to the norm. Each health authority should aim to bring about an improvement in the figures for its area, which is why it is important to publish figures and aim at a target. To pretend that differences show that the system is failing is wrong. As the hon. Gentleman said, although he did not pursue the point, breast cancer appears internationally to be a disease of affluence.
    Mr. John Austin-Walker: The hon. Gentleman referred to page 239 of the Select Committee
    1122
    report, which gives the regional figures. Those figures are for breast cancer incidence whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) said that, although the incidence may be higher in affluent areas, the mortality rate was higher in less affluent areas. Those figures do not reflect mortality rates.
    Mr. Congdon: I accept that the table contains incidence figures. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to provide me, after this debate, with figures for mortality in relation to incidence, I should be pleased to study them. I cannot look at figures that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North holds up on the opposite side of the Chamber. I am not complacent about the incidence of or death rate from breast cancer, but it is shameful to try to make party political capital out of this issue.
    Mr. Henry McLeish: Disgraceful.
    Mr. Congdon: The disgrace is that Opposition Members are trying to make party political capital out of such an important issue.
    Ms Jean Corston: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Congdon: No, I shall not give way at this point. I want to make some progress.
    The Select Committee carried out a useful inquiry into an issue that concerns many people, particularly women. Cancer in any shape or form is a disturbing disease that causes great anxiety and concern, and breast cancer probably causes more concern than most. It tends to strike younger women. Perhaps the most serious cause of concern is that it is often not identified until it is too late.
    I said earlier that the incidence of breast cancer tends to be higher in wealthier countries. I would welcome more research into why that is so. The incidence of breast cancer is rising in the United Kingdom but, so far as I am aware from the Select Committee inquiry, no one could give substantive evidence as to why that is so. Perhaps we are simply getting better at diagnosing the disease, so we must take care when arguing about incidence.
    The Select Committee was also advised that suddenly in 1989 the death rate started to decline, but nobody seems to know why. It cannot be because of screening because the programme had not started at that time. The importance of the Forrest report's recommendation to implement a screening programme has been acknowledged by all. That programme appears to have been successful, although more evaluation of the figures is necessary.
    The United Kingdom was the first European Community country to introduce a national breast screening programme. It is acknowledged to have a good system of quality assurance, which ensures that it is implemented effectively. It was decided that all women between the ages of 50 and 64 should be screened regularly. The Committee received a great deal of evidence to suggest why that should be so. We were advised that screening has not been introduced for younger women because it has no particular impact on mortality; equally important, and more significant, there are difficulties in reading mammograms of pre-menopausal women. Members of the Committee were broadly prepared to accept that advice from the medical profession.

    1123
    There is far more controversy, understandably, about the decision not to screen regularly women above the age of 64. The Committee was advised that there would be a lower take-up by older women, and that there is a greater risk of older women dying from other diseases. The Committee was, frankly, unconvinced by those arguments. I was therefore pleased to support the Committee's recommendation that the screening programme should be extended to women aged 69.
    It is particularly interesting to look at the relevant figures on breast cancer, which show that it is more common among older women. In 1989, 8,752 women between the ages of 50 and 64 died from breast cancer, and, 11,179 over the age of 64 died. Those figures reveal that more than 60 per cent. of breast cancer deaths occur in women over the age of 64. Surely that is a good reason for extending screening to include women up to the age of 69.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Government argued that they had decided not to go ahead with breast screening for older women because they felt that it was not cost-effective. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the evidence that we received suggests otherwise? The Government's response was a disappointment to many members of the Select Committee and to people throughout the country.
    Mr. Congdon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. If he had asked me that question half an hour ago I would have agreed with him entirely, but I have just happened to read in Hansard of 4 December that the Government have announced that, from 18 October, pilot schemes have been operating in the Northern and Yorkshire and South Thames regional health authorities to evaluate the effectiveness of extending breast screening to women up to the age of 69. I am a bit behind the times, and was unaware of that when I read the Government's response at the weekend. I welcome that announcement, and I am particularly pleased that I read about it just 15 minutes ago. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) will be pleased about that announcement as well.
    Screening is effective if it succeeds in identifying those women with breast cancer early enough so that they can be treated and prevented from dying. The hon. Member for Doncaster, North referred to the relevant figures, which reveal that in 1992, just under 14,000 women died from breast cancer, which is just under 5 per cent. of all female deaths. That is a staggering number of deaths from one particular disease—something that hon. Members on both sides of the House take seriously. Perhaps it is even more significant to note that breast cancer accounts for more deaths than any other form of cancer, including lung cancer. I find that pretty incredible.
    A particular problem struck me as I was interviewing witnesses before the Select Committee about screening. The one problem with breast screening is that, apart from identifying those women with breast cancer, it generates a false positive. If a woman is recalled because there is something about which the doctors are concerned on her mammogram, she may have to wait a couple of weeks for an appointment. That woman is obviously subject to unnecessary worry and anxiety. The worst thing about any form of diagnosis is when the doctor says, "We think you have a problem, but we're not sure; we'll need to see you again in two to three weeks' time." That causes a great deal of anxiety.
    1124
    The key point is revealed by the following figures. Since 1987, 5 million women—a staggering figure—have been screened. Of those, 270,000 have been recalled for further assessment. That does not mean that those 270,000 women had cancer, because just 20,000 of them were identified as suffering from it. I questioned witnesses in the Select Committee about those figures and drew to their attention the fact that that means that for every woman identified by screening as having breast cancer, a further 12 went through an awful lot of anxiety. The thing that surprised me was that a strange atmosphere then descended on the Committee, as though the witnesses had never heard of those figures before. I am concerned about that.
    I understand the medical profession's proper desire to ensure that the screening programme works properly and succeeds in identifying those women suffering from cancer, thus preventing them from dying. That is a fantastic achievement, but I do not believe that the profession has paid enough attention to the flip side of the coin—the anxiety caused because the screening programme fails to reduce the number of false positives. That is an important issue.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for missing the beginning of this debate. I have some constituents in the House, and they have allowed me to pop in for 10 minutes, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Administrators in Ealing are strongly inclined to move the breast cancer service from Ealing hospital to other hospitals at some distance from my constituency. Women in my constituency, however, feel confident about the services that they receive at their local hospital. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to avoid imposing difficult, if not impossible journeys on women who go for breast screening? Does he agree that that service should be offered at the hospital in which they are confident, such as Ealing hospital? I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to say that.
    Mr. Congdon: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which reveals the dilemma created when planning any services relating to breast cancer and other diseases.
    All recommendations suggest that three-tier models represent the best means of providing a screening service. One needs to ensure that a woman receives good primary care when she goes to her general practitioner, and that she is properly referred on for treatment—assuming that she has not been identified through the screening programme.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), the Chairman of our Select Committee, has already said, all the research shows that a woman stands a better chance of survival if she goes to a unit that deals with more than a few cases of breast cancer a year. It has been recommended that breast cancer units should be established to cater for populations of about 200,000. I cannot comment specifically on Ealing, but from time to time there will inevitably be conflicts between trying to ensure that units of a sufficient size are provided so that an appropriate number of patients can be treated and the unit can develop the necessary skills, and ensuring that those units are not too far away from their patients.
    The number of false positive results can be reduced in a number of ways. For instance, I welcome the decision to ensure that women receive their second mammogram at the

    1125
    same time as the first one, because that improves reliability. One will never be able to prevent all false positives, so it is even more important to ensure that all the services that women may require, including further assessment, are carried out at the same time. That means that they do not have to return for further visits, which is important.
    Having identified those women suffering from breast cancer, it is crucial to ensure that they receive appropriate treatment to try to reduce the number of deaths—a point made by the hon. Member for Doncaster, North. The Select Committee report contained a number of recommendations; the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund has also made a number of important recommendations. It suggested that there should be minimum standards of care based on a list of principles.
    A significant factor in the Select Committee's investigation was that a number of separate studies had all come to the same conclusion about cancer treatments, including breast cancer. I understand that it is important that people suffering from breast cancer should be treated by not a general surgeon, but a specialist. It is important that patients have a specialist breast care nurse to provide the necessary counselling during a traumatic period.
    I am pleased to support the important report on breast cancer, which was unanimously approved. We all recognise that there is room for improvement and I hope that improvements will be made in all parts of the country. I doubt whether that will yield a uniform death rate, but so long as we make progress we shall have been successful.
    5 pm
    Mr. Henry McLeish: I am pleased to participate from the Front Bench in the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). I agreed with much of what she said and with the polite way in which she suggested that the Government might want to be more ambitious about the future of the service than they are currently willing to contemplate or resource.
    I say to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) that passions often run high in the House. Today's debate is on a serious subject that requires discussion, dialogue and informed criticism. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) gave some key statistics on access. One of the most important features of the subject is access—patients' access, access to screening and access to appropriate treatment.
    It is worth placing on record some of the cold and clinical statistics. Breast cancer is the leading cause of female cancer death in the United Kingdom. It is the commonest single cause of death in women aged 35 to 54. There are about 24,000 new cases of breast cancer every year and about 15,000 women die from the disease. There are nearly 500 new cases every week and nearly 300 deaths every week. Behind every individual statistic there are members of families and extended families. The problem is huge and, in presenting the case from the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne suggested its seriousness.
    It is also important to identify the fact that mortality rates have remained virtually unchanged for the past 50 years. It is encouraging to note—as the hon. Members
    1126
    for Broxbourne and for Croydon, North-East did—that in the latter part of the 1980s the mortality rate figures started to come down. That is to be welcomed and one of the outstanding challenges in relation to breast cancer is to maintain that reduction.
    Statistics can be translated into humans. I estimate that 15,000 deaths will mean that about 100,000 people—a large number—could be involved in the bereavement process every year. The emotional and physical damage done can be devastating. All those who are given a positive diagnosis face the trauma of uncertainty and they do not know whether treatment might lead to death or a much longer remission period. A hallmark of the national health service programme is the sensitivity surrounding the treatment.
    One of the key aims is to try to reduce mortality rates, but it was interesting to read in the section on variations in health in "The Health of the Nation", produced by the Government, an apt phrase that sums up the second major objective: adding years to life and life to years. Clearly, mortality rates provide a fixed benchmark in the debate; they are easily recorded. Not always so obvious are those people who have been screened, receive the appropriate treatment and may go into long-term or short-term remission, when the years-to-life and life-to-years issue is an important factor. I hope that the Minister appreciates—I am sure that he does—that the subject involves not merely death, but living. That key objective should underline our agenda.
    We should place on record the House's appreciation of the national health service breast screening programme; the hon. Member for Broxbourne did so and the Opposition agree with her comments. The programme does an excellent service and has a tremendous staff; it is a national programme that is extremely well led. When attacking breast cancer over the next decade it is important to keep the national dimension firmly before the House and the general debate.
    Although the service was introduced in 1987 and was fully operational in 1990, there still seems to be huge potential. There have been three or four years in which the service has made an impact on breast cancer. Bearing in mind many of the changes suggested by the Select Committee and some of the advances in technology, and given the necessary resources, the service is well placed to achieve much more in the new millennium, which is now only a few years away.
    My key concern involves access and availability; at the argument's core lies the availability of screening, the availability of diagnosis and prognosis and the availability of treatment. We can argue on the degree to which availability varies throughout the nation, but we can possibly agree that availability differs throughout England, Scotland and Wales. That is not necessarily a political point, but is a fact of life: variables will influence health that the health service cannot tackle. But some variations in the figures can be tackled by effective intervention from the health service.
    The availability of the service is one factor, but access to it is another. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North and others have suggested that social and class differences have an impact on access to screening and treatment. Some district health authorities may be more enthusiastic and energetic and may give breast cancer a higher priority. I do not say that as a

    1127
    criticism of the national standards but, clearly, the success or otherwise of the service depends on the approach on the ground. Therefore, the key aspect of my contribution concerns the availability and quality of services, and how access to them varies throughout the country.
    The national programme for breast screening shows that the figures for access to screening vary. East Anglia has the highest acceptance rate for screening: 78 per cent. of those invited are screened. In North-East Thames, the adjacent health authority, the figure falls to 62 per cent. A visible indication of screening and access to it—not a value judgment on the reasons for it—is the cold statistic from the national screening programme that suggests that acceptance of screening must be consistently above the average that has been set. The English average is 72 per cent.—the North-East Thames area is 10 per cent. lower and the East Anglia figure is almost 16 per cent. higher. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North said, the significant variations were not recognised in "The Health of the Nation" published earlier this year—we should bear that in mind.
    My hon. Friend also mentioned some material, which we published last week, that we had obtained from the House of Commons research division. It produced a snapshot of mortality rates for 1993, which found that England had an average of 86, but that 55 authorities fell on or above that average. In South Essex there were 125 deaths and in South-West Surrey there were 45. I stress that it was a snapshot and therefore the figures must be heavily qualified, but I believe that they show the tremendous variations in availability of and access to facilities throughout the country.
    Mr. Congdon: I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument quite carefully. Has his research identified any correlation between the take-up of screening and mortality rates in a particular area? He cited the figure for South-West Surrey, but North-West Surrey has a very high mortality figure of 122. Has his research identified any such correlation?
    Mr. McLeish: No, but that is a fair point. We conducted a distribution analysis, which was a fairly cold and clinical look at statistics sourced from the Department of Health and processed through the House of Commons Library. In a sense, it was a factual account of a snapshot for 1993.
    I now turn to the Government's target as stated in "The Health of the Nation" White Paper, which relates to those who are eligible for screening. Our research examined mortality rates in each district health authority, measured any changes between 1990 and 1993 and projected those changes towards 2000. It is quite significant that, according to the current rate of change, more than 60 per cent. of district health authorities would not meet the target. It is not a case of whether our figure is right or wrong; the magnitude of our findings—60 per cent. of health authorities—is important. We must debate whether the Government are on target to meet their objectives at regional and local level. I hope that the Minister will respond to that specific point later in the debate.
    The Government point out in "The Health of the Nation" that there do not appear to be significant variations in the English and Welsh averages. Our research contradicts that finding, although the Government have access to different
    1128
    technology and to technicians and scientists who provide other information. We believe that "The Health of the Nation" document is flawed to the extent that it concentrates mainly on national targets and whether we are moving towards them. The Government should look at district health authority level, and perhaps at local level, to see whether real progress is being made. Under its remit, the Select Committee was to consider ways in which the quality and availability of breast cancer services in the United Kingdom could be improved, which suggests that there may not be equal service provision throughout the length and breadth of the nation.
    On regional or local health service inequality, Conservative Members stress, quite correctly, that many factors—quality of life, housing and genetics—influence health. Health service teams, whether Conservative or Labour, cannot control such factors. However, there must be general areas within the health service where we can intervene more effectively—especially in relation to breast cancer. Deaths can be prevented and programmes and service distribution can be improved.
    There are inequalities in health service provision throughout the nation and there are factors that we cannot change easily. However, we can make some obvious changes and it is the responsibility of Government to look more closely at what is occurring in health and to intervene more positively. That is a key issue to consider when discussing variations in health provision and whether the health service could be more interventionist and lever change much more effectively.
    The Select Committee produced an excellent report; it heard a wide range of evidence and pinpointed the changes that should be made. The hon. Member for Broxbourne has already outlined some of those changes and I expect that she is hoping that the Government will respond to them positively. The Committee recommended that the upper age limit be extended to 69 for the call and recall screening programmes. Evidence to the Select Committee suggested that that would prove very worth while. The national screening programme has outlined the cash implications of the recommendation and we are not talking about substantial sums of money. However, we are talking about possibly fewer women dying and more women receiving early diagnosis and enjoying an improved quality of life.
    That is a very powerful reason why we should look closely at how a small amount of money may be used to improve the length and quality of life and spare families the agony of premature death. As the hon. Lady said, the Government have responded positively and they are taking forward several pilot projects.
    The Select Committee also raised the key issue of intervals between screening. Some people were shocked by the detailed figures that showed the number of cancers that grew in three years. The national health screening programme was slightly dismayed by those figures, but it is understandable in a new programme. The three-year interval was based on experience and scientific evidence, and it must now be examined more closely.
    The Government claim that they need hard evidence to support any change and the Select Committee has said that there is no point spending money until that evidence is forthcoming. I hope that the Government will demonstrate some urgency and enthusiasm in pursuing that evidence, as it comes down to saving lives and improving the quality of life of many women.

    1129
    Another key issue is the question of future treatment within the three-tier structure. Unlike some of the other suggestions that are more about effective clinical management of the service, this area will require resources. The hon. Lady put it in a nutshell when she said that we do not want to develop national standards that encourage every hospital in the country to establish breast cancer units that, despite appearances, would be unable to do the job because of the quality of staff. The Minister should consider allocating resources in that area: the idea of a properly resourced primary health care service, breast cancer units and specialist centres makes sense to anyone who is seriously interested in tackling the problem.
    Reference has been made to the double view or double shot. The information suggests that if two views of each breast were taken at every screening—not just the first, which the Government are quite happy to implement—a potential condition could be assessed much more effectively. I sincerely hope that the Government will consider that issue, along with research and development, training and quality assurance, which I shall mention briefly in a moment.
    The Select Committee also made an important recommendation with regard to the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund, which is an excellent organisation that performs a great deal of work throughout the country. Labour Members may be a little suspicious and sceptical of the patients charter, but it does recommend standards of care. If a diagnosis is complete and if life can be extended, quality of life and quality of care are inextricably linked. The Department of Health dismissed the issue by claiming that some care criteria appear in the patients charter and what is not there is not necessary anyway. I hope that the Minister will not adopt a similar attitude, as it does not address the seriousness with which the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund has pursued the charter. I urge the Government to rethink the situation.
    I am worried that I have been a little over-generous in my support of the Select Committee report. I may be slightly more critical of it than the hon. Lady, but I am sure that she will understand why I must do that. There have been a plethora of reports on breast cancer in the past few years, and the Chairman of the Select Committee has now outlined in detail the Committee's concerns. Obviously the nation is concerned. There is clearly a problem, at least a statistical problem. We have seen the Calman report, research and development has been given priority in other reports and the Secretary of State has spoken of a policy framework for the commissioning of cancer services. We have had a number of debates and discussed a range of issues. The crucial question for those with cancer, however, is what the agenda for action will be.
    Given the Government's response, the current slight degree of scepticism is understandable. When the Secretary of State for Health outlined the policy framework for the commissioning of cancer services last April, it was accompanied by an NHS executive memo. Although the Government were vague about resources and timetables in their policy statement, the NHS executive was not. Paragraph 6 of its document is worth reading. A Select Committee has produced an excellent
    1130
    report and the House is united in its wish to tackle an obvious problem, but the NHS executive states, in a rather cruel and clinical way:
    "The changes in the organisation and provision of cancer services recommended in the report will take several years to implement."
    There is nothing too specific about the different recommendations. The NHS executive simply makes the blanket statement that implementation will take some years. It continues:
    "Those planning cancer services on the basis of the recommendations should do so within available resources, taking account of the assessed needs of the local population and having regard to other health and health service priorities. A great deal can, of course, be achieved through better organisation and better use of existing resources."
    We accept the latter part of that. Better delivery of services is possible in any organisation if changes are made to its resources and other arrangements. Like the hon. Member for Broxbourne, however, we feel that there is no point in having a Rolls-Royce that is being serviced in the same way as—I shall not name the car of which I am thinking in case I get into trouble with my constituents, but I am thinking of a car of lower quality than a Rolls-Royce. We can see all the problems: they have been analysed. I must ask the Minister, however, whether the Government are really committed to improving the service so that it meets the standards demanded by us and the Select Committee.
    Although it is not just a question of resources, they will be needed to implement many of the recommendations that have been made—the recommendation for a three-tier structure, for instance, and the recommendations relating to quality. I hope that the Minister will mention that.
    Let me raise two or three practical points. The wider brief to consider the future of the service in the next millennium involves immediate and fundamental issues relating to the national screening programme. First, there is the quality assurance programme. I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Broxbourne: that programme is vital. It is this part of the service that makes it different from any other service in Europe. The quality is there, and the service is being delivered; but fundamental concerns surround the continuation of that quality. The fragmentation of the NHS has brought more confusion to the system. The hon. Lady referred to purchasing and providing. We must be cautious and sensitive in the new, artificial market, because the quality of the screening service could be affected.
    I should also like to know who will be responsible for quality assurance following the changes that will be introduced in April 1996. The proposal for a regional organisation to oversee the selection of the lead purchaser looks fine on paper, but it prompts many questions about the consistency and cohesion of the whole quality assurance programme. Those involved in the national screening programme are anxious on that score. We must ensure that we do not end up with an arrangement whereby district health authorities and others are purchasing in one environment while there is confusion and a reduction in quality in the quality assurance process.
    Then there is the question of ring fencing. Funding for breast cancer at district health authority level is now part of general funding, which means that, if a district health authority gives the service a lower priority than other services, the whole process could suffer. I do not believe

    1131
    that "The Health of the Nation" targets and a national strategy can he left to local organisations; they should not be allowed to dictate priorities.
    I agree with the hon. Lady that we should be concerned with mandatory standards. We shall be setting the minimum standards, but they are important. Enterprise and innovation are fine, but let us not use them as a smokescreen to disguise the fact that a lack of central direction and standards of the highest order could result in problems within health authorities. I urge the Minister to consider ring fencing: that, I believe, is the only way in which we can ensure that priorities and minimum standards are the same throughout the service, and that we implement some of the Select Committee's recommendations.
    Neither the country nor the House is giving enough thought to the demography of aging. If we decide to extend the screening programme to those aged up to 69—and, indeed, if we continue to provide the same service for those aged between 50 and 64—we shall find that an increasing number of people fall into those groups. There is currently no hint of extra resources to cater for the extra demand. Every NHS executive circular, and every utterance from the Government, suggests that most of the recommendations are accepted, but there is no flexibility in relation to cash. We are told that it must be found from available resources.
    That might be possible in some areas, but it is clear that, as we enter the new millennium, demography will play a much greater role throughout the health service. The Government must recognise that if screening is extended to those aged up to 69, if the intervals between screenings are reduced and if double views at every shot are to be introduced, there are bound to be resource implications.
    Let me end by reiterating my concerns. I do not want the Government to reject the idea of a national strategy to tackle breast cancer. The reforms in every other part of the NHS have devolved responsibility down the line, but this is a national issue that requires national standards and firm guidance from the centre. I should like to think that the Government will not merely pay lip service to the recommendations of expert bodies and Committees of the House.
    I do not think that the Minister should put local breast cancer services at risk by failing to ring-fence money allocated to district health authorities. He should be aware that the fragmentation of the NHS could undermine nationally based programmes. I have mentioned the consequences of failing to acknowledge the resource implications of new technology, and the recommendations made in that context. It is also crucial for the Government not to undermine morale in what is an excellent service. Many members of staff are anxious about their futures, and they are right to be anxious.
    So far, the Government have refused to appreciate the urgency of building on this excellent programme. Unlike the NHS executive, I do not think that we have years in which to ponder decisions. We need a national strategy. We must tackle variations; we must ensure that quality is maintained; and a seamless process must take place between screening and treatment. We can build on the progress that has been made, but the Government must approach the matter with more urgency. That is what the Opposition want, and I hope that the Minister will give us some indication that he wants to take speedier action than is currently being suggested.
    5.28 pm
    Mr. John Whittingdale: Breast cancer should not be a party political issue. In that spirit, I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). I am particularly grateful to him for his praise of the Select Committee's report and I agree with at least part of what he had to say.
    Before the Committee's inquiry, I must admit that I had little knowledge of breast cancer. As a man, it is still hard for me fully to appreciate the true horror of the disease. We were fortunate that a quarter of the Committee members were ladies, who perhaps have a better understanding of the trauma that a diagnosis of breast cancer can cause. Although I do not have a full appreciation of that trauma, the inquiry was one of the most harrowing in which I have been involved. All the Committee members found the evidence of Dr. Gwyneth Vorhaus particularly moving. She was undergoing intensive chemotherapy for the disease at the time that she spoke to us. We also heard evidence from the representatives of RAGE—Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure—which is a group of women who have had radiotherapy and some terrible injuries following it.
    In examining the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, we looked first at its rate of incidence and the associated rate of mortality. The statistics on incidence are cause for alarm. In England and Wales, the incidence rate is 56.1 cases per 100,000 of population, which puts us approximately in the middle of the range for developed countries but certainly well below the United States, which has an incidence rate of 89.2 per 100,000 for white Americans, although the rate is only 65 cases per 100,000 for black Americans. However, the rate is increasing. In this country, it rose by more than 40 per cent. in the 10 years to 1992, although that is less than in some other countries.
    There is widespread variation in the incidence rate between different regions in the United Kingdom, as several hon. Members have already said. The 28 per cent. average increase which occurred between 1979 and 1989 masks increases that range from only 3.2 per cent. in the Trent region up to 47 per cent. in Wessex.
    There may be a number of reasons for the variation in incidence and for its increase. I accept that the quality of statistics certainly varies widely and that, in some countries, the figures that have been quoted may be highly suspect. Improvements in detection may also explain part of the reason for the rise in incidence. All our witnesses agreed, however, that very little is known about the reasons for international or regional variations in the incidence of breast cancer or why the incidence rate is rising. The variations are so great and the rise is so sharp that there can be little doubt that women in some countries are far more prone to breast cancer than those in other countries and that the number getting the disease is rising rapidly.
    The evidence is still more frightening when one comes to examine the mortality rates. As has already been said, on this measure the United Kingdom has almost the highest breast cancer mortality rate in the world. It is way above that of many countries whose incidence rate is higher than our own. That may be because our treatment of the disease is inferior to the treatment in other countries; it could also be because women in the UK are prone to suffer a far more aggressive form of the disease.

    1133
    One of the first questions that I asked our witnesses was why the USA had a higher incidence rate of breast cancer than the UK but a lower mortality rate, and what were they were doing in the USA that we were not doing here? Professor Vessey, the chairman of the advisory committee on breast cancer screening, concluded his reply to me by saying:
    "there are plenty of suggestions but I do not think that anybody really has a very good answer".
    In our inquiry, it quickly became abundantly clear that we do not know the answers to these questions. What causes breast cancer? How can it be prevented? Why are there such enormous variations in its incidence between and within countries? Why is it that Japan, which is a developed country with a high standard of living, has one of the lowest rates of breast cancer in the world? Why is it that the incidence is rising rapidly, and why is it that more people die from it in the UK than almost anywhere else in the world?
    My first conclusion was that much more research needs to be done. For some reason, research into breast cancer is not accorded the priority that it deserves. One in 20 women is likely to die from breast cancer and, in 1993, there were more than 13,000 registered deaths of women from it in England and Wales. That compares with approximately 1,150 notified deaths from AIDS in the UK. Government expenditure on research into AIDS, however, through the Medical Research Council and the Department of Health, was £17 million. That amount is nearly five times the expenditure on research into breast cancer.
    When expenditure by charities such as the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Cancer Research Campaign is added into the total, the amount still comes to only £12.5 million, which is 70 per cent. of the figure spend on research into AIDS. We do not have a world breast cancer day, and we do not see celebrities organising concerts to raise money for research into breast cancer. I am not suggesting that we should not be spending money on researching AIDS, but I must question whether we have our priorities right. I think that there is more than a whiff of political correctness about those figures.
    Given the lack of knowledge about the disease, I understand why the NHS decided to concentrate on establishing a breast cancer screening programme to enable the early detection and treatment of the disease. We were given ample evidence that screening programmes result in fewer deaths, and we have every right to be proud of the fact that the United Kingdom is one of the first countries to set up a national screening programme. Since the programme was started in 1987, 5 million women have been screened and approximately 20,000 cancers have been detected as a result.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) pointed out, however, for every cancer that was detected, nearly 10 women who did not have cancer were recalled because they had false positive results. The anxiety and fear that were raised as a result of those false results can only be imagined. In some cases, women had to undergo unnecessary clinical investigations—even surgery—as a result.
    There is also a problem of false negative results when women have been told that they do not have breast cancer but who have gone on to develop the disease shortly
    1134
    afterwards. That is something which might be addressed by the more widespread use of double-view exposures, as has been mentioned already.
    It may be that false positives and negatives are a price worth paying. We must address the question raised by Professor Michael Baum, our specialist adviser from the Royal Marsden hospital, as to whether the small benefit of reducing the risk of dying from breast cancer compensates for the undoubted harm resulting from false alarms and unnecessary interventions. He was right to ask whether the money spent on population screening would save more lives if the scarce resources were redirected to the more efficient care of symptomatic women and greater spending on research into improving the treatment of those already suffering from the disease.
    I am sorry that Professor Baum did not raise those issues at the time of our inquiry. They are, however, serious issues which deserve examination, and it was a great pity that the media chose simply to report that he had declared the breast test to be useless, which was certainly not the case. I believe that Professor Baum remains a supporter of the breast screening programme.
    Professor Baum was also entirely right about the need for more informed choices by patients. All too often clinicians assume that patients do not want to know the details of their condition or the options that are available to them. Alternatively, clinicians do not bother to inform their patients because they think that they will not understand. I suspect that all of us have come across terrible examples of the lack of sensitivity of doctors and consultants when advising patients about their condition. Perhaps the worst example that I have ever heard was the treatment of Dr. Vorhaus, who told us that the night before surgery a junior doctor had casually informed her:
    "We have decided to do a mastectomy instead of a lumpectomy."
    When she asked why, he said:
    "I really don't know what you are worrying about—you've got such small breasts it doesn't matter and anyway, someone with cancer should not be worrying about what happens to their breasts."
    That was how she was formally told that she had cancer.
    Dr. Vorhaus also told us that she met only two doctors who extended any degree of human concern, courtesy and willingness to give her information about her condition and treatment. On the other hand, she told us that she did not meet one nurse who was not helpful and supportive. Of course, that is just one person's experience, and I accept that it does not apply in the vast majority of cases. Nevertheless it should not happen, and we still have much to do to ensure that doctors treat women with this condition with the sensitivity that they deserve.
    Finally, I must also pay tribute to my own constituent, Mrs. Hazel Thornton, who came to give evidence to us. She is a lay person. After an abnormality was found in a routine screening, she was invited to participate in a randomised control trial. She was given no information about the options available to her, or any details about what the trial would involve, so she refused to take part. Instead, she found out for herself about the disease and became an expert on it.
    Since then, Mrs. Thornton has become a tireless campaigner for the rights and involvement of patients. She has set up the Consumers Advisory Group for Clinical Trials; she has written papers that have been published in The Lancet; and she has travelled across the world to give

    1135
    talks on the subject. Due to her efforts, sometimes in the teeth of opposition from the medical establishment, the patient's voice is at last being heard.
    There is still an immense amount to do, but we are making progress. I hope that the Select Committee's report was a contribution to that, and I also welcome the response that has been made by the Government. I look forward to hearing the Minister's remarks later in the debate.
    5.41 pm
    Mr. John Austin-Walker: I share the view of the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) that it is surprising that there is not more publicity about this matter. I doubt that there is anyone in the Chamber who is not either close to or who knows someone who is suffering or has suffered from breast cancer. I hope that the efforts that the national coalition has begun to bring groups together to give a much higher profile to breast cancer will succeed. I am sure that those efforts will receive support from all right hon. and hon. Members.
    Hon. Members have referred to the fact that the incidence of breast cancer in the United Kingdom is not particularly high by international standards, yet we have the highest recorded rate of mortality in the world. They have also spoken of the regional variations. There may be some arguments to the effect that data from other countries may not be comparable with ours. However, all the witnesses who gave evidence to the Select Committee concluded that even if Britain did not have the highest mortality rate in the world, it was one of the highest, and that it deserved urgent attention.
    In the United Kingdom it should be possible to rely on comparability of the data. In that context, the regional differences that have been highlighted are somewhat alarming. Some reasons have been advanced for those regional differences, but most members of the Health Select Committee came to the conclusion that the major reason for the differences in mortality was probably the poor treatment of the disease in some areas. I certainly believe that that is the most convincing reason.
    We know that the treatment that women get depends on where they go. The Select Committee heard much evidence, and there is more evidence from other sources—anecdotal and statistical—that many women do not get a quality service or appropriate treatment. It would be foolish to suggest that early diagnosis and early, appropriate treatment will lead to a successful outcome in all cases. However, if detection is not early or treatment is delayed or inappropriate once the disease is diagnosed, the consequences will—almost invariably—be tragic. The Select Committee concluded that it would be possible to reduce the number of deaths from breast cancer each year by some 4,000, if we had a standard quality of service throughout the country.
    Some people have criticised the Select Committee and the Government for putting too much emphasis on breast screening. They have suggested that screening is costly and detects only a minority of cancers. The latter is true and I share the view that we should always examine the cost-effectiveness of all screening programmes. However, I remain convinced that the screening programme should be maintained and improved as part of the overall strategy for detecting breast disease and reducing breast cancer mortality.
    1136
    The quality assurance programme referred to by the Chairman of the Select Committee is vital to ensure that the same high-quality service is available throughout the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) expressed concern about the relationship between quality assurance teams and purchasers, following the proposed move from regional purchasing quality assurance to district health authority lead purchasers. As the Select Committee's report says, district health authorities
    "will be purchasing services for monitoring their own purchasing".
    I hope that the Minister will outline in his reply the role of regional offices and regional directors of public health in selecting the lead purchasers, and also the monitoring role of the national co-ordinator. That must be kept under review and I hope that the Select Committee will consider the issue once the new arrangements are up and running next year.
    Since the Select Committee report, there have been some developments in the way in which mammography is carried out, which we all hope will lead to a reduction in the number of false negatives and false positives. The possible tragic consequences of a false negative are only too apparent. More accurate diagnosis and early detection can lead to early and appropriate treatment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central said, that can lead to more years of life of better quality.
    We should not underestimate the effects of false positive results, which the national co-ordinator described as a "downside to … screening". Such false positives not only cause great anxiety and in some cases severe psychological trauma, but they lead to women undergoing unnecessary recalls, further unnecessary clinical investigations, and in some cases unnecessary diagnostic surgery. I appreciate the view expressed by Hazel Thornton of Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure, who described the programme as
    "costly trawling of a limited asymptomatic public group … creating huge … psychological and physical morbidity".
    That is why it is important that we do our best to eliminate the false negatives and positives.
    The Select Committee believed, however, that there is definite evidence that screening by mammography is effective in reducing breast cancer mortality, certainly in women over 50. Evidence in the Forrest report convinced me that the only way substantially to reduce the number of deaths from the disease is detection before the patient presents with symptoms.
    The Select Committee takes the view that it is perhaps too early to make final judgments about the efficacy of the breast screening programme, because of the lead time. We need to observe the mortality information about 10 years from the introduction—after 1997—to get a more accurate picture. I believe that we will see then that the programme has been efficient and effective.
    The Committee has highlighted the problem of women placed on early recall, which might mean a wait not of a few weeks, as was suggested earlier, but of six to 12 months in some cases. Such insensitivity can lead to great anxiety, and in many cases acute depressive illness can follow. That is why I, and other members of the Select

    1137
    Committee, urge the establishment of the one-stop shop. That may not necessarily reduce the time between screening and assessment, but it could significantly reduce the time between assessment and diagnosis and considerably minimise anxiety. That is why I believe it important to carry out the recommendations of the Forrest report for routine assessment teams comprised of clinicians, a radiologist, a pathologist, a radiographer, a receptionist and a breast care nurse. Breast cancer screening is not just to do with mammography; it includes all stages in the diagnosis of the disease.
    As the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) has said, it is generally accepted that there is little benefit in routine screening of younger women, but I believe that further research needs to be done to determine whether there are readily identifiable groups among the younger age groups who may be at higher risk and among whom prevention can be undertaken.
    The Committee was convinced of the efficacy of the screening programme for women over the age of 50, and firmly recommended that the upper age limit for inclusion in the call and recall system be extended to 69. The evidence for that is clear, and in this respect I found the Government's response extremely disappointing. I am firmly on the side of Age Concern, the British Medical Association and the Society of Radiographers. The decision to establish some demonstration projects may be a start, but it is not enough and it is quite disappointing.
    I urge the Minister to reconsider the Select Committee recommendation. What extra resources are being provided for these demonstration projects? The Government talk about advertising the fact that women over 65 are entitled to be screened every three years. I should like to know what resources have been allocated for extra screening to take account of increased take-up by the over 65s. Without such extra resources it will not be possible to screen more elderly people.
    Effective diagnosis is one thing: treatment is another. We have anecdotal and statistical evidence to show wide variations in treatments and outcomes. One thing is absolutely clear from the evidence—surgeons who treat more than 30 cases a year have better survival figures for their patients. Just as we need a team approach to screening, so we need a team approach to treatment. No woman should be referred to a general surgeon working in isolation. That is why the establishment of specialist breast units with defined minimum standards and service requirements is necessary. National standards need to be laid down, nowhere more so than in radiotherapy and related areas.
    The hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon spoke of the evidence given by RAGE. For some women, the treatment has been horrendous, leaving them either in pain or disabled. For some of them treatment can be worse than the disease. So the same quality of standards as is required for the screening programme needs to be applied to radiotherapy.
    In this respect I should like to mention recommendations 29 and 30 of our report. The Government rejected the recommendations calling for the same service quality standards to be applied to treatment and screening, and I found that rather disappointing. The two services are wholly complementary: they involve the
    1138
    same training and the same commitment to specialisation. Experience gained in one sector is also gained in the other. Of course some extra staff and resources would be required; will the Minister tell us why the Government rejected these two recommendations?
    I should like to return now to the role of breast care nurses, to which Conservative Members have already alluded. All the people with experience of breast cancer who spoke to us had nothing but praise for the nursing profession and for the crucial role that breast care nurses play. Obviously the remarks that follow will be from a male perspective, but many women who have been told they have breast cancer face not only the fear of the physical consequences—there is deep psychological trauma about the possibly tragic outcome of the disease—but a disease which attacks their identity as women. They feel that their femininity and their feelings about their sexuality are under attack. The women in this category to whom I have spoken have all said that the one person they could talk the matter over with was the breast care nurse. As one of the witnesses who came before the Select Committee said, "If nurses can communicate with us, why can't doctors?" So there is much that still needs to be done in terms of training the doctors.
    Gwyneth Vorhaus described for us the time when she was first diagnosed as having breast cancer:
    "I was left undressed in a cubicle for over two hours at the general surgeon's clinic. I finally wandered out into a room where a junior doctor was sitting looking at an X ray and I discovered that it was my X ray. I had previously been told I probably had fibro adenoma, so I had no reason to prepare myself or bring a friend. The doctor looked very embarrassed. He turned his back on me and started muttering about 'microcalcifications and suspicious lesions'. I had to ask him to turn around and look at me. I said, 'Are you trying to tell me I've got cancer?' He still could not use the word, but his body language told me something was wrong. I believe I went into deep shock at that moment, but I was left to wander off for an explanation to my GP."
    Perhaps that was an isolated incident, but as the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon said, it is one incident too many. Other women's experiences may not have been as graphic, but witness after witness has described the insensitive manner in which her first diagnosis was given her. Meanwhile everyone praises the commitment and the work of the nurses.
    It is important to listen to what women have to say. I do not want to interfere in the debate about high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell rescue. Certainly, we heard Gwyneth Vorhaus say that she felt the treatment was right for her. We should do some random clinical trials to assess the value of high-dose chemotherapy. Most of us on the Committee felt that here was a woman who had exercised choice and weighed up the risks. She said that if nothing had been done she would have died. She was a mother of young children, so she felt that if anything could be done to extend her life by a couple of years, it should be done. For many of us that summed up the issue behind this disease.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said in another debate on this subject:
    "it is important not to view breast cancer as just a woman's disease because it brings devastation and grief to families affected by a sufferer's early death."—[Official Report 15 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 945.]
    Women with breast cancer are daughters, mothers, wives, partners, lovers. They have caring responsibilities, and their early and often unnecessary deaths devastate whole families; and the cost to communities is enormous.

    1139
    When looking for the resources needed to build an effective screening and treatment programme we should always remember the 4,000 lost lives each year, and the costs of not saving them.
    The Government say that they are considering the Calman proposals; I hope that they will not hide behind them. I believe that breast cancer services can pioneer the way for other cancer services. Hence I hope that the Government will look again at some of the recommendations that they have said they will take account of in due course, and that they will react more positively to the firm recommendations in this report.
    5.58 pm
    Ms Jean Corston: I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and her Committee on this excellent report: it is most welcome. It is high time Committees of this House gave specific attention to issues involving women. I pay tribute to the many hon. Members who have kept the subject alive in the all-party group and other forums. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who cannot be here owing to an Inter-Parliamentary Union engagement. I know that she would have liked to be here.
    In view of the fact that the Health Select Committee made reference to research, I am pleased to use this opportunity to raise a matter, about which the hon. Member for Broxbourne knows because I have written to her about it, and on which I was lucky enough to secure a debate during private Members' time on 14 June. It refers to research in breast cancer at the Bristol cancer help centre.
    The study was published in The Lancet in September 1990. I do not intend to waste the time of the House in rehearsing all the arguments, because they are on the record; suffice it to say that the research purported to show that breast cancer patients attending the Bristol cancer help centre who were also having orthodox treatment were twice as likely to die and three times more likely to relapse than the controls who were having conventional treatment only. It soon became clear that the research was fatally flawed in its methodology and statistical analysis.
    During a very helpful and constructive reply to the debate in June, the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) said:
    "I have no doubt that mistakes were made".—[Official Report, 14 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 758.]
    The funding bodies, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Cancer Research Campaign, distanced themselves from the research quite early. The Imperial Cancer Research Fund said that no conclusions could be drawn. Its director general, Sir Walter Bodmer, said:
    "the research suffered from a disastrous mistake in the interpretation."
    However, the Institute of Cancer Research, which organised the research, still stands by it, and has refused to release the data for independent statistical analysis.
    A great deal of correspondence occurred over the summer, and I received a helpful suggestion from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, Baroness Cumberlege, in a letter on 4 August. She acknowledged
    1140
    that I had said that there was a need for an examination of how the two sets of patients compared, and that there should be an independent judgment of the validity of comparing the two groups. I asked whether the Department would recommend an independent statistician. The Minister helpfully suggested that I approach the Royal Statistical Society for assistance, and gave me its address.
    I put that suggestion to the person responsible for the research, Professor Claire Chilvers. She said that she was not in a position to be able to give that consent so I went back to the Institute of Cancer Research. Professor Peter Garland of the institute said that it would not be appropriate to release the data to me as a third party. The question is, who is appropriate? To whom should the data be released?
    Neither the centre nor the women involved want any follow-up research—it would be pointless and distressing—but there is a need to conduct a statistical analysis of the data. The issue raises questions about the nature of conduct in medical research, to which—obviously—the Health Select Committee has made reference. I am sure that it is concerned.
    In February 1991, the Royal College of Physicians published a very helpful document called "Fraud and Misconduct in Medical Research". It defined scientific misconduct at paragraph 2.7 as including—I stress the word "including"—piracy, plagiarism and fraud. The fact that the word "including" was used suggests that the definition was not intended to be restricted to those factors.
    The report continued, at paragraph 4.5, to say:
    "all institutions and responsible bodies must insist that raw data are kept available for inspection for 10 years".
    That prompts the question: inspection by whom?
    The United States Commission on Research Integrity has laid down the following criteria for breaches of research integrity: a misappropriation of data, misrepresentation of research findings, interference with results, and acts that compromise the integrity of the research process.
    It seems that the medical research establishment faces a clear choice. There is either resolution of the matters to which I have referred or there is eventual regulation. Although I am sure that the establishment does not really want the latter, such an issue cannot remain unresolved. While it is unresolved, it represents an obstacle not only to good medical research on cancer, but to broader issues of health research and scientific discovery.
    We are all, of course, conscious that large amounts of public money fund such research, so while it stays on the record, it is a stain on the character or reputation of an organisation. Frankly, I have been astonished by the number of health professionals who have said to me, "Oh, yes. We all know that that research cannot stand." Yet while that research is forming the body of scientific research and it is not retracted, that stain remains. Indeed, it calls into question the way in which people behave when they conduct scientific research.
    I call on the Institute of Cancer Research to release the data. It has to be said that The Lancet, in which the study was published, has not published a retraction, although it would be right to add that the new editor is doing his best to draw together the interested parties in order to resolve the matter. It is important that the editor of The Lancet is

    1141
    able to make progress, so that a retraction can eventually be printed, subsequent to—I hope—independent statistical analysis.
    Last night, at St. James's palace, the Prince of Wales held a reception in honour of the Bristol cancer help centre. He made reference to the research, and regretted the negative effect that it had had on the centre. Naturally, if such research stands on the record, charitable foundations and others will find it difficult to make donations, given that it could be said that they were spending money on an institution that has damaged people's health. It is perfectly obvious that that is not case. The Prince of Wales praised the centre's holistic approach and the way in which it focuses on the whole person rather than the illness, the cancer.
    I am pleased to say that the centre, which was facing closure this month, has succeeded in raising £267,000 to enable it to continue for some more time. It is very keen to preserve the principle that the care, advice and treatment it gives should be free, and it does not deserve to live under such a cloud. I hope that it will be possible for the matter to be resolved, because it will not go away. I know that other hon. Members, whose support I have appreciated over recent months, share my concern and want to assist me in ensuring that the public money put into that research was not wasted, and that the facts emerge from some statistical analysis.
    I should like to turn specifically to a couple of items in the Select Committee report. Its first conclusion states:
    "It is clear that the aetiology of breast cancer is not yet sufficiently well understood to enable any systematic attempt to reduce mortality by primary prevention to be pursued".
    Although that conclusion says "any systematic attempt", other factors of scientific literature ought to form part of our understanding; it would not be right to say that nothing that can be done.
    In considering just a few instances of scientific research, one finds that it is pretty certain that, if one eats animal fat, one has a 30 per cent. higher chance of getting breast cancer. If one smokes, one has more chance of getting breast cancer—and any cancer. If one is a vegetarian, one is 40 per cent. less likely to die of cancer of any sort. I understand that that research comes from Dr. Margaret Thorogood.
    I must declare an interest, because I have not eaten meat for 10 years. I do, however, eat fish. I do not want to advance any argument about vegetarianism. I am aware that there is other relevant research. For example, the King's college study tells us that the incidence of breast cancer is four times higher in people who are under stress.
    Only this week, on 9 December, the British Medical Journal contains an article about a research paper on breast cancer. It states:
    "Key messages: life events have an important influence on physical health; women with breast cancer have more severe life events in the five years before diagnosis; the way a woman deals with stress may also affect the risk of breast cancer".
    I understand that there was a United States-funded study of 50,000 Chinese subjects who were given vitamins A, C and E and selenium. They had a relatively low vegetable intake, but their cancer death rate declined
    1142
    by 13 per cent. after five years of that treatment. The United States Government have issued guidelines on diet and cancer since 1983.
    Furthermore, the Cancer Research Campaign has conducted what could be described as an epic trial. The preliminary results are based on considering cancer in relation to dietary habits throughout Europe. They reveal pronounced variations. There is a far lower rate of cancer in Greece, where people eat a great number of vegetables. Holland and the United Kingdom came out worst. Our respective diets contain more dairy products, such as cheese, cream and yoghurt.
    The Women's Environmental Network conducted research into pesticides and insecticides, specifically organochlorines. It found that, in countries where Lindane had been banned, the incidence of breast cancer in the youngest group had declined by about 24 per cent. I know that there are concerns about the reliance that can be put on that sort of research, but it is part of the scientific body of opinion.
    There is also the research by Peto and Doll of 1975 and 1992, which found that diet is the greatest environmental factor. It has a contribution rate of 35 per cent., whereas smoking has one of 30 per cent. It cannot be said that research findings are not sufficiently understood to enable any attempt to be made to make improvements. We have quite good statistics.
    It is important to consider, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have, the disparity between the incidence of breast cancer and mortality rates. For example, the incidence is higher in the United States, but mortality rates are lower than elsewhere.
    It is important also to consider the findings of Dr. Stephen Greer, which might be dismissed by some. He classifies personality types, and goes on to consider how classification may influence survival. I know from medical professionals in my family that there is much interest in the profession about Dr. Greer's findings. He categorises people according to personality. Of those with what he describes as fighting spirit, 80 per cent. were alive after 13 years. Of those described as helpless and hopeless, only 20 per cent. were alive after that period. He describes those in between the two categories as demonstrating denial or stoic acceptance.
    Those who come within the higher mortality rate tend to be more passive and compliant patients. Indeed, the word "patient" imports something about compliance and passivity. It suggests that the person is one to whom other people do things, rather than someone who is an equal partner in treatment, cure and survival.
    The message is often given that people can do nothing to help themselves. Institutions such as the Bristol cancer help centre are vital in the way in which they encourage people to develop a fighting spirit and a belief that they can be part of their own cure.
    Last night, I met people at St. James's palace who had been told 16 years ago that they had three months to live. I met a man who had had two thirds of his liver removed. He was told that there was cancer in the remaining third and that there was no hope for him. He is still alive nine years later.
    The message is that people can live with cancer. A cancer patient should be seen as part of the healing process. The work of complementary practitioners, such

    1143
    as those at the Bristol centre, can be extremely valuable as an adjunct to the conventional treatment that is provided by the national health service. Their work is no threat to conventional medicine.
    There is evidence that people want complementary treatment. More and more general practitioners want training in it. I hope that purchasing institutions will take note. It is important to take things in the round. We know that people say that they do not want to be a nuisance to their doctor. They fear that, if they are assertive, they may not be treated well in future. I feel that a different attitude is required of some doctors.
    Where it is the only route, the Bristol centre helps people to prepare to die. That is important. So often, people are sent home to die and told that they have three months and they must get on with it. On one occasion only, I came across a friend who had something to do with the Bristol centre. That was in the 1980s. She was dying with cervical cancer. She had had four cervical smears, and had been told that she was clear. It was suggested that she was hysterical. It turned out that she was right. By the time her rightness was acknowledged, it was too late.
    My friend went to the Bristol centre when she was clearly dying. No one could have saved her life. Those at the centre gave her control over the last few months of her life. They made it into a remarkable period.
    Obviously, research is important. Everything to which hon. Members have referred in the debate is important. I wish to be specifically identified with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. It must be recognised, however, that a patient is not merely someone to whom things are done. A patient should be part of the treatment, cure and survival.
    6.15 pm
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The debate has been widely welcomed, and I join that welcome. It demonstrates the benefit of the Select Committee system, which we have had for some years. A Select Committee may decide to examine a matter of major public interest. It will do its job properly, and update itself. It will report to the House and then ensure that the issue becomes part of the wider agenda. I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, to all members of that Committee and to all those who have contributed to the debate. This is not a party political subject.
    I speak as a lay person. As a man, I come to a debate about an issue that principally concerns and involves women. I have learnt from reading the Select Committee's report and the minutes of some of the evidence. I have listened to colleagues, and I have checked some of the facts. I am aware of the severity and importance of the issue.
    As the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) said, we should draw ourselves up and remind ourselves of the lethal nature of cancer in general, and of breast cancer in particular. We should make ourselves aware of the number of people in this country, irrespective of the relative figures, who continue to die of the disease when compared with those who die from other diseases that are more often talked about.
    1144
    Like the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) and other parliamentary colleagues, I have both parliamentary and personal experiences of those who have become ill with breast cancer. Some have come to my surgeries over the years. They have told me about insensitive responses. I endorse the claim that these stories have featured only doctors, never nurses.
    It has been clear to me throughout that, specifically and psychologically, breast cancer is one of the intrinsically important areas of concern when dealing with women's health. If it is not treated properly, irrespective of whether, at the end, the condition is curable, it is something that undermines a woman's sense of her integrity, self-respect and self-worth. The disease goes to the heart of those people's being. Breast cancer is hugely important. It is not something that is peripheral to the health service; it is not something that matters only physically. It matters much more than that. Men know that, as well as women.
    Most of us have known, many of us from personal experience, of people who have died unnecessarily in the sense that there was not sufficiently early diagnosis. It is not a secret that, a couple of years ago, I lost a brother. He died of malaria. He died because the condition was not diagnosed quickly enough. In days, he went from being ill with what was thought to be flu or a cold to dying from malaria.
    For many women, that is the story with breast cancer. One fact that emerged clearly from the evidence to the Select Committee inquiry was that, despite our best efforts, the continuing failure by many women to present themselves, and the consequent failure to have proper treatment at an early stage, is one of the causes of the high mortality rate thereafter.
    The first message that the House has heard—I hope that it is going out clearly from the Chamber tonight—is that there is every need for women to make sure that they present themselves for screening. The screening programme is hugely important, and as yet it has not reached everybody who needs it. Given the high proportion of older women who suffer from breast cancer, we must remember that presentation for screening will become increasingly important as the number of older women increases with the longer lives that, happily, people in general will lead.
    So first let us encourage people to come in. I say that as somebody who, probably like many Members of Parliament, is very sceptical as a patient in the health service. I am not naturally someone who goes running to the doctor. I tend to assume that there is not a problem, and that things will get better.
    Many other people do the same, and we must persuade ourselves and others how important it is not to take risks. After all, we are talking about health care that is preventive, not only in terms of one's own illness and of the consequences to one's family, but even, as the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) rightly said, in terms of the cost to the nation. Early diagnosis and treatment can be a way of saving lives—and money.
    As hon. Members will know, I have the privilege of being the Member of Parliament for Guy's hospital. One of the people who gave evidence to the Select Committee was Dr. Michael Richards, who spoke both as a consultant at Guy's and as a representative of the wider community of cancer consultants.

    1145
    Guy's is one of the leading centres for treating breast cancer and doing research into it, and one thing that emerged clearly from Dr. Richards' evidence was that we still have not organised ourselves as well as we could to maximise the efficiency of that work. The hon. Member for Broxbourne and other hon. Members have pointed out that the diversity of places and units in which treatment is carried out, and the small number of cases that many doctors treat per year, militate against best practice.
    It is a fairly trite point, but if a doctor sees only one or two patients a year, he or she is far less likely to be competent or expert at giving the best diagnosis, results, advice, treatment and so on. It is important that, although of course there must be neighbourhood access, there should be consolidation of the best practice into the size and sort of unit that the Select Committee, and the expert evidence it took, recommended.
    Thirdly, there appears to be clear evidence that we are not training enough people to deal with breast cancer as consultants and nurses. I do not know whether the figures that I have are still accurate, but I understand that, for example, there are only about one tenth as many consultants dealing with breast cancer in this country as there are in France. There is a real dearth of experts.
    Likewise, one of the recommendations shows that there is a clear shortage of funds for training nurses and others who have the responsibility of care. That is completely unjustifiable. If cancer is identified in 5,000 new cases a week in this country, that means that as many cancer cases are diagnosed each fortnight as there have been AIDS cases diagnosed in the past 10 years. I say that not in any antagonistic way, but simply to show the scale of the problem that we are discussing. We must react to that by having enough experts—consultants and nurses—available throughout the country, region by region, easily accessible and able to respond to the need.
    That leads me to my fourth and most important point. It is clear that with breast cancer, research financed by independent research institutions has been enormously valuable. Such institutions pay for much of the work done in the NHS. People such as Dr. Richards are funded entirely by the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. Many consultant posts, and even whole units, are funded by private charitable money.
    Yet we are still miles short of the money that we need to carry out the research programme satisfactorily to a conclusion. In a paper on clinical research produced only about a year ago, Walter Bodmer wrote:
    "Taking eight hundred million pounds as the total spent on medical research as a whole, and assuming, say, only a quarter of this is really clinical research, gives two hundred million pounds as the total spent on clinical research. The extra NHS costs connected with adequate provision for that clinical research would therefore be one hundred million pounds."
    Much more recently, after one of the reports that came out this year, the Kenneth Calman report, the Government's response was that there would be no additional new money for the research and treatment services for which the need is clearly identifiable.
    The recommendation made by the chief medical officer in April, only eight months ago, was that £200 million was needed to fund changes that would save 15,000 lives a year,
    1146
    by establishing the regional specialist centres that we have talked about. However, the Department of Health says that those costs must be met from existing resources.
    I say to the Minister, although again not antagonistically, that I have no doubt that the British public out there would say that we must find that money. It is not acceptable for such areas of work in the health service to be held back, when there is no dispute about what needs to be done. It is clear that we must go on putting in the money to encourage more people to be screened, so that more people can be diagnosed early, and so that more research can be done and more people trained to treat the patients.
    That is money that the nation must find. If there is a choice between, to put it crudely, tax cuts or more money to reduce the number of deaths from breast cancer, I am sure that the nation would vote for the money to be spent on cancer treatment rather than on tax cuts.
    Although of course the debate has rightly centred on breast cancer—long may it continue to do so—the lessons apply equally to other cancers. The report, and all the other abundant evidence, makes that clear. Perhaps men are worse than women in terms of their willingness to present themselves for screening and the like. But it is most important that we develop screening programmes for other cancers both for women and for men, in all age groups, and that we encourage people to educate themselves about their health and to identify, or to give the experts the opportunity to identify, disease at an early stage.
    We must remember that we have a long way to go before we have a system in place to enable us not only to deal with the diseases once they are identified but to ensure that people present themselves early enough for diagnosis and treatment to take place early enough to prevent death. The figures show that, once diagnosed, about half the cases can be treated in such a way that death is prevented.
    That being so, we are only at the beginning of the road. I hope that we shall respond rapidly to the excellent work of the Select Committee, and to all the other supportive work that makes it clear that we as a country could take much more effective action on breast cancer, if only we had the mind and the resources to do so.
    6.28 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam)rose—
    Rev. Martin Smyth rose—
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
    Mr. Horam: I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this point. I apologise to the two hon. Gentlemen who want to speak, and I shall try to ensure that there is time for them to come back after I have spoken. But if I do not speak now there is a danger that I might be squeezed out of the debate, which would not be in the interests of the House.
    Mr. Corbyn: That is not our intention.
    Mr. Horam: Nevertheless, I ought to get in to the debate now; otherwise there may be a risk. I believe that we have to finish at 7.4 pm promptly.
    First, I am delighted that there is a health subject for debate today. Secondly, I am particularly glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) has

    1147
    been able to secure the subject of breast cancer for the debate, as it is a matter of great concern to us all because of the incidence of the condition in the UK. I also congratulate the Select Committee on Health on its report on the subject, which has been widely welcomed by Members on both sides of the House.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne on her report. My hon. Friend has been a particularly vigorous and effective Chairman of the Select Committee since she took on that responsibility. She has a number of successes to her credit, of which this report is one. I think we all agree that it is an excellent report. It is also fair to say that there is extensive all-party parliamentary interest in this matter.
    The Health Committee has considered ways in which the quality and availability of breast cancer services in the UK might be improved, concentrating particularly on the progress made by the breast screening programme in reducing breast cancer mortality, the role of clinical trials in evaluating treatments and ways in which more women might be recruited into trials and the benefits of specialised breast units in the provision of high-quality breast cancer care.
    The all-party breast group has explored issues around rising incidence, mortality, treatment and research, and called for a national strategy for breast cancer. The group has done much, in my view, to make its presence felt and has lobbied on behalf of the thousands of women who contract this terrible condition each year.
    I am pleased that hon. Members on both sides of the House share our concerns about the high level of breast cancer incidence and mortality. Hon. Members have already told us this afternoon of the statistics, but they are worth repeating because they are truly dreadful. Breast cancer is increasing internationally, with registration data for England and Wales showing that age-standardised incidence rose by 22 per cent. between 1979 and the latest available figures. We know that there are even greater increases in other comparable countries. In England and Wales, breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in women. Each year, some 27,000 new breast cancer cases are registered and some 13,000 women die from it.
    No Government could underestimate the seriousness of a condition which affects so many women, or results in so many deaths each year. We do not know why breast cancer is increasing internationally, but some suggestions have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) suggested that an aging population was one possibility, and obesity is another possible factor. The rate of incidence is higher in developed countries—particularly western developed countries—than in less developed countries.
    These are all suggestions, but—as has been stated in the debate—there is little evidence to suggest that there are clear links between the various factors involved in this dreadful disease. I emphasise to the House that, while these are the facts, we must take account of the evidence of increasing mortality. We have to take breast cancer very seriously, and we do. That is why in 1987 we announced the setting up of a breast cancer screening programme throughout the UK—the first of its kind in the European Union and one of the first in the world.
    All women aged from 50 to 64 are invited for a three-yearly mammogram, with women aged 65 or over being screened on request. Some £55 million has been
    1148
    allocated to establish the programme in England, with £70 million being spent on the programme for the whole UK. Funding for running the services has now been built into health authorities' allocations at an estimated cost of £27 million a year.
    The screening programme is a success, and I am pleased that the Committee accorded it such praise. I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating those who work on the programme. A number of hon. Members made that point, and I would like to underline that. The breast screening programme is now screening some 4.5 million women and has detected more than 26,000 cancers, many at an early stage when treatment is more successful.
    Fewer women are being recalled unnecessarily, and every precaution is taken to minimise women's anxiety about the test and about recall for further assessment. A number of hon. Members—including my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) and for Colchester, South and Maldon, and the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker)—made this point. It is a very serious matter and while the situation is getting better, there is clearly further to go and I want to see progress being made.
    I come now to quality assurance questions. We built quality assurance standards into the programme from the start, and we will continue to monitor achievement against these standards. I appreciate, though I do not accept, the Committee's concern that devolving of purchasing of quality assurance to health authorities could lead to a pursuit of cheaper options than the gold standard set nationally. We believe strongly that the independence and effectiveness of the quality assurance programmes will continue to be guaranteed by the regional directors of public health, who have been charged with ensuring that quality assurance continues, and by the national NHS screening co-ordination team.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne asked me for a particular assurance in her speech. She said that there was a danger that the QAP would become simply a means for purchasers to check on provider units, and she asked whether it would continue to ensure that the service which is purchased meets the national standard. I am glad to say to my hon. Friend that the answer to that is yes. The regional directors of public health have been charged with the task of ensuring that quality assurance is purchased to the standard set nationally, and that the service continues to the current high standards. I give her an unequivocal assurance on that point.
    The breast screening programme has been based on firm evidence, and one of its strengths is that it is constantly reviewed to ensure that standards are kept up to date. That is why we introduced last August the taking of two views of each breast for all women attending their first screening appointment. We have also announced proposals for the setting up of pilot projects to evaluate the effectiveness of extending the screening programme to women up to the age of 69. That is a particular point of concern which I fully accept, given the mortality rates among women in that age group. I am glad to say that we are making progress in that area. A number of hon. Members made that point, and I can reassure them that—as far as I am concerned—the matter will be a high priority.
    We are funding further research into the effectiveness of screening women from the age of 40 and screening more frequently and exploring the management of screen-

    1149
    detected ductal carcinoma in situ. That is going on, although I think that the priority is women up to the age of 69.
    A mark of our commitment to cut breast cancer deaths is shown by the fact that we have made this a target in our "The Health of the Nation" initiative. Our goal, as has been said during the debate, is to cut the number of deaths among women invited for screening by 25 per cent. by the end of this decade. That should mean a saving of at least 1,250 lives each year in England alone.
    I wish to say something at this point on the question of the regional variations in the figures, a subject mentioned by the hon. Members for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). The hon. Member for Fife, Central made a point about access to screening, but I think he used the wrong word. In looking at the regional and district variations, he should have said take-up instead of access.
    There are clear differences in the extent to which screening is taken up in different areas, and it is true that take-up is much lower in inner-city areas and poorer districts. Therefore, health authorities have undertaken specific initiatives and have set local targets to add to the national targets to deal precisely with this matter. There is a difference in the take-up rate, not the access rate. Access is the same everywhere, and everyone gets the same treatment. This difference will be tackled by local initiatives, research into which will be funded by the Department. We are tackling the problem of different levels of take-up in different areas.
    A separate point was made by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Fife, Central and by the hon. Member for Doncaster, North about mortality rates and whether we were on target. The only sensible, tested mortality rates are for 1993. We started the programme only in 1992 so it is absurd to say one year into a programme that is meant to last the eight years until the year 2000 that we are some way off target. We clearly are not off target. We believe that we are absolutely on target.
    Mr. McLeish: The subject of our exercise was to look at the base year that the Government selected—1990—take it through to the most recent year—1993—and project the annual current rate forward to 2000. I suspect that, in many respects, that was not the most scientific of exercises, but it extrapolated the trends and showed that up to 60 of the district health authorities did not meet the target. The Minister rightly criticises our figures, but can he provide for me either in a letter or now some analysis carried out by the Government to find out whether the DHAs are on target, even though they are using a national target in local areas?
    Mr. Horam: I will look into the additional point made by the hon. Gentleman, but it is our firm view that we are on target.
    Of course, we would like to be able to prevent breast cancer occurring at all, but so far, despite enormous levels of research both here and abroad, we do not know how to do so. The trial currently under way in the NHS to evaluate the effectiveness of tamoxifen in preventing breast cancer in women at particularly high risk may help. However, we must be cautious. The beneficial effects of
    1150
    tamoxifen must be weighed carefully against its side effects. It may be years before we know whether it is a real option for preventing breast cancer.
    Substantial work is also in hand to identify the gene defects which cause breast cancer in a minority of women, but that work will not stop the problem. Even if we reach the point at which we can identify that a woman is likely to develop cancer because of her genetic make-up, we do not know, despite research, what we can do to stop the cancer developing. Even the most radical option—surgical removal of the breast—does not offer a concrete guarantee, as there is still a remote possibility that the disease could spread before preventive surgery is performed. That is why the Government have put so much research into establishing a national population-based screening programme. Experts agree that early detection is of enormous value in combating breast cancer and improves the chances of effective treatment.
    Even recently reported critics of the programme have acknowledged that at present screening remains the best option for women and agreed that the programme should continue. However, screening is only part of the story. All women with breast cancer should have access to good advice, treatment and care, wherever they live. We know that at present there is variety in provision for breast cancer around the country and that some patients seem to have better treatment outcomes than others. The choice of treatment required in individual cases will vary depending on a number of factors, including the stage and site of the cancer and the general health of the woman. Studies of adjuvant therapy indicate that a combination of treatment options—surgery, chemotherapy, adjuvant endocrine therapy—is highly effective, but circumstances differ in individual cases. Clinicians should choose a treatment regime best suited to the individual, after discussion with the patient.
    There is increasing evidence that women treated by surgeons and teams with a degree of specialisation in breast cancer have better outcomes. That point has been made in the debate. Concerns about the evidence of variations in cancer treatment options and outcomes led the chief medical officers of England and Wales to ask their expert advisory group on cancer to review how cancer services, including breast cancer, were delivered and to make recommendations for improvement. Following wide consultation, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Wales unveiled on 24 April 1995, a new strategic framework for the future development of cancer services.
    The report recommends a network of specialised care with cancer services organised at three levels. Primary care is seen as the focus of care, with GPs better informed about the availability of diagnostic and treatment services to allow them to make appropriate referrals and to be informed promptly about the outcomes of tests and of any treatment.
    Cancer units will be created in many local hospitals of a sufficient size to support a multi-disciplinary team with the expertise and facilities to treat the more common cancers. A lead clinician will co-ordinate cancer services and develop treatment protocols between primary care, cancer units and cancer centres to ensure a network of care of a high standard. Cancer centres situated in larger hospitals will treat the less common cancers and support cancer units by providing services, including radiotherapy, not available in smaller hospitals.

    1151
    The NHS has already taken forward a great deal of work, making good progress towards the .implementation of this new strategic framework. Key elements in this are, first, regional mapping of current patterns of provision of cancer services, work to designate cancer units and cancer centres, discussion to develop explicit contracts between purchaser and provider for the provision of cancer services and plans for improving the availability and quality of data.
    Simultaneously, in order to support work being taken forward regionally, the NHS executive has commissioned work to prepare evidence-based guidance in a rolling programme of work starting with the more common cancers to help purchasers and providers identify cancer units and cancer centres. Recommendations will be made on the characteristics which are necessary if a centre or unit is to be effective. They will cover the specialisation required, compatible with a high quality of service; where appropriate, guidance on the clinical management of cancers; and ways of measuring the quality of care delivered, including measures of outcome. Guidance on breast cancer will be the first product of this programme of work and will be delivered in spring 1996—not too far off.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne said that we did not want consultants to hang out a notice, as she put it rather graphically, saying, "Specialist Breast Unit", even though the unit had no special expertise. I hope to assure her that the programme that I have just outlined is designed to deal with precisely that point. It should succeed in doing so. I remind the hon. Member for Fife, Central that part of the programme will examine the evolving national picture. That will answer some of his concerns.
    Concern has been expressed about research funding. I agree that we will secure reductions in deaths only if our services are built on the basis of sound scientific knowledge. In Britain we have a record of excellence in research in this area. Ours may not be the largest programme in the world, but the work is of a very high quality, and we can be justly proud of it. Moreover, it is a research programme which is well supported by many interests. The medical research charities play a significant role in the national endeavour to combat cancer, based on generous donations from the community. The contribution by drug companies is also very high. Of course, the Government are also a major player, in collaboration with those other bodies. Collaboration in research extends right across the European Union.
    The Medical Research Council funds important research on cancer generally, and breast cancer in particular, including work on diet and on breast tumour imaging. It is also a key player in research to evaluate the breast screening programme, which hon. Members have rightly discussed at some length. Total spending on breast cancer research was £14.2 million in 1994-95. Total spending on cancer research as a whole is now approximately £250 million. We must remind ourselves that there are no fewer than 200 forms of cancer, so there is a great deal for the money to cover. In addition, clinical research is supported by NHS research programmes and NHS excess service costs attributed to cancer research. The value of this additional expenditure is significant and will become increasingly apparent.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne suggested that we might use the United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research to channel funding from
    1152
    the Department and the Medical Research Council. The danger is that we would lose flexibility. Improvements in research do not flow in an even stream. We cannot predict exactly what the volatility will be between one year and the next so some flexibility is essential in the research programme. We cannot meet my hon. Friend on that point.
    My hon. Friend was also worried about indemnity for clinical trials, which remains a problem, and asked me to say how far we had gone in the review. We are making satisfactory progress. I hope that we shall be able to report at least some initial findings early in the new year. We are therefore dealing with that matter.
    In conclusion, as I am anxious to allow the two hon. Members time to contribute to the debate, we are working on the progress already made to ensure that we can further reduce mortality from this serious condition. As has been said, the effect of screening on mortality will take some time to work through, but we estimate that 1,250 lives will be saved each year by the year 2000 and I emphasise that we are making good progress towards that end.
    Moreover, in response to recent research findings, we have announced a package of quality initiatives further to strengthen the screening programme, some of which I mentioned today. Finally, in response to emerging evidence of variations in cancer treatment options and outcomes—a concern expressed both by Conservative and by Opposition Members—we have launched a new strategic framework for the organisation of cancer services, which it is predicted can increase long-term survival. Although full implementation is likely to take some years for what is a very ambitious programme, I am confident that significant improvements will be made soon.
    6.50 pm
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief to allow the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) the chance to speak during the last 14 minutes of the debate. I was sorry that I could not speak before the Minister, as I wanted him to answer some questions, but he can no doubt write to me or intervene.
    Like many other hon. Members, I welcome this debate and the report that has gone with it. The House should bear in mind the detailed work that the Select Committee on Health has done on the subject and the huge amount of evidence that it has taken from a wide range of organisations, which must add to the strength of that report.
    We must also welcome the fact that this is the third time this year that the House has debated breast cancer. There have been two Adjournment debates—I initiated one and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) the other—and now this debate on the estimates and the Select Committee report. The fact that there have been three debates in a year seems to show growing understanding among many people that there has been a large increase in breast cancer and that its treatment here has a low success rate compared to that in some other countries. We must consider that treatment seriously, but we must also consider the causes of breast cancer. I draw the attention of the House to the powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston). She mentioned the contributions made by diet, stress factors and living conditions.
    I was also impressed by the point made by the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), among others, on the way in which

    1153
    nurses and doctors treat people. It is certainly my experience that anyone who goes into hospital for almost anything generally has high praise for the nursing auxiliaries and administrative staff, but criticisms of the way in which the medical staff treat them.
    Often the medical staff are incredibly highly pressed, and they tend to leave the talking and caring role to others. Frankly, that is not good enough. Highly experienced medical staff, such as doctors, specialists and consultants, should spend more time with the patients if they can and should be straighter about what is wrong with them. They should also understand the degree of shock that a woman suffers when they tell her that all the investigations unfortunately show that there is a serious problem and that breast cancer is present. They should talk the thing through. It is an amazing shock, and although men obviously do not experience breast cancer, they have experience of other forms of cancer. Perhaps the Department could do something about attitudes and training. The Minister might like to reflect on that issue and think of doing some work or having discussions with medical colleges on that aspect of training.
    I must make a brief point, but an important one. In my Adjournment debate on 22 November on breast cancer and its victims, I relied extensively on information supplied by Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure, which gave evidence to the Select Committee on compensation for victims of treatment. In some cases, we are talking of women who were treated with radiotherapy many years ago. It may well have cured the cancer, but the side effects and long-term effects have been almost as serious as what was there in the first place—the loss of the use of some limbs, permanent disability and a high level of constant pain, which is something that no one should have to live with all the time. Many of those women have suffered grievously and are still suffering. It is a humbling experience to talk to them about the ways in which their lives have been affected. In some cases, the problems occurred because of accidents, in others as a result of misdiagnosis, and some were caused because, at the time the radiotherapy treatment was given, those who gave it were unaware of its power, or of the importance of targeting the radiotherapy at the cancer cells with absolute accuracy because of the danger of wide-scale tissue damage to the surrounding area.
    As part of their campaign for recognition and compensation, the women have been asking for a system of no-fault compensation. The Department has constantly replied that, although it understands their concern, it is not persuaded of the case. It has said that the women should take their cases to court individually. As has been pointed out in the debates, that is not a runner. Either one has to be very rich to afford to undertake a High Court action that can easily cost £200,000, particularly if it is not successful, or one has to be so poor and have such a strong case that one can get it all done on legal aid. Also, it is not a runner because the fault of an individual or organisation must be proved. That is the great failing because many of the people who gave the treatment could justifiably say that there had been a genuine accident on their part and could claim ignorance of the consequences of the treatment.
    I have two brief questions for the Minister. First, when the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), replied to the
    1154
    debate on 22 November, he mentioned the examination and report that the Royal College of Radiologists was to undertake shortly. Many people were concerned that the college was undertaking the research and thought that there should have been an independent inquiry—perhaps semi-judicial—into the problem of compensation for victims of radiotherapy. He said that he would rather await the college's report. As it is now out, I would be grateful for the Minister's response.
    Secondly, on accountability, the then Under-Secretary of State said:
    "Our legal system holds all individuals accountable for their actions, which arguably has a deterrent effect on malpractice. No-fault compensation could remove or weaken it."
    That might well be so, but it does not answer my earlier point about changed systems, technologies and knowledge. In response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), he went on to say:
    "Although I have outlined some of the reasons why no-fault compensation has been thought inappropriate, we have recently accepted that a system should be tried for mediation in such cases. The Minister of State recently agreed to set up pilot mediation schemes that may make it easier to reach agreement. We have no wish gratuitously to defend certain cases or to cause any unnecessary delays."—[Official Report, 22 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 639-40.]
    I would be grateful to hear what progress has been made and whether the Minister is prepared to reconsider the whole question of a no-fault compensation system to deal with the problems that those women have suffered or are still suffering and that have caused them to incur enormous and horrendous expense merely because they are the victims of problems caused by radiation treatment given when they were dangerously ill with cancer. Obviously, they are grateful to be alive, but they should be able to live decently, and that requires them to be compensated for the injuries that they have suffered.
    6.58 pm
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the fact that I have a few minutes to comment and recognise that the response from the Department of Health included Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
    I was happy to be a member of the Select Committee on Health which considered the problem. Interestingly enough, since the report was commissioned and the Government response issued, I have received one of the largest mailbags I have ever had. People have been writing to urge us to ensure that the Government implement the recommendations. The Government generally welcomed the report, with one or two qualifications, which I would ask them to reconsider. They can do something positive.
    I regret the fact that I was not present for the central part of the debate—I was speaking to a professor from one of the medical schools in Belfast. I discovered to my amazement when I entered the Chamber that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was talking about research in the Department and the fact that the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services has not been appointing a director for research and development. There is supposed to be a fixed percentage of the budget for that. This year, no clinical research awards at all have been made in Northern Ireland. I ask the Government to reconsider the use of the funds that are available to develop that aspect.

    1155
    I pay tribute to the work of Action Cancer, which has pioneered going out into the workplace and the rural community with a mobile van so that people can have mammograms taken in their communities without having to travel to Belfast. When we recently met the Minister responsible, he assured us that the claim that Action Cancer would have to foot the bill for that work—it provides coaches, and so on—was false. I have discovered from the tissue typing pool in the city under the new trust scheme that it has to be paid by Action Cancer. The Minister assured us that that was false. I ask the Minister to press the Department, and perhaps particularly the Eastern health and social services board, to pay the bills for which it is responsible. It is an abomination to expect a charity to start doing that work over and above the other work that it is doing.
    I sympathise with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) who again raised the issue of RAGE, Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure, and put it on record that the arguments for specialist breast centres stem from that. It is obvious that some people who were not expert in the field gave wrong advice and, as a result, some patients live in perpetual pain and suffer from paralysis and disability. The argument is clear that specialist breast centres are needed throughout the nation. It is not only national centres of excellence for breast screening that are needed; we also need national centres for breast treatment.
    I draw attention to Professor's Blarney's response. As a world specialist in the field, he recommended in December that there should be movement. He stated:
    "Our argument is that a very good service was introduced for breast screening, precisely the same service is required for women presenting with symptomatic breast disease. Why not emulate this successful model?"
    Why not let the nation take the lead?
    My final point is simple. The anxiety that is sometimes created as a result of the pressures that affect this nation adds to the rate of cancers. There is a link there.
    Mrs. Roe: With the leave of the House, I shall quickly sum up. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his remarks and assurances and express my deep gratitude to all the hon. Members who have participated in this important debate on a vital subject.
    In conclusion, I make one important point. There has been a great deal of interest in breast cancer recently, and rightly so. It is a dreadful disease—the third largest cause of death for women in this country. However, I would not like the Committee's recommendations to be seen as relating exclusively to breast canner. I believe that, building on the success of breast screening, a national network of specialist breast units can be established with a national co-ordinator and a quality assurance programme integrated with that of the national health service breast screening programme. I also sincerely hope that that will lead the way for networks of site-specific units for other common cancers.
    Question deferred, pursuant to paragraphs (4) and (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).

  Class XVI, Vote 1

    Financial Services Regulation
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum not exceeding £30,079,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by Her Majesty's Treasury on economic, financial and related administration, including debt management; payments to certain parliamentary bodies; and certain other services including expenses in connection with Honours and Dignities and a grant in aid to the Private Finance Panel Executive.—[Mrs. Angela Knight.]
    [Relevant documents: The Fourth Report from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee of Session 1993-94 on Retail Financial Services Regulation: An Interim Report (House of Commons Paper No. 236), the Second Report from the Committee of Session 1994-95 on Financial Services Regulation: The Building Society Sector (House of Commons Paper No. 26), the Second Special Report from the Committee, containing the Government's Reply thereto (House of Commons Paper No. 283), the Fifth Report from the Committee of Session 1994-95 on Financial Services Regulation: Self-Regulation at Lloyd's of London (House of Commons Paper No. 187), the Fifth Special Report from the Committee containing the Government's Reply thereto (House of Commons Paper No. 745), the Sixth Report from the Committee of Session 1994-95 on The Regulation of Financial Services in the UK (House of Commons Paper No. 332), the First Special Report from the Treasury Committee of Session 1995-96, containing the Government's Reply thereto (House of Commons Paper No. 98), and the Departmental Report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Smaller Departments: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995-96 to 1997-98 (Cm 2817).]
    7.3 pm
    Sir Thomas Arnold: The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee is most grateful for the opportunity to debate the regulation of financial services in the United Kingdom. It goes almost without saying that the growth of financial services in our country in recent years has assumed an importance that none of us could have foreseen. The reputation of the City of London—indeed, the reputation of our country—is inextricably bound up with that growth and it is an area of life and an activity about which we can truly say that the eyes of the world are upon us. It is for that reason that the Committee has been especially concerned during a long-running inquiry to consider the issues of transparency and accountability. I shall make some further reference to those principles in my remarks.
    I thank my colleagues on the Committee for their patience and diligence during the two years in which we have been examining the issues. I thank our Clerks for the long hours that they have put in and the many witnesses who have appeared before the Committee. I also thank my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for her response on behalf of the Government to our report, dated 12 December, which the Committee received just in time for this debate. I shall make further reference to that in a moment.
    I want to give the House something of the flavour of the way in which the Committee carried out its work. We approached the subject in a remarkably non-partisan way

    1157
    and, mostly, with open minds. We listened carefully to the evidence and for the most part reached our conclusions without votes. Clearly, there were some differences of opinion, as one would expect, but they were not generally major ones. The entire proceedings were remarkable for the degree of open-mindedness and fair-mindedness on the whole Committee.
    It is for that reason that I should like to draw the attention of the House to what was arguably the one substantive vote, which took place when we came to debate, discuss and agree the final report. It involved a series of amendments moved by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). It raises some important issues that we should consider this evening and with which I propose to deal head on.
    It is perfectly true that there are some differences in emphasis, style and tone between the Government and the Opposition on the regulation of financial services, but I do not believe that they should be exaggerated. There is not an unbridgeable gulf across the Floor of the House on the matter. A degree of consensus is apparent, which is to be welcomed in the national interest. For the reasons that I gave at the start of my speech it can only be in the public interest that the Government and Opposition for the most part find themselves in broad agreement on how to tackle some difficult problems and respond to new opportunities and challenges.
    The amendments moved by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire went further in the direction of proposing that we should replace the present arrangements with a structure that would more closely resemble the American Securities and Exchange Commission. That led to a vote in the Committee. The key sentence in his amendments is to be found in our report on page xliii in amendment 93B, which states:
    "The Committee recommends that the ultimate objective should be for the SROs to be folded into SIB to become serving departments."
    In the event, the amendment was lost because I exercised a casting vote with the Noes.
    The report shows, however, the progress of the argument and the difference between Conservative and Opposition members of the Committee. I do not believe that the difference is serious because, while structure in these matters may be important, what ultimately matters is the quality of regulation. We all agreed that we required good, well-trained and properly motivated and paid regulators and staffs, who would enjoy respect in their profession in the City of London and be regarded throughout the world as thoroughly professional men and women doing an important job. We concluded that the regulators in the new organisations have coped well with the immense changes that have swept across the financial markets and the City of London in recent years, although there have been some trying and testing moments and there will no doubt be more in the future.
    The majority of the Committee did not feel that the time was right to go as far as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire proposed, but we understood perfectly what motivated him, the intellectual argument that he was putting and the manner in which his proposal was put.
    In a fair-minded and positive response to the Select Committee report, the Government have left open for the future many aspects of this debate. At a time of rapid
    1158
    evolution, it is sensible to allow the changes being made to work their way through before deciding on the timing for the changes that the Committee proposes.
    The Select Committee holds the firm view that, henceforth, ministerial responsibility for all aspects of financial regulation and supervision should be concentrated in the Treasury. That view has already provoked a certain amount of controversy. I draw the House's attention to paragraphs 118 and 119 of our report. Paragraph 119 says that we want to encourage
    "HM Treasury to adopt a more interventionist and active role in the co-ordination of financial services supervision and regulation."
    Some commentators immediately fell on the word "interventionist" with an unwarranted zeal. The key word in that paragraph is not "interventionist" but "co-ordination". Evidence that the Committee took revealed that we require better co-ordination and one department of state to build up a core of expertise and understanding of the issues and personalities involved so that, when and where it is necessary to bring people together or, more trenchantly, knock heads together, that can be done with a full and proper understanding and awareness of exactly what is involved. As time went by, we were increasingly uneasy about the division of responsibilities between the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry. We felt that the time had come to concentrate resources and activity in the Treasury so that a group of civil servants and their ministerial chief would have an even better grip on current events.
    We attach considerable importance to that proposal. I was encouraged by the tone of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary's reply because, while she did not give our recommendation a full and firm yes, she certainly did not say no. She drew attention to the Treasury's memorandum of June 1995 to the Committee, which referred to the arguments in favour of such a transfer of responsibilities, and went on to say:
    "However, the recommendation raises wider issues which would need careful consideration before final decisions are taken."
    If time permits this evening, she may care to tell the House exactly what some of those wider issues are.
    The Committee felt that concentrating effort in the Treasury would bring about an improvement in what some quarters clearly regard as either a duplication of effort or an overlapping of functions. The co-ordination to which I referred could thus be better achieved.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the valuable work that the Committee has done on this subject, members of the industry are still concerned—I am aware of that concern as deputy chairman of the all-party group on insurance and financial services—that regulation is too often targeted on bureaucratic form filling and not enough on catching criminals who prey on our constituents?
    Sir Thomas Arnold: I shall have something to say about criminals later. I sympathise with what my hon. Friend says. It is important to note that Mr. Andrew Large, for example, of the Securities and Investments Board recently said that he would be in favour of moving, when and where possible, towards reducing bureaucracy and form filling, provided that greater transparency and disclosure by the firms with which he deals can be assured. He believes that a trade-off may prove possible. I welcome that and hope that he will explore the matter further.

    1159
    I shall refer to just one or two specific matters in the report without trying to be exhaustive. I draw the House's attention to paragraphs 60 and 61. The Committee felt that the time had come to review the Financial Services Act 1986 not because we did not believe that the Act was flexible—clearly, it is—but because it may be deficient in some respects. Paragraph 60 says:
    "The problems faced by the regulatory system in dealing with products which do not fall clearly within the remit of one regulator come to the heart of difficulties rooted within the Act itself … The key exclusion from the Act is lending."
    An example of that which probably struck the Committee more than any other was the fact that mortgage choice is not regulated under the Financial Services Act. The Committee took evidence in respect of a difficult problem with home income plans, which caused us a great deal of distress and anxiety. We certainly do not want to see that happen again. It was an unfortunate and, in some ways, deplorable affair, which caused us a great deal of upset. It is for those reasons, again based upon evidence, that we felt that the time had come to look again at the Financial Services Act, and to consider whether it is sufficient to deal with the rapidly changing market.
    That theme is taken up again in paragraph 66 of our report, where we draw attention to the plethora of regulators in the United Kingdom. The evidence from Mr. Sharples of the Securities and Futures Authority was particularly impressive. He said of international regulatory conferences:
    "I have always been embarrassed because we sit round this table and there are two from France, there may be a couple from Germany, three from the United States and usually about ten from Britain: the Bank of England, the Treasury, the SIB, the SFA and so on."
    That is why the Committee concluded:
    "The implication is that regulatory diversity in the UK means that it is unclear who the lead regulator is in a particular area or for a particular institution."
    Such confusion occurs from time to time. We went on to state:
    "This confusion is not conducive to the formation of a coherent international approach, where a clear vision of developments in the market and the appropriate regulatory response is essential."
    When my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) intervened, he talked about crooks and other such problems. The collapse of Barings bank took place during the course of the Committee's inquiry. That led us to reflect deeply on the problems of international co-operation and the need to have clear demarcation lines in terms of regulation. Mr. Sharples' evidence was very much in our mind when we considered the collapse of Barings and its consequences.
    The Committee's report went into some detail on the nature of regulation and supervision. I do not propose to rehearse those arguments. In compiling the report, the Committee was concerned to provide not merely opinions but a quarry of useful evidence and advice from distinguished outsiders that could be used in future by the Government, the Opposition and other parties, regulators and the City. I hope that we shall achieve that objective because I am sure that the papers and library of evidence that we have built up will help greatly in that process.
    It is clear that there have been and continue to be some tensions and difficulties between the SIB and the self-regulatory organisations. I do not find that altogether
    1160
    surprising because, over time, the SROs, and the SIB above them, have gradually become more accustomed to using the Financial Services Act, and have therefore enhanced and developed their roles. They have become much more proactive. As Mr. Large put it in paragraph 92 of our report:
    "Yes, the SROs have become stronger frontline regulators and I think we should regard that as a success rather than a failure. It is exactly what we all intended."
    His judgment was and is correct. The SIB has also increased its role in a manner that I welcome.
    I recognise that the tensions between the SIB and the SROs will not disappear overnight, but with patience and the passage of time, and given the hard work taking place now, I am sure that some of those difficulties will be overcome.
    I should like to refer to Barings and the position of the Bank of England in some detail. One reason why the Committee is so keen for the Treasury to take full responsibility for the regulation of financial services in our country is that, in addition to the work on which we spent a great deal of time—all the operations of the Financial Services Act—we recognised that the Bank of England, as the lead supervisor and regulator for the banking industry, and responsible as it is to the Treasury, also, in practice, must have dealings with other financial institutions, some of which are not regulated by the Treasury.
    The Committee has had plenty of difficulties and scandals with which to deal, Barings being the most recent. In the past decade three serious scandals have affected the Bank of England—Johnson Matthey, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and Barings. Each time, the Committee has been given assurances that lessons had been learnt and that improvements have been made. That information is most welcome, but life does not stand still and in our fast-moving world the pace of events seems to dictate that, sooner or later, another batch of problems and another crooked deal comes to pass and the result is a catastrophe.
    The collapse of Barings was a catastrophe, and most people recognise it as such. As I said in Committee to Mr. George, the Governor of the Bank of England, the Committee is not engaged in a witch hunt against the supervisory staff of the Bank of England—far from it. We recognise the long hours and the hard work that they put in, but we are entitled to question the apparent discrepancy between the report of the Board of Banking Supervision into the collapse of Barings and that which the Committee has now received from the inspectors appointed by the Minister of Finance in Singapore, in which a different tale apparently emerges. For that reason we will want to take further evidence in the new year to try to get to the bottom of what happened.
    We all welcome the review of the Bank's supervisory functions that is now being undertaken by Arthur Andersen. The Minister referred to that report in her reply to the Committee's report. She specifically stated that before committing herself to a further review of the Bank's supervisory functions by the Treasury and the Government, she would want to take into account the report from Arthur Andersen and the Committee's future report into the details surrounding the collapse of Barings.
    As the House knows, the Committee took a great deal of evidence on Lloyd's. I do not propose to dwell too much on it beyond saying that, once again, we were of

    1161
    he opinion that events as they unfolded showed the need for a greater concentration of effort within the Treasury and the need for external regulation. When all is said and done, we were not of the opinion that confidence could be fully restored in Lloyd's by the current regulatory arrangements. I know that there are those in the market who find that irritating, but that is the judgment that we reached on the evidence that we heard, and it continues to be our view.
    We recognise that Lloyd's has gone a long way towards making improvements, and of course we welcome that, but we feel that more needs to be done. It is encouraging that, as far as I know, not one single policy-holder has yet been in the position where the market has refused to pay. On the contrary, Lloyd's has continued to function throughout its difficulties, and I hope that it will be able to trade through them and emerge all the stronger. Precisely for the reasons that I gave at the start of my speech, however, the Committee believes that in the interests of transparency and accountability the market would be strengthened and its reputation enhanced if our proposals were accepted.
    In conclusion, I welcome the support that the Government and other Departments have given the Committee in terms of the expert witnesses from the Government who have appeared before us. I welcome my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary's positive reply to our recommendations. I urge her to take them seriously and not to allow too much time to elapse before putting a number of them into effect. I hope that the Government, the official Opposition and other parties in the House will feel able to move ahead in a way that will command general support.
    7.29 pm
    Mr. Giles Radice: I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold), who chaired the Select Committee in an admirable fashion and produced a report that was broadly agreed—except for our arguments over the relationship between the SIB and the SROs. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good work and I wish him luck in his continuing chairmanship.
    The Select Committee has played a valuable role. Some of us came to the subject with open minds: in my case, it was an open mind perhaps tinged with ignorance. I have certainly learnt a good deal during our 46 sittings. We took a massive amount of written evidence, which seemed to go on and on; we sometimes felt that it would never end. The Select Committee has given the general public a great opportunity to see what is happening in the City and to argue out the case. It has given the institutions a chance to discuss matters in public and it has given the regulators a chance to argue their own corner; they certainly did a fair amount of that during our sittings.
    We produced a broadly agreed report; there was a difference of emphasis, but the report is extremely useful. It is useful for the Government—I know that there are some differences of emphasis within Government Departments about what should happen and we have been helpful to them on that. The report is useful for Labour because, if after the next general election we should be in
    1162
    government, it will provide a mine of information that was not previously available on which to base our Government policy.
    The City and financial services are of great importance to the economy and to the general public—given how much of our money is managed in the City of London and how many of the products produced by the financial services industry are used by members of the public. It is therefore essential that the general public have confidence in the effectiveness, openness and honesty of the institutions and firms operating in that sector. That is the case for regulation—for having the markets regulated.
    One has to ensure that the regulation does not interfere to such a degree that it piles costs on to firms. But there is a counter-argument which is just as important—I would say more important. Unless the public have confidence in the institutions and firms, we lose out as an economy. The public have been worried about one or two sectors, which has affected business. There is a strong case for good, high-quality regulation.
    Ms Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that another reason for carefully studying financial regulation is that we now have a much wider and less sophisticated consumer base of financial services products than we did a generation ago? Many more people are purchasing mortgages and private pensions—many more unsophisticated people are purchasing financial services products and they therefore need the best and most effective form of regulation that we can provide.
    Mr. Radice: I agree with my hon. Friend, whose keen questioning of witnesses I have always valued. She certainly made that point clearly during our sittings.
    I shall now turn to what I might call the North Warwickshire point. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) on his promotion to the Front Bench, which is well deserved. He moved an amendment that was referred to by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, which represents the nub of the argument between the two sides—inasmuch as there was an argument, this was it.
    We all agreed that there was a problem involving the regulators fighting among themselves—they did so publicly in front of us, so we could hardly avoid drawing that conclusion. There was a problem involving confused responsibilities—some of the witnesses said that. There was a problem about who was responsible for the regulation—a responsibility that has changed over the period. The title SRO is now a misnomer as they are no longer self-regulatory organisations, but have increasingly become—we propose that they should become even more so—organisations containing a majority of public interest members. They are no longer organisations that simply represent the industry professionally—which is, perhaps, how they were originally conceived.
    The SROs have changed and the proposal that the Labour party supports—we turned it over in our minds over a long period and were uncertain about which was the best model—is one where the SROs are, in the words of my hon. Friend's amendment, folded into the SIB. We are not envisaging a massive, bureaucratic organisation—on the contrary, there would be two departments: one responsible for retail and the other responsible for wholesale. Our model would keep some of the best

    1163
    aspects of the SROs such as professional involvement; we need experts who know how the markets work. Such involvement should still be guaranteed, but we would eliminate the unnecessary duplication that occurs at present through the SIB and the SROs. By eliminating duplication, we could reduce costs.
    That structure provides a better model and, through our search for consensus, we made a nod towards the possibility of creating that model. In the full body of the report we said that if the regulators could not come together more effectively than in the past, the case for the model that I have proposed today and that my hon. Friend suggested in Committee will be much stronger. In essence, assuming the general election is 18 months away, the intervening time will provide a good testing period to discover whether the two are moving closer together.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The period is unlikely to be longer.
    Mr. Radice: But the period might be shorter, which is the point that I am making. Those 18 months will provide a good testing period in which people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) will be able to test to discover whether the organisations are coming closer together and whether the model proposed in the amendment is the best one. The intervening time will provide a good testing period for the regulators.
    We produced a separate report and investigation on Lloyd's, although we mentioned the subject in the body of the main report. It was a great experience for me and for many of my colleagues who heard the witnesses who appeared in front of us. I think that one must conclude, as the Committee did, that Lloyd's represented a massive self-regulation failure. That is why the Committee was persuaded that there should be an independent external regulator who is answerable to the Treasury. There can be no practical argument against that case. The Government, even in their dying days, should accept that argument—as I hope that any future Labour Government would. It is a helpful and a sensible move that would help to restore the worldwide reputation of Lloyd's, which has taken a considerable battering in the past 10 years.
    My last point refers back to the comments of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. I have learnt a lot from my service on the Select Committee. I was not a member of the Committee at the time of the collapse of Johnson Matthey, but I chaired the sub-committee that examined the collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, because the then Chairman, as a chartered accountant, had a vested interest and did not wish to become involved. I examined the BCCI case very carefully and I concluded that it represented a supervision failure on the part of the Bank of England. I was not convinced then that the Bank's supervisory role should be separated from its monetary responsibilities, although we laid down some clear proposals to improve the Bank's supervisory capacity and abilities—some of which it followed and others of which it did not.
    We then saw the collapse of Barings. Most people who considered it objectively would conclude that the Bank of England did not do a very good job supervising Barings. Quite a lot of evidence in the Singapore report—which makes very interesting reading—points to that
    1164
    interpretation. I am not embarking upon a witch-hunt against the Bank of England, but we must have more effective supervision.
    In the report, the Committee asks: is the Bank sufficiently divorced from the culture of the banking industry? Some might say, although I do not believe that it does, that that conflicts with the next question: does the Bank have the necessary expertise to be an effective regulator? One of the problems with Barings and BCCI was that the Bank of England did not know enough about the market that it was supposed to supervise. We have asked those questions, but as yet we have not reached any conclusions about them.
    I have now changed my mind; I have been swayed by experience and by recent events and I am now in favour of a separate body. When the Committee visited Frankfurt, we talked to officials from the Bundesbank who argued very strongly that the bank's reputation as a monetary body was more powerful because it was not responsible for bank supervision. Therefore, if mistakes were made in the supervision area, they would not affect the bank's monetary position. I think that that is quite a strong argument and the Bank of England, which is now trying to develop its role in monetary affairs, should consider it very seriously.
    Ms Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the points that he mentioned, there are three problems with the Bank of England as a supervisor? First, it is wedded to a hands-off, laissez faire form of supervision. Specifically, it conducts much less on-site examination than the supervisors that we visited in America and in Europe. There is too much stress on the personal character of the people leading the institution as opposed to the detail of checks and balances.
    Secondly, the Bank's perception of its role as supervisor is rather different from the way in which the public perceive it. It believes that its role is to ensure that there is no risk to the system and once it is sure of that, it tends to think that its job is done. However, the ordinary punter in Hackney or North Warwickshire tends to think that the Bank should offer some degree of security to depositors and consumers. Thirdly, the Bank of England cannot be shifted from its belief that it is absolutely the best supervisor in the world.
    Mr. Radice: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that brilliant mini-speech in which she encapsulated her arguments—or perhaps trailed the arguments that she will use on another occasion. She is absolutely correct: they are the proper arguments to deploy.
    I have now come around to the view that bank supervision should be conducted by a separate body. I do not know the Labour party's position in that regard, but the Government continue to support the Bank of England and its view that banking supervision should not be separate. I think that it would be better for the Bank of England, for banking supervision, banks and the general public if we were to make that reform.
    I think that I have spoken quite long enough. This is my last speech in the House as a member of the Select Committee—I had my last hurrah in Committee when the Chancellor appeared before us yesterday. I believe that Select Committees perform good work. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee comprises a curious body of men and women who have very different and disparate

    1165
    views on many matters. It is quite remarkable how, more often than not, we manage to produce agreed reports. A key feature of the Select Committees is its power to send for persons and papers; that is what makes Select Committees powerful. Mr. Andrew Man, the brilliant columnist for the Independent—
    Mr. Nigel Forman: Brilliant?
    Mr. Radice: Yes, I think that he is brilliant. He wrote a book entitled "Ruling Britannia", in which he makes the enormous error of playing down the role of Select Committees. He says that interviewers on programmes such as "Newsnight" are much more powerful interrogators than Members of Parliament. That may be so, but they do not have the same powers. They cannot send for the head of the civil service or the Governor of the Bank of England and question them. They cannot call people from Lloyd's to appear before them. Select Committees have an enormous advantage which we must put to good effect because that is what makes our work valuable.
    I wish my Select Committee colleagues—if I can call them that—well in their further deliberations. I hope that their next report about the City and regulation is not quite so long in coming as this one was.
    7.48 pm
    Mr. Douglas French: Under class XVI, vote 1, no fewer than 12 documents are listed on the Order Paper as relevant to this debate. Of those documents, the sixth report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee is unquestionably the most important.
    The Committee was ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold), and other hon. Members who are present in the Chamber served on it. I congratulate them on what is undoubtedly an excellent report. It contains a mine of evidence and information and reaches a number of very sound conclusions—although I am not entirely sure that it would serve the purpose of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), who seems to believe that a future Labour Government could use the report as a basis for financial services legislation. I do not think that he will find himself in that position, but were he to do so, I suggest that the matter be viewed in a rather wider historical perspective. He vouchsafed that he learned things when serving on the Committee, and I am sure he did, but I wonder how much attention he paid to the long history of the subject, and in particular, the long history of the retail side.
    The sixth report is the most up to date, but in considering the insurance, savings and investment side of the industry, we must go back to 1982 and 1984, when the Gower report was produced. We have debated the subject almost continuously for more than 10 years, and a number of substantial reports have been published during that time: the Gower report, the Securities and Investments Board report in 1989, the Clucas report in 1992, and Andrew Large's report in 1993. Each was regarded at the time as the report to end all reports, but the debate has continued nevertheless.
    During those 10 years, there has been a significant restructuring of self-regulatory organisations. During a five-year period following the Financial Services Act
    1166
    1986, it was continually said that the Act was not working as well as people had hoped. The Treasury said that such legislation should be given time to "bed down": that was its favourite expression.
    When the "bedding down" period became too long to be credible, we were told that it was not appropriate to embark on new primary legislation, because that would send the prospect of a solution to the perceived problems too far into the future. We have been stuck in a limbo, in which practitioners in particular recognise significant deficiencies in the workings of the Financial Services Act, but there is a difference of opinion on how those deficiencies should be rectified and on whether primary legislation is required.
    Meanwhile, during those 10 years, the poor practitioners have been trying to run their businesses. They have been faced with rule books and practice directions that have changed, and with consultation papers heralding further change; they have been buried under an enormous burden of constantly changing regulation. That is not the sort of environment in which any business—particularly the savings, investment and insurance business—can hope to prosper.
    It is easy to lose sight of the original purpose of the Financial Services Act. I can sum up that purpose in six words, although many volumes have been published that say the same thing: "Sell something suitable and be honest." The attempt to implement that principle, however, has gone seriously wrong. The original intention was laudable, but its execution has backfired and, in some respects, has proved self-defeating.
    The original principle was that the client must have a proper choice of product, accompanied by independent advice that came to be described as "best advice". That is a praiseworthy aim in itself, but major institutions found it impossible to implement. Soon after the Financial Services Act, many institutions with household names endeavoured to offer independent advice and a proper choice from a range of products, but one by one they dropped out.
    The last two big names to provide such a service were the National Westminster bank and the Bradford and Bingley building society; I believe that the Bradford and Bingley is now the last major institution that is still clinging to the principle of offering independent "best advice". The requirement to offer clients that service has been made so difficult to deliver that institutions have abandoned any hope of doing so. Surely that is contrary to the original intention of the Act.
    Another principle was that the client must be given good value. There have been many examples of clients being sold poor-value products. They had been sold life insurance or investment policies whose returns were unreasonably low, or whose surrender values were discounted to a ridiculous extent.
    The worst abuses appear to have been removed at the expense of giving everyone poorer value: the overall costs of compliance, especially in the insurance sector, have become massive. Institutions have huge compliance departments devoting their efforts to ensuring that no rules are broken, and ensuring that lengthy procedures are followed. They impose spot checks themselves, or try to ensure that, when such checks are imposed by visiting regulators, they measure up to requirements.

    1167
    That has used up a large amount of management time in an unproductive way. Moreover, the process has been so costly that products offered by some institutions have become considerably less competitive than they would otherwise have been. After all, the costs of compliance—the costs of the whole regulatory regime—are ultimately borne by the investor or the policy holder: they will come out of his premium or deposit. That is the part of his money that is not invested, which means that investment returns are worse than they would otherwise have been.
    That is one reason why business has become so much more difficult to write for the retail sector and the life insurance companies. The institutional compliance costs have become greater than is justified, which detracts from the potential value of the product.
    Ms Abbott: The Select Committee has already heard all this heart-rending stuff about the tremendous burden of regulation. Before Opposition Members all break down in tears, will the hon. Gentleman answer a question? If the problem is too much regulation rather than too little, why have we seen the horrendous scandal of mis-selling of personal pensions, home income plans and endowment mortgages?
    Mr. French: I do not mean to sound heart-rending; I think that I am reflecting the views of the management of most leading life insurance companies. Such companies can make an important contribution to our economic life and our business potential overseas.
    The hon. Lady picked on three examples. It is true that the industry has failed in those cases, but they do not remotely represent the way in which the industry conducts its business generally. It is possible to identify shortcomings in almost any industry, and the hon. Lady has identified three important shortcomings, but in the context of all the business undertaken by those institutions, even those shortcomings—heart-rending though they may be—are comparatively insignificant.
    Another problem that has made life difficult for institutions endeavouring to sell life insurance and investment-related products in particular is the fact-find, which has to be completed whenever a sale is made. I have seen fact-finds that extend to 72 pages. They are for products which may be fairly but not over complex. That is a very thorough approach, but I suggest that it is, in fact, overkill, that it is too thorough. It makes it extremely difficult, even for an honest and straightforward salesman, to clinch a deal that might otherwise have been clinched comparatively easily.
    In addition, the sheer drudgery of going through a lengthy fact-find makes the prospective client suspicious and inclined to defer purchasing a policy which he might be well advised to have. It is an example of the best being the enemy of the good, when, in order to ensure that not a single tiny detail is missed, one must go through a procedure that results in the business not being done at all. That is a disadvantage, of course, to the institution, but also to the prospective policy holder.
    Mr. Forman: Is my hon. Friend sure that all the excessive questionnaires, which I have also seen, are attributable to regulatory obligations? I have a feeling that many of the questionnaires, which no ordinary person is under a legal obligation to answer, exist to create market
    1168
    opportunities for conglomerate financial institutions which wish to pass information from one part of their activity to another in order to open up other avenues of business.
    Mr. French: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but there is also a third explanation. More questions may be asked than are strictly necessary, but only in order to ensure that the approach is very cautious, and that nothing that a compliance officer or regulator might subsequently say should have been noticed was not noticed. That is what I describe as overkill.
    Too many questions are asked and too many answers are received, so that the financial institutions are not caught out. If they are caught out, the penalties are severe. I accept, however, my hon. Friend's point that additional information may be thought highly desirable for marketing purposes by other parts of the same institution.
    Let me give the House another example of where I think that the regulatory regime is too burdensome. Friendly societies are in the business of selling comparatively small policies, what they call small ticket business involving premiums of, say, £10 or £20 a month. Even though the salesman is selling such a small policy, the full panoply of the regulatory regime falls on him, and the enormous cost of regulation is reflected in the value, or otherwise, of the policies that he sells.
    That is acceptable if the policies involve a large premium, or if the sellers are institutions offering a broad range of policies. In the latter case, the regulatory cost of the £10-a-month policies can be shared with that of the £500-a-month policies, so that the cost is evened out. Friendly societies, however, do not have large-premium business. That means that there is a conflict between the cost of regulation within the premiums that they are charging and the Government's present policy, which is to give a tax concession to people paying premiums to friendly societies on qualifying policies. I have evidence that the value of the tax concession in respect of such a policy can be outweighed by the cost of the regulatory regime. That is a ridiculous situation that requires attention.
    One of the consequences of the difficulty that the industry has had in following the requisite sales procedures correctly has been the generation of new forms of what are known as direct products. Very often, they are execution-only products, and no advice is offered. Of course, they are attractive, because it is the giving of advice and the responsibility involved in giving it that are expensive. If products can be sold separately from the giving of advice, they are likely to be easier to sell and, if correctly sold, might represent better value for the purchaser.
    With such products, however, there is absolutely nothing to prevent the client from buying something wholly unsuitable. That means that they escape the regulatory regime completely, and ever more products are being sold in that way to avoid the heavy regulatory regime that would otherwise apply.
    It has become easier to sell such products thanks to the recent improvements in technology. Much has become possible because the telephone and computer can work swiftly together to clinch sales. I believe that the problem will become greater as financial services come to be offered on the Internet—indeed, this is already happening—and become available on a cross-border

    1169
    basis. There is likely to be a proliferation of direct, no-advice, execution-only products, which escape the regulatory regime altogether even though they may be wholly unsuitable for the person buying them.
    I have a high regard for the people currently responsible for the Personal Investment Authority and the Securities and Investments Board. They are undoubtedly trying to act in the best possible interests of the consumer and the industry. Ultimately, there must be common ground between those two interests. However, an independent financial adviser, who is a member of the PIA, came to my surgery last week. He brought with him the PIA rule book, the PIA fact-find—or his version based on what the PIA requires—and copies of 16 consultative documents issued by the PIA or the SIB in the past 18 months or so. He felt that he should have a passing interest in all of them, or that he should at least have read them. He said that, if he were an employee of Allied Dunbar, for example, he would have a department to read the documents for him and advise him when he needed to take notice of them in the daily conduct of his business.
    However, as he is an IFA heading a company of only eight people, the responsibility fell on him. He said that there were hundreds or even thousands of IFAs across the country in exactly the same position. One day in every fortnight—or 10 per cent. of his business time—had to be devoted to reading the latest material from the self-regulatory organisation. He suggested that the situation was out of control.
    That might be the right way to deal with people proposing deliberately to be dishonest or negligent in their selling of products, but it should not be necessary for that person, as an honest and competent intermediary, to devote 10 per cent. of his time to reading the rule book instead of going out and getting the business on which his living depends. I have considerable sympathy with him. The current rule books are too complex, burdensome and detailed. They work on the assumption—a wrong assumption—that people in the industry will always do a bad job.
    In general, all this is doing great damage to the insurance and personal investment industry. It does not help customers, except in a small number of extreme cases. Meanwhile, it is increasing costs and reducing the value of the products on offer. It also renders those products less sophisticated and less tailor-made to the client—the exact opposite of the original intention behind the Financial Services Act.
    Moreover, insurance and investment institutions are being prevented from enjoying the sound, thriving domestic market which is so essential if they are to play their proper part in European and world markets. We have a wonderful basis on which to build; this country's institutions are highly sophisticated. They have a marvellous opportunity to do well in overseas markets, but the current domestic market is proving so difficult that what could be golden opportunities are being lost.
    I agree with a number, although not all, of the proposals in the Select Committee report. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove about placing all responsibility for the retail and wholesale markets with the Treasury.
    1170
    I should like a greater recognition of the fact that we should not throw the doctrine of caveat emptor out of the window. It seems only right to invest some responsibility in the client for what he is doing. At present, all responsibility seems removed from him. That is why I was pleased to read the recent speech by Andrew Large on this very point. He said:
    "Over time we may see a shift away from the bulk of the customers placing trust and reliance in financial advisers towards a situation where more of them take full responsibility for their own investment decisions."
    That is the direction towards which we should strive. I am certain that there should be less prescription. The benefits of a product, and its price, should be clearly presented; but there must not be so many prescriptive rules governing the exact procedures involved in selling the products.
    I also believe that regulation requires some cost benefit content. It is all too easy for self-regulatory organisations to make regulations without regard to their cost to the industry. Whenever new regulations are made, some assessment of the likely accompanying costs should be a requirement. I also agree with the proposal to rationalise the SROs. The proposal most often made—one SRO for the retail and another for the wholesalside—commands a great deal of support.
    Lastly, we need a vigorous enforcement mechanism and effective redress for people when things go seriously wrong. At present, a huge amount of effort is devoted to ensuring that nothing goes wrong in any sale of any retail product. If something small goes wrong, someone may suffer a small amount of damage. The greater effort should therefore be directed to vigorous enforcement when there have been serious departures from what should happen.
    All this leads me to my final conclusion. I have great respect for the Minister who is to answer the debate. I believe I am right in saying that her view is that what we want can be achieved through existing legislation. I, on the other hand, have reached the view that primary legislation will be necessary to reach our objectives.
    8.14 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I was waiting with bated breath to see what conclusion the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) would arrive at. When it came, it was not quite what I had been expecting. Most of his speech seemed to be against regulation, so his ending surprised us.
    I defer in these matters to other members of the Select Committee, because I joined it only when most of the work had been done and most of the evidence had been taken. I am therefore not as apprised of the issues as is the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice). Nevertheless, we all have an interest in them.
    Whatever our differences of view, no one is looking for heavier regulation. What we want is more effective regulation, to engender confidence at home and abroad. The reputation of the City of London and of our financial services and banking regulations is an important factor in the confidence of the home market and of our European and international markets.
    The crises and scandals can have an international impact—the banking scandals are a case in point; the impact of the Lloyd's crisis might be termed intermediate;

    1171
    then there are the domestic scandals which also affect the reputation of the City. That is why we must all be concerned to find a regulatory framework which is effective, confidence-inspiring and good for the City's reputation, at home and abroad.
    The hon. Member for Gloucester rightly said that there is a balance to be struck: regulation must not stifle the flexibility and innovation which are characteristic of British financial service institutions and which render them world class. There is a huge cultural difference between our system and the conservative and cautious approach in Germany to the financial instruments of saving and investment. The approach in the United Kingdom is far more creative and flexible; in general, that means that every pound invested through the City of London will produce a better return. Of course, more risks are involved too.
    All this points to the conclusion that we need to get the balance right. We cannot afford another catastrophe at home or abroad, because the City's reputation is already tarnished. If we fail to ensure that the system can anticipate scandals, we will face a problem that could have long-term repercussions for the City's earnings.
    It is widely argued now that the self-regulatory organisations are wrongly described. They have become much more formalised; there has been some blurring at the edges, resulting in confusion. There is a clear need to tidy up that confusion. Indeed, some of the problems to which the hon. Member for Gloucester referred may have arisen precisely because of confusion over where the boundaries lie. That could be reduced if the lines of communication were made clearer.
    Here, too, a fine balance needs to be struck between practitioners and consumers. Perhaps there should be an over-arching umbrella under which a bilateral division is set up. Even if boards are set up with a slight majority of practitioners, to ensure that regulations are based on knowledge of the internal workings of the market, the effective chair should perhaps be drawn from the consumer side so as to provide balance and confidence.
    I certainly do not intend to launch a broadside against the Minister's response to the report, which I have managed to read through quickly. I would say, however, that there was a wait-and-see flavour to her response, suggesting that she is not quite as apprised as we are of the need for definitive action in all these areas. The hon. Member for North Durham pointed out that, after three major banking scandals, it is becoming difficult to believe that the Bank of England is the right institution to regulate banking.
    The hon. Gentleman's point about the Bundesbank and the benefit that the Bank of England would have from that separation is powerful. That must be worthy of consideration as we move towards a more independent central bank. The Minister knows perfectly well that I and my party favour an operationally independent central bank and believe in any case that, if we move towards monetary union, we will have to take that step. That being the case, it seems better that the Bank concentrates on its role as monetary regulator, and divests itself of the role of banking regulator.
    Having given that as my personal opinion, I say to the Minister that I am not sure about her waiting for the Bank's report—which is presumably the Arthur Andersen report—and the Select Committee report. Although all of
    1172
    us on that Committee are grateful for the role and status that she gives the Committee, and in spite of the very important points made by the hon. Member for North Durham about the power of Committees to take evidence, the Government should commission their own clearly independent inquiry, at the very least—if they do not accept the argument—to determine whether the separation would be beneficial.
    This is no pejorative criticism of Arthur Andersen or any consultant at all, but when the Bank of England commissions a firm of consultants to look into something independently, the consultants tend to work out who the purchaser is and what kind of reply they might be looking for; it is only human nature. The report therefore inevitably falls into the category of being commissioned by the Bank of England.
    It is not entirely clear what the Bank of England's view is. Eddie George says that he is relaxed, and is not fighting hard either way. That being the case, the Government therefore would not cause any particular difficulties at the Bank if they were to commission an independent report.
    The members of the Committee who worked on the report throughout produced a great deal of detail, a great deal of information and a clear indication that specific steps need to be taken to move the matter forward. It may be that the Minister wishes to leave the decision on action to the next Government. That might be the right thing to do.
    But there are one or two useful things that the Minister could do to show that the Government were in control and recognised that we were moving in the right direction. The industry itself has been moving in the right direction, but pretty well everyone one talks to acknowledges that we need a reformed legislative framework. Indeed, there is potential cross-party agreement on the desirability of that.
    In his opening remarks, the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold), rightly stressed that, whatever the differences among members of the Committee, the strength of common ground is much more important. In that sense, there is plenty that the Government could do to move the matter forward without opening up party differences. I would certainly regret it if the issue became in any way a party political battleground, because the working of these markets, both at home and abroad, is a vital component of the British economy and must be got right.
    The system is not working correctly at the moment, and nobody really believes it is. We are exposed, due to the question mark over the reputation of our financial services institutions and the City of London, and we have a duty to ourselves, as well as to the City's international reputation, to do something about it. The Committee has produced a report that points in the right direction, and I urge the Minister to take it up with slightly more enthusiasm than her response suggests she intends to do.
    8.23 pm
    Mr. Nigel Forman: I declare my interests as they are registered in the Register of Members' Interests. They are in some way relevant to the debate in the sense that they give me a background in these matters that is slightly more knowledgeable than it

    1173
    would otherwise be. From that point of view, there is no harm in Members of Parliament having openly declared outside interests.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) not only on the compelling way in which he spoke, but on the highly competent way in which he chaired our Committee through this long set of hearings. He managed with his usual subtlety to produce a well-balanced report and one with which, broadly speaking, I found myself in agreement, even thoughalas—I was not able to be present at the final voting sessions on the report.
    It is good that the House had the opportunity to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French). Although what he said might not have been flavour of the month with all Opposition Members, it needed to be said. There is another point of view on these matters, which was well reflected in my hon. Friend's speech. I commend him for the way in which he put his case.
    I remind the House of the vital importance of financial services to our national economy—both now and in the future—especially services in the City of London, which is almost a form of shorthand for them. I hasten to add, though, that many other financial centres are growing where offices and so on cost less, which are very important. I think of Edinburgh, Brighton, Cheltenham and a number of other places.
    First, it is perhaps not widely known that financial services represent about one sixth of our national economy—and the proportion is growing all the time. Secondly, the City of London itself has an unduly—or perhaps I should say very strikingly—high proportion of global equity and bond trading, of foreign exchange transactions, of derivatives trading, of marine, life and non-life insurance and of fund management. That is not just because we are the widely acknowledged leader in our time zone, as it is called, but, I can say quite dogmatically, it is because in certain specialty areas there is no financial centre in the world to match the City of London. Long may that remain. It is a vital national interest that it should be so.
    I would like to comment on the collapse of Barings, which has been mentioned in the debate. With the wisdom of 20-20 hindsight, the collapse of Barings may not have been such a bad thing; it was sad, but salutary. I say that because it was large enough to trigger a major review and shake-up of the necessary controls, especially on derivatives and rocket scientists' instruments, but it was small enough not to threaten a systemic collapse either of our financial system or of the global financial system. From that point of view, again with 20-20 hindsight, it has served not only our interests but the wider interests rather well.
    Looking at some of the main issues in our report, I should like to say a word or two about first principles. First, the protection of investors and consumers is obviously the main concern of the House of Commons in financial services, and rightly so. Indeed, it was the Committee's main concern. But that protection and general safeguarding of their interests should not be taken to the extent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester has already said, of removing all need for caveat emptor and of removing all moral hazards. After
    1174
    all, people are expected to be grown up in most other areas of their life, so why should financial services be a notable exception?
    Secondly, it would not be wise for us to over-burden the sector with excessive rules and costs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester also said. Thirdly, one must recall that all jurisdictions these days—tax and regulatory—are in fact involved in a form of international global competition. It was not always like that, but it is now, in a world of footloose capital and mobile individuals. As a result of that, we have to take account, as must the Treasury, of the danger of driving lucrative and lawful business offshore if our regulatory and tax climate were to become too intrusive.
    Fourthly, if we move, broadly speaking, from trust to contract, which is a brief soundbite describing what has been going on over the past 10 years, we must recognise that we are being driven in a more and more legalistic direction. One has only to look across the water to the United States to see the downside of that if it is allowed to be taken too far. Therefore, while protection of the consumer and the investor must be absolutely important, it must be balanced by the rather commonsense factors that I have just mentioned.
    My second theme is the structure of regulation, with which the Committee's report is largely concerned. I remind the House, not that it needs to be reminded, that the current structure traces itself back to the free concordat between Lord Parkinson—who is now in another place but who was then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—and Sir Nicholas Goodison.
    The deal was done essentially in relation to the stock exchange. It eventually found its way through to the Financial Services Act 1986. It gave birth to what the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) has described as self-regulation. That is a misnomer in today's world. More appropriate would be the term practitioner-influenced regulation. That is what it is and that is what it should be. In other words, it is regulation by consent based upon what is practicable.
    We may write as many elaborate rule books as we like—there were some signs that the Securities and Investments Board would do that in the days of Sir Kenneth Berrill—but that merely creates extra problems rather than new solutions. I am delighted that the trend of the SIB was pulled back to some extent by subsequent chairmen. Mr. Large is doing an excellent job and getting the balance about right.
    It is worth saying that good regulation is in the market interests of the regulated. That is important. In responsible and reputable markets such as those based in London and other cities in the United Kingdom, practitioners see good regulation as being in their market interests. They want a good regulatory structure within which to operate and they wish to abide by its regulations. Enormously adverse publicity is attracted to any financial institution if it gets things wrong or steps on the wrong side of the line. That demonstrates the strength of my argument.
    Paragraph 26 of the Government's response takes up the argument whether there are too many layers of regulation. In the Select Committee, Opposition Members, especially the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), expressed the view that there are. They argued that rather than having the departmental level, the SIB level and the self-regulatory

    1175
    organisation level, we should have two rather than three. It was suggested that at the departmental level the Treasury should have sole responsibility.
    I quibble only about the desire of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and his hon. Friends to make three layers into two. On reflection, I think that the three-layer system is satisfactory and, by international standards, is working pretty well. I agree, however, with Opposition Members in their keenness to give the Treasury sole and therefore lead responsibility within Whitehall for arrangements at departmental level. That makes good sense. I happen to know that the Treasury is becoming increasingly geared up for that purpose and is attracting many well-qualified people to its ranks to undertake supervisory functions in so far as they belong in a Department of Government.
    If I had to justify the continuation of three layers, which is what I favour, I would argue that the top layer, the Treasury, would provide the necessary public accountability through Ministers to the House for the framework of law and for the broad lines within which the structure operates. The middle layer, which is represented by the SIB, would be there to regulate the regulators. That is the way in which Mr. Large describes his main role. The bottom layer, in a hands-on and day-to-day way, would administer regulation and ensure that wherever possible it was done with the intelligent and active co-operation of the regulated.
    As I have said, the regulated recognise that it is in their interests to co-operate and to be on the right side of any line. On my quick reading of the Government's response, which I accept took place only this evening, I was glad to read the concluding sentence in paragraph 35, which states:
    "The Government considers that the review mentioned by the Committee would be destabilising for an industry which has already seen considerable change and therefore is urging all regulatory bodies to ensure that such a review will not be necessary."
    I agree with that sentiment and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will adhere to it.
    I support the idea of the Treasury being given the sole and consequently key departmental role in the three-layer structure, but I would like to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister, when she replies, a little more about the Government's thinking. As set out in the Government's response, it is delphic. Paragraph 26 reads that the Government are quite warm to the idea of having the Treasury as the main Department involved, but adds that
    "wider issues … will need careful consideration".
    The House deserves to know what some of those wider issues are. It is unfortunate if the Minister has to be coy. If that is the position, we might have to pursue the matter elsewhere at a higher level.
    The present structure is, broadly, working rather well and needs to be left well alone. We should not spend all our time in this place pulling up plants to see how the roots are getting on. There is no decisive advantage in fundamental change. That is the point that I made in some of the friendly arguments that I had with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire when in Select Committee. We used to cross swords on the issue.
    The corollary of what I have just said is that the House and legislators generally should remain constantly vigilant about these matters and not be complacent. Our financial services attract some of the brightest and most energetic
    1176
    in our society, but some of them may be tempted from time to time to transgress. It is vital that we as the supreme regulatory body in the United Kingdom be alert to any danger of mis-selling or malpractice. Aside from that, I do not want to end on a negative note. Let us celebrate the contribution that is made by financial services to the economy, jobs, inward investment and everything else. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that contribution.
    8.36 pm
    Mr. Matthew Carrington: First, I declare my interests as in the Register of Members' Interests. I declare also an interest that I understand is still not registrable, which is that my wife works at the London international financial futures exchange. I understand, as I have said, that it is not a registrable interest but it is something that the House will wish to know before I continue.
    It has been a good debate because we have seen what is often apparent in the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service—that is, a measure of strong agreement throughout all parties. I welcome that consensus.
    We are not discussing a barnstorming report. Nevertheless, it is a worthy report. It highlights important issues that need to be considered but are not capable of instantaneous solution. Nor should they be capable of it.
    I do not propose to go through the details contained in the report. That has been done already, and extremely capably, by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold), who chairs so excellently the Select Committee, and by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), whose presence in Committee we shall greatly miss. We are pleased that he has transformed himself to another Select Committee—or that is what we understand—but we shall miss his wise advice and contributions to our meetings.
    The report is important because we have highlighted the purpose of regulation. I say that because the purpose of regulation is not immediately obvious. Indeed, the purpose is difficult to define. Regulation varies enormously depending on what we are trying to regulate. One of the most obvious purposes of regulation is to stop wrongdoing. It is clear that the purpose of regulators is to catch crooks. That is the easy part of understanding regulation.
    With regard to protection of the public, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), protecting the public is a complex business. If we try to protect them in the wholesale markets it is necessary to have a certain form of regulation, whereas in the retail market a very different form of regulation is needed. It is possible to say that the Financial Services Act 1986 has worked quite well in wholesale regulation, but perhaps less well in the retail sector. Not only have enormous burdens been put on to the practitioners in the retail sector, but there have been significant failures of regulation, such as the mis-selling of products, which has already been described.
    Perhaps one of the major purposes of the regulator, and possibly therefore of regulation, is really to create transparency. It is to enable people to exercise the right of caveat emptor when they are buying a product, and to know what they are buying. Frequently, perhaps

    1177
    especially in the retail sector—although I know from experience that it happens in the wholesale sector too—the same product can be packaged so as to make it hard for someone who wishes to buy it to determine from whom to buy it, to the best advantage of the purchaser.
    Of course, another purpose of regulation is to avoid crashes, such as that of Barings. Another theme that emerged from our report is that regulation in the banking sector has not been very effective in stopping crashes, and I shall ask in a moment whether that could be improved.
    However, the real purpose of regulation is more than all those things: it is to instil confidence in the markets that are being regulated. That was one of the criticisms that came out of our separate report on Lloyd's. The question was not whether Lloyd's is being properly regulated now—although there is no doubt that it was not properly regulated in the past. In some ways, whether it is properly regulated now is not the issue. The issue is whether the people who might place their insurance business with Lloyd's believe that it is being properly regulated. That is the strongest argument for an external rather than an internal regulator for Lloyd's. The question is purely one of confidence.
    We have heard about the conflict between the Securities and Investments Board and the self-regulatory organisations. That has led some members of the Select Committee, as well as other hon. Members who are not members of the Committee, to conclude that the SIB should absorb the SROs. In some respects that is a perfectly rational argument, and it is not an argument with a great political element to it. The decision should be made on grounds of practicality and functionality.
    Rather as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), I suspect that a system of dynamic conflict between the SIB and the SROs is rather helpful, in that it answers the age-old question: who will regulate the regulator? A regulator's ability to become complacent—and, one must say, corrupt—is substantial. Although none of our regulators has shown any sign of being corrupt, there are examples from all round the world of regulators who have become extremely corrupt, and one does not have to look far, either geographically or back in history, to find them.
    There is a great need for somebody who monitors regulators very closely and who, indeed, has a certain amount of conflict over turf with them, so as to ensure that there is a degree of competition.
    That leads me on to the role of the Bank of England, especially in the light of the collapses of Barings, of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and of Johnson Matthey. The question is whether the Bank of England is capable of supervising banks. I do not think that that is an especially political argument. Again, it comes down to practicality, and I would summarise it in a straightforward way.
    Do we believe that there is an overlap between the role of the Bank of England, first in its regulation of monetary policy and its management of the Government debt—an important, traditional and large function of the Bank—and secondly, in its ability to regulate the money markets and to provide banking supervision?
    Is there a transfer of knowledge between the Bank's management of the various money markets? In other words, by being an active member and participant in the
    1178
    markets, is the Bank of England able to understand problems arising in the other participants in those markets? Can it see problems arising before they become serious, and can it judge the ability of the management with which it is dealing in other institutions? Can that then feed into its appraisal of those banks and its decisions as to whether they are being properly run?
    None of that can possibly be a substitute for the Bank's ability to go in and do a proper audit and inspection of the banks, but it may have access to additional information to which a separate regulator would not have access. If that overlap exists, it is important that it be retained. And the question whether the overlap exists in practice is capable of being determined by a proper inquiry. Possibly the Arthur Andersen inquiry will establish that.
    If the answer is that there is a benefit, the Bank of England should retain its supervision of banks. If not, the answer is probably that it should lose that supervisory role. However, I add one caveat, because my experience, having in the long-distant past worked for an American bank that was regulated by the American banking system, is that that system of regulation, which is separate from the American equivalent of the Bank of England, was very bureaucratic and intense, yet not very effective, as has been shown by the number of bank collapses throughout the United States.
    Before anyone suggests that a change in the way in which we supervise the banks would, by definition, produce a better system of supervision, we should look hard at the experience in other countries, because it may not necessarily support that conclusion.
    The Committee is still in the throes of examining the causes and consequences of the Barings collapse. One of the questions that we need to consider closely is whether the Bank of England can co-operate properly with banking supervisors in other financial centres. One of the big difficulties that we as a Parliament face, and which the Bank of England will also face, is the growing problem of competitive regulation between financial centres.
    There is a large and increasing incentive for regulators in evolving financial centres to provide cheaper and less stringent regulation than we provide in London. The consequence of that would be either that the quality of our supervision would decline, or that London would lose business. I am sure that the Select Committee will return to that subject, and I look forward to debates on the Floor of the House on the future of banking supervision in general.
    8.48 pm
    Mr. Alistair Darling: I start by acknowledging the work of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, which has been praised by every hon. Member who has spoken—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are all on it."] Surely there must be at least one Member present, other than me, who is not a member of that Select Committee. I can praise the Committee genuinely, as I am not a member. In particular, I can acknowledge the way in which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) introduced the Committee's report.
    I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice). It would be wrong for me not to acknowledge his work on the present report and on previous reports of the Select Committee. I have always

    1179
    found his contributions helpful, and equally helpful is the advice that he is prepared to give his colleagues behind the scenes. Of course, my hon. Friend is not leaving us altogether; as is common knowledge, he is moving to another Committee. I am sure that the House will acknowledge his work.
    I would like also to acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), to whom reference was made in just about every speech tonight. My hon. Friend did so well on the Select Committee that he was put in the Opposition's Treasury Front-Bench team and, as a result, cannot say anything tonight. He is here with us tonight, and I can assure the House that he has been saying plenty sotto voce during the debate.
    Most hon. Members who have spoken have made the point that the financial services industry is of immense importance to this country. It has been said that that was not fully appreciated 10 to 15 years ago. The industry—broadly defined—employs nearly 2.5 million people, and not just in the City of London. Clearly, the City of London—as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) said—is one of the three main financial centres in the world, and it is unquestionably the major centre in our time zone.
    Although we are mindful of the competition from other European centres, London does have a pre-eminent status, and the critical mass is here. It is home to more than 500 foreign banks, and many other institutions from outside the United Kingdom are in London because of its importance in the world. It is very important that no Government should do anything that would discourage people from coming to London and remaining in London. We should do everything that we can to continue to encourage London and to build its reputation. This is an industry we are very good at operating and, for that reason, it must be encouraged.
    The industry is not just based in London. Many towns and cities in this country depend on the industry for employment. I represent the constituency of Edinburgh, Central, and Scotland is now Europe's fourth-largest financial centre in terms of funds under management. The industry is important to this country not only as a wealth creator but as a service provider. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) made a series of interventions which, taken together, amounted to a speech. She made the valid point that, unlike in the past, most people now have some contact with the industry in terms of buying products.
    I shall return later to the question of regulation of the retail end of the market. It is crucial that people have the confidence to deal with the retail end of the market, which will grow more important as more and more people want to make provision for themselves and their families. We want to promote saving and we want to encourage people to save. Therefore, it is important that people are able to make informed choices between products and between product advisers. It is important that there should be as much diversity as possible, so people can get the sort of products they need.
    Clearly our discussion tonight has been about the nature of regulation and what it is meant to achieve. One of the objects of regulation must be to ensure that the public interest is met, whereby people who want to buy long-term products are put in the position where it is more
    1180
    likely that they will buy the right sort of product, and less likely that they will make a mistake. I use those words advisedly, because I should acknowledge at the outset that it is not possible to have a foolproof system of regulation. Nobody is asking for that, and arguing for such a system would waste everyone's time.
    I am conscious of the fact that there is some regulatory competition, and the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) referred to that point. I do not think that we should get carried away about it; I do not think that we are quite at the stage where people will leave because of it. However, there are worrying signs. I worry when I see people involved in retail sales setting up bases in Luxembourg and Dublin because of the advantageous regimes there. One wonders how, in the single market, some regimes are able to offer all the encouragement that is not apparently available in this country. The Minister might dwell on that point when she comes to reply.
    One of the things that the Government can do in Europe, and I shall return to this point shortly, is to ensure that our institutions are playing on the much-clichéd level playing field.
    Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman will notice that I paid tribute to Edinburgh in my speech. He should avoid the danger of being complacent about the point of regulatory competition. Evidence has come before the Committee, and we know from other sources, that large multinational conglomerate financial institutions are placing an increasing part of their firepower—if I can call it that—in countries such as India, where there are educated and competent people who are well able to do the job, and communist China. Over the horizon lies the prospect of Shanghai becoming a booming financial centre in its own right. In addition, these places do not recognise western versions of intellectual property.
    Mr. Darling: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but I made the point that we should not get carried away. There are those—I have not heard any of them tonight—who argue that we should have a minimal level of regulation to compete. I intend to return to this point shortly, and I am conscious of the fact that there are problems which must be dealt with. As the hon. Gentleman will find out, the thrust of what I have to say is that it is necessary not just to simplify the structure of regulation but to revisit the nature of regulation because this country is going down the wrong path and a change of direction is necessary. That has been the Opposition's belief for some time. I caution those who would say that the best thing would be to try to compete with those countries where there is no regulation whatsoever. No hon. Member from either side of the House has said that, but the view exists and it must be dealt with.
    The Select Committee covered a wide range of subjects, and I shall touch on one or two before I return directly to the Bank of England and to the SIB regime which have dominated our discussion tonight. I agree in general terms with much of what the Select Committee had to say, but I wish to look at a couple of points briefly.
    The first is the question of Lloyd's. We agree that external regulations are overdue and should be put in place. That view is not unique to the Opposition—Conservative Members have mentioned it, and the council of Lloyd's happens to take that view. I hate to inject a note of controversy into the debate, but it is matter of

    1181
    regret that the former President of the Board of Trade—now the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary, or whatever he calls himself—told the council of Lloyd's that the Government would not sanction legislation. The reason for that was perfectly obvious to Opposition Members—it was because of the political embarrassment in which the Government would have found themselves. At least 49 Conservative Members are members of Lloyd's, many of whom are in the Cabinet.
    The House may remember the last time we debated financial services in the House. The Opposition started off with a general review of what was happening, but very soon two Conservative Members—one who had lost a lot of money and one who was a member of the council of Lloyd's—started saying things to each other in such a way that outsiders would have found it hard to believe that they were in the same party. I can well understand why the President—as he then was—took the view that the Government wanted nothing to do with the matter.
    It is intolerable that the interests of Lloyd's and of the reputation of the insurance market in Britain should take second place to the political embarrassment that the Government would endure if they introduced a further Lloyd's Bill to allow for external regulation. We believe that external regulation is essential and at an appropriate opportunity we intend to give Lloyd's that assistance. That would also help Lloyd's to make the recovery on which it is embarking. I acknowledge, as other hon. Members have done, the work that Lloyd's has been doing.
    Mr. John Butterfill: I am a little puzzled by the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Before I go further, I remind the House of my declared interest in the matter. The hon. Gentleman admits clearly that the council of Lloyd's would be happy to co-operate with any legislation that might be introduced. How might that be embarrassing to the Government?
    Mr. Darling: The council of Lloyd's was keen for legislation to be introduced. I cannot remember whether the hon. Gentleman was present for the earlier discussion on Lloyd's. He will know that whether it is a matter of controversy to his colleagues depends on where they stand on Lloyd's. It was good of the hon. Gentleman to declare his interest. He might also declare that he has just walked into the Chamber. He may have missed the introduction to the debate.
    A section of the report dealt with plea bargaining and enforcement. I caution hon. Members to be careful before institutionalising plea bargaining as a way of resolving problems in the City. The Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States uses it, but its modus operandi is different. 1 argue strongly against buying from the United States an off-the-shelf solution to our problems. That is not to denigrate the SEC. It is an American creation for the American market. I declare an interest as a Scots lawyer. I am wary of importing American legal methods into this country unless there is good justification for doing so.
    I want the Select Committee to do some more work to find out whether the regulatory system could be used to better effect in matters such as insider dealing. The law on
    1182
    insider dealing has fallen into disrepute. There has been a handful of prosecutions in the past 10 years. A number of recent cases, to which I shall not refer, for the sake of brevity, have led the public to believe that the law on insider dealing is not enforced. People who work in the industry will tell anyone who cares to listen that there needs to be a change. Perhaps the regulatory system could help; the criminal law is not working. If there were an effective deterrent, instances of insider dealing would be greatly reduced because people would believe that they had every chance of being caught.
    No one is asking for more regulation. I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. We do not need more regulation. We are talking about effective regulation and fewer rules that work. Four rules that work are worth far more than 400 that do not. I agree with the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that we have an innovative industry. That is why we and everyone else have shied away from notions of supervision or authorisation of products. That would be stifling and unnecessary.
    Talking of fewer rules that work, let me return to Europe. Many companies and institutions now face the problem that, in addition to having to deal with the United Kingdom domestic regulatory regime, they have to deal with an increasing number of regulations from Europe as well as meet their international obligations. As we have heard, most institutions in Britain trade throughout the world. Compliance officers frequently have to deal with three or four different regimes. Usually, none of them tries to do the same thing. They are often contradictory and do not always fully equate with the business practice of the company.
    One of the reasons why we argue that we ought to be at the heart of Europe is that it is high time that our influence was felt more when regulations are formulated. The European Commission has a tendency to regulate for an industry that does not exist as such across Europe. The structure of the United Kingdom industry is very different from that of the industry in Germany, Italy and other European countries. It is important that the British Government fight for British companies and argue the British corner and that we do not allow ourselves to be lumbered with regulations that impose a burden on our country.
    The United Kingdom industry has a sophistication that is not always reflected elsewhere. Our companies and institutions will be at a competitive disadvantage if they face rules and regulations that were never designed for the United Kingdom industry. I am not a Euro-sceptic, despite what I have just said, but the Government could do more.
    The Committee examined regulation and supervision. I should like to make a few remarks that I hope will encourage the Committee to look further at certain issues. Such work provides a useful basis for policy formulation by the Government, I hope, and certainly by the Opposition.
    When we pose the question, "What are supervision and regulation?", we cannot make the distinction often enough that the City of London—our financial services industry—is many different industries, so a generalised approach to regulation simply will not do. We have to distinguish between supervisory requirements, where we are guarding against systemic failure, and regulation, where we are

    1183
    dealing with the conduct of business. We must recognise the difference between what is required at the wholesale end of the market, where we are dealing with relations between institutions and the doctrine of caveat emptor can apply more or less unencumbered, and what is required at the retail end, where we are dealing far more with customer protection and that doctrine must apply.
    The object of the regulatory system must be geared not only to protecting members of the public from unscrupulous selling techniques or bad advice but to enabling them to make a genuine and informed choice. I would slightly temper the doctrine of caveat emptor because the object of the regulatory system, particularly at the retail end, must be to put buyer and seller on an equal footing.
    I must say a word or to about supervision and prudential supervision with particular reference to the banks. On Barings, suffice it to say that we know that it collapsed because of incompetent management. How can a bank shift its entire capital out of the country with no one asking what is going wrong? How could Sir Peter Baring, within a couple of days of the collapse, say that it was all the work of a competitor? I cannot imagine that any competitor could do as much as the company managed to do to itself.
    The people who run Barings now should think long and hard about paying bonuses to those who were involved in the collapse of the bank. It sends the wrong signals around the world. Just as we in the House have to think about how others see us, so corporate institutions must do the same. Barings might like to reflect on that and a bit of humility would not go amiss.
    The real lessons that we have to learn are for the Bank of England and other regulators. As has been said, Barings was the third major failure with which the Bank had to contend. The Board of Banking Supervision produced a good, but damning, report that should cause us some concern. We were particularly struck by the board's observation in paragraph 14.35 of that report:
    "We believe the Bank should explore ways of increasing its understanding of the non-banking businesses (particularly financial services businesses) undertaken by those banking groups for which it is responsible".
    Again, one has to wonder how the Bank of England did not understand the broader financial services activities of the banks that it regulated, given that so much of their profits now come from that source. I trust that the Bank is now doing so.
    I also find it difficult to understand why the Governor of the Bank of England is so defensive towards those of us who have been critical. Our criticism has in many ways been remarkably restrained. In the summer preceding the collapse of Barings, the Governor said that there was no need to worry about derivatives because, "These chaps know what they are doing." Those of us outside and who, in whatever capacity, are charged with deciding what supervisory regimes are appropriate are bound to have regard to what the Governor said then and what happened subsequently when Barings collapsed.
    The culture of the Bank of England and its attitude to supervision need to change. A new executive director responsible for regulation is to be appointed next week. The Select Committee might want to have that individual before it at an early stage, to find out whether there will be a change of emphasis.
    1184
    We have heard references to the Arthur Andersen report. Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to deal with two matters. I strongly believe that any system is only as good as the people who employ it—that is crucial in supervision and regulation. We have spent some considerable time exploring opinion on the matter and it has been put to me that one of the problems in the Bank of England might be the difficulty that it has in attracting and keeping appropriately qualified staff. There may be pay and status implications. Clearly, the Bank can do a certain amount by finding resources from within itself, in the obvious way, but the Government may have to face up to the fact that it may be necessary to consider the pay structure and the structure of the Bank itself, if it is to deal with an increasingly complex area. Leaving aside whether the Bank has to do so in the long term, in the short term the Government may have to face up to that problem.
    There has been much talk about the structure of the regulatory system and it would be appropriate to say a word or two about our view of whether the Bank of England should be the supervisory body. For the sake of completeness, for those who follow our proceedings outside the House, the Financial Times published an interview with me on 10 November which is wholly accurate and which summarises the state of our thinking.
    I made several points in that interview. The argument about whether the Bank of England should be the supervisor is finely balanced and we have not reached a conclusion. There are arguments for and against making a change. For making a change is the fact that major structural exchanges are taking place in the industry. The neat distinctions between banks, building societies and insurance companies are disappearing. Indeed, the Building Societies Commission may find that the number of bodies for which it is responsible will diminish quite sharply. It is expected that most major building societies will have moved over to the Bank of England's supervision because of conversion in the fairly near future.
    In the light of that, one is bound to ask whether it is appropriate to have the Bank of England, the Building Societies Commission, the DTI and others all concerned with prudential supervision. My guess is that, in the not-too-distant future, it will be appropriate, for that reason if for no other, to revisit the issue of who should be responsible for prudential supervision. At the moment, it is historical accident as to whether an institution comes under the supervision of the Bank of England, the Building Societies Commission or the DTI.
    The second argument was touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. If there was a body such as, for example, a banking commission, fully focused on regulation, it might improve the quality of regulation. That was raised by Lord Justice Bingham in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International report and is a model followed in other parts of the world. I accept that there is an argument for that. Against that, the most important feature of supervision and regulation is the quality of people involved; changing, or removing to another office, the brass plate does not resolve the problem. At the end of the day, it is the people who matter.
    Despite what hon. Members have said about the reputation of the Bank of England, it still enjoys a formidable reputation and can still attract staff because of its status. More important, it is recognised to have a formidable reputation around the world. We should be

    1185
    careful about lightly interfering with it until the case is made for change. The argument is finely balanced and we are keeping it under review. We certainly do not want to throw out the good work that has been done by, say, the Building Societies Commission.
    Hon. Members referred to the need for international co-operation. One thing that will have caused hon. Members some concern is that when the Singapore authorities published their report into the collapse of Barings, one got the impression that there was an attempt to knock the ball out of the Singapore court, preferably into the court of the Bank of England. In the Barings collapse, there was an obvious dispute between Simex in Singapore and the Osaka authorities in Japan. Such regulatory competition is thoroughly unhelpful.
    Hon. Members have said that they are depressed about the turf war between regulators in this country. More worrying, in some ways, is the turf war that results when markets, and therefore regulators, are in competition. The Government need to take the lead because it is Governments who operate in that area.
    The Securities and Investments Board met its international counterparts earlier this year. The concluding document was entitled the "Windsor declaration"—strangely enough, because the meeting took place in Windsor. Such co-operation is essential. I agree with what was said about the need to have a lead regulator in the case of each institution. Again, the BCCI case highlighted that need. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove made the point that, in international terms, having one regulator is important. That was supported by Christopher Sharples—who did good work at the Securities and Futures Authority before he moved on—in his evidence to the Select Committee. That again points to the desirability of having one regulator of international standing.
    I want to consider the SIB regime, which has been the subject of much discussion tonight. There are two parts to the matter. One involves structure, the other the nature of regulation. The structure needs to be changed as the present system is cumbersome and full of duplication. The view that it needs to be simplified commands increasing support within the industry.
    We propose to make the SIB directly responsible for the regime broadly covered by the 1986 Act. We do not want to create a Securities and Exchange Commission and we shall not create a bureaucracy. I do not want an organisation run by lawyers. I can say that because I am a lawyer and I know what happens when organisations are run by lawyers. We no longer need a distinction between SROs and the SIB, as that is expensive. One can see the difficulties with pension transfers, for example, on which both the SIB and the Personal Investment Authority make parallel rules.
    Under our system, the SIB would still have practitioner input and two separate operating divisions, broadly along the lines of the Securities and Futures Authority and the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation on the one hand and the PIA on the other. I stress that we want to build on what we have and avoid traumatic disruption. The change that we suggest is radical but incremental, and it would be welcomed. I see no reason why the recognised
    1186
    exchanges—LIFFE, the stock exchange, Tradepoint, and so on—should not continue, following the American maxim, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
    I agree with what the Select Committee said about self-regulation: let us end it. It might cause the Home Secretary some embarrassment as he introduced the 1986 Act, although embarrassment does not seem to put the Home Secretary up or down so we should not worry too much about that. Self-regulation is a misnomer. The present system is rooted in statute. The problem with self-regulation is the public's perception that trade interest dominates, which is extremely damaging.
    Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Darling: No, I shall not give way as I want to give the Minister time to reply. I am not being unfair to the hon. Gentleman, as he has not been present for the debate.
    The regulatory system has gone completely wrong. The Government are mistaken to think that, by working with the industry and hoping that something will turn up, the position will improve. A radical rethink to this country's approach is required, particularly at the retail end of the market.
    As the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) said, the costs are substantial. The other day, I spoke to a large institution, which reckoned that some 5 per cent. of the cost of selling a product arose because of compliance. Given that it takes some six hours to sell a pension policy, one must wonder whether we are going down the right road. I asked a life assurance office to try to sell me a policy to demonstrate the difficulties. After an hour, I was bored and fed up. I wanted to hear no more about the financial services industry or pensions, and we had not even begun to discuss the product. We were still struggling with how much we spent on groceries each week. I am bound to ask whether that is how to sell a pension. I wanted to know about the product; what happened if I gave it up too early; how much I would receive; what expectations were reasonable.
    I often visit institutions where the compliance department is growing faster than the marketing department. That cannot be right. Whenever I attend meetings or lunches, I notice that the compliance officer is always in attendance. I do not know whether that is to watch what the directors say to me or whether it reflects the compliance officer's growing importance. I make those points to show that compliance is getting out of hand. I would tolerate that if the public were happy with it and felt that it was a price that people had to pay. But neither the public nor the industry has confidence in the system, which is why I believe that radical change is necessary.
    The system is also irrational. For example, personal equity plans, which are widely sold, have no disclosure requirement on management fees, whereas the sale of pensions and other savings products is regulated and subject to disclosure. I agree with the Select Committee's comments in paragraph 60 about the inclusion of lending within the purview of the Financial Services Act. That is extremely important, and mortgages are a case in point. The selling of a mortgage is often the starting point of the sale of many other products, which is why in the 1980s institutions thought that it was a good idea to buy estate agencies. They thought that if they could collar people at the start, they could sell them everything under the sun.

    1187
    It so happens that many estate agencies are now on the market, if anyone is looking for one. The selling of mortgages is not regulated, whereas everything else that follows from it is regulated—that cannot be right.
    Many institutions are going for execution-only sales, not because that is necessarily what the customer wants, but to avoid the burden of compliance. The entire market is being distorted by a regulatory system that does not work. On a serious note, I have already mentioned that 2.5 million people are employed in the industry and it is an open secret that there will be job losses in the next year or so—perhaps a great many. One of the drivers of job losses is the compliance cost. If we can lift the burden of compliance, some individuals may keep their jobs. We should take that option extremely seriously.
    I believe fundamentally that the approach to compliance, in particular the advice by box ticking, is misconceived and wrong. If the late Robert Maxwell had still been with us, he would have ticked every single box that was ever thrust in front of him. Nick Leeson completed compliance forms. In neither case did that stop what eventually happened.
    A problem with the self-regulators is that they are becoming increasingly defensive and are producing more rules and regulations to protect their own position. The approach to compliance through box ticking must come to an end. Instead, one should concentrate on education and training. One of the best protections for a lawyer or a doctor is their own professional qualification. They know that if they do anything wrong they will be struck off.
    The answer to many of the problems in the financial services industry is to concentrate on education and training, and, having done that, to trust the individual. We will always have problems somewhere, because it is impossible to have a foolproof system, but we should opt for a system based on education and training. We will not get the necessary change unless there is a change in the structure and culture of regulation. Many people look to a Government to give a lead.
    We must also look at the role of management. It was management as much as unscrupulous salesmen who sold the personal pensions. It is management that insists on selling targets and which sometimes has a commission structure that makes mis-selling more likely than not. The nature of regulation has not been concentrated on nearly enough and it is something that the Select Committee might like to consider.
    The consensus is that the present system is not working and that primary legislation is needed to change it. This is an extremely light Session of Parliament. I understand the Minister's difficulty, because she has been given an instruction from above that the only legislation that the Government will contemplate is that which puts what they call "clear blue water" between them and us. The result is that we have one vote a week. Many people outside who depend on the industry for their livelihood and members of the public who want to use that industry will wonder why the Government are not legislating when such a political and industrial consensus exists about the direction in which we should go.
    I must ask the Minister, how many more reports and failures will there be before we get the Government to act? I do not accept the Government's wait-and-see approach, and their hope that something will turn up. That is not the correct approach. Radical change is needed.
    1188
    Even if legislation were passed now, the lead time between that and improvements being made would be about three years. We cannot wait much longer. I hope that the Minister will accept the urgency of the situation and will announce tonight that the Government accept that changes are needed. It would be a great pity for the industry if it had to wait for a change of Government to get the change in regulation and supervision that most of us would like to see.
    9.23 pm
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): This has been a particularly useful debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) on introducing it. I notice that he said that the Select Committee's report provides a quarry of useful evidence for the future. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) said that the report provides a mine of information. Clearly the consensus in the Committee runs to the phrases used in the House. I should also like to take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham on his last hurrah. I hope that he enjoys his spell on the Public Service Select Committee as much as he has enjoyed his time on the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.
    Before answering the specific points raised in the debate, I should like to comment on the financial services industry of the United Kingdom. London, Tokyo and New York are the three largest financial centres in the world. In Europe, Edinburgh is the fourth-largest centre after London, Frankfurt and Paris.
    Therefore, while we are here today to discuss financial regulation, we must all remember that we have a fine success story and a thriving industry about which we should all be proud and positive. It would not be so if our regulation were too harsh or if our regulation were too light. We would not have as many foreign banks as we do; we would not have £666 billion under fund management; we would not have the largest and liveliest futures and options market in the United Kingdom if it were not an attractive and effective place in which to operate.
    We also have in the City of London a foreign exchange market that is 50 per cent. larger than that of anywhere else, a domestic equity market that is three times the size of Paris or Frankfurt and the greatest concentration of insurers, pension funds and foreign bankers in the world. That good success story does not make me either complacent or blind to glitches or unaware of the need to look to the future, but it means that criticism of our existing system should be balanced, as should be calls for change. The essential combination, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) said, is to have a regulatory system that catches and deals with fraudsters quickly, protects investors and ensures quality professional standards while avoiding a bind that is so tight that the average man, woman or company finds it difficult to operate within it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove raised a number of issues, the first of which was his concern that regulators need properly motivated staff. I agree: it is a professional industry and professional regulators are required. The movement from the industry into regulation and out again, as part of a career projection, is happening. That means that new blood from the industry, well versed

    1189
    in the clever tricks of the trade, is coming into regulation. That process will benefit not just regulation but the industry as a whole.
    Many hon. Members have mentioned the structure of regulation. There is more than one view on it in the House and, more to the point, there is more than one view from those who work in the industry. I agree that there are problems that must be tackled, but I question the call for structural change. First, as soon as open season was declared on the regulatory structure, it would divide both the industry and the regulators between those who wanted change and those who wanted to stick with the status quo. This summer we saw some skirmishes in that sphere, which gave us a flavour of what would happen if the proposal were implemented.
    Secondly, having made a proposal, there would be a period of consultation, followed by a period of debate, followed by a period of implementation and then, no doubt, there would ultimately be a compromise. If we were lucky, we might achieve something better, but who is to say that that would happen? We would certainly get something different. If, having put the industry through a period in which it was split between those who wanted change and those who wanted to remain with the status quo and having taken the proposal through the House and achieved a compromise, we then told the industry to implement the proposal, the consequence would be change, which would bring a cost to the industry.
    If we wanted to introduce structural change, we would tell the industry that there would be a period of uncertainty for two to three years as the new system was sorted out—and all that just when the existing system was bedding down and making more effective use of the flexibility at its disposal.
    Mr. Butterfill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way as, contrary to the impression given by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), the miracles of modern science have allowed me to follow the debate from my office while dealing with the work imposed on me by my private Member's Bill, which will be to the great benefit of his constituents.
    Does my hon. Friend agree that the problems in the industry exist primarily in the retail and personal sectors and that self-regulation in the wholesale and professional sectors remains almost entirely satisfactory? To impose further change on the retail sector now, when it is just getting over the trauma of the establishment of the Personal Investment Authority, which we should have had in the first place, would impose unnecessary burdens on the industry as a whole.
    Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend is quite correct, and that is the point that I was trying to make. I thank him for casting light on the issue, in the same way as he does on our days and our nights. My mission with regard to the Financial Services Act 1986 is to ensure that the current system is working well. The Select Committee report refers to its strengths, and it points particularly to its flexibility. We shall draw on those strengths to make regulation truly effective.
    The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said that the structure of the boards should be examined further. He proposed that the chairmen of the boards of the
    1190
    self-regulatory organisations should be drawn from the consumer side—I hope that I have not misinterpreted him and that he will not need to set me straight. The composition of boards formed the substance of his point and I agree with comments in that regard.
    I also agree that the term "self-regulatory organisation" is a misnomer and I concur that "practitioner-influenced regulation" is a better description. Although I agree with much of the substance of the report, I am concerned about the review that is proposed in paragraph 93. I believe that such a review would prove destabilising for an industry that has already seen considerable change.
    Mention was made of home income plans. That issue has caused considerable distress and many investors have received assistance. Prior to the introduction of the FSA, investors had to take legal action with little chance of recouping their losses and I realise that many people face residual debt. We are urging all lenders to look sympathetically on anyone in that position, as I understand that several are doing already. Immediately before the debate began I had extensive discussions with the Building Societies Commission about the matter. We discussed involving building societies in home income plans and voluntarily submitting their cases to the building society ombudsman.
    I turn now to paragraph 118 and the way in which the Select Committee has encouraged the Treasury to adopt a more interventionist and active role in the co-ordination of financial services supervision and regulation. I am sorry that my reply to that suggestion was considered delphic. I said that the recommendation raises wider issues that will need careful consideration before final decisions are taken. There are wider issues involved if we are considering bringing all regulation under one Department. For example, we must consider the implications for other Government Departments and for interacting areas of policy. In answering the Select Committee, I clearly indicated Treasury inclinations in that area.
    Mr. Forman: As far as I know, there is only one other Government Department that could create an obstacle. Can we not talk some sense into the Department of Trade and Industry and give responsibility to the Treasury?
    Mrs. Knight: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment; I am sure that the DTI will heed his words.
    Several hon. Members referred to Lloyd's. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), the Minister for Trade, sends his apologies for not being present for the debate this evening. He suspected that the subject of Lloyd's would come up, but he was unable to be here as he had to address a meeting in Nottingham. I have been asked to convey his apologies to the House and to assure hon. Members that he will take up and answer any points raised on the issue.
    Lloyd's wrote a letter to hon. Members prior to the debate, in which it says:
    "Lloyd's remains committed to achieving the successful implementation of its plans for reconstruction and renewal".
    Lloyd's must clearly undertake that task if it is to resolve its problems. The letter continues:
    "it is not where regulation is done that is important, but how well it is carried out".
    Whatever our views on Lloyd's may be, I think that we would all agree with that. Let me remind the House, however, that we have agreed on the need for a

    1191
    fundamental review of the regulatory regime for Lloyd's that would consider the options of continuing self-regulation and independent external regulation. That review may well not start before mid-1997, as Lloyd's is seeking to resolve various complex problems.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) made some pertinent points about the retail side, citing a number of reports. I agree with him that there is a need for stability, and that all who work in the sector are strongly opposed to change. I rather liked my hon. Friend's succinct encapsulation of the original purpose of the Financial Services Act in six words: "Sell something suitable and be honest."
    During the past few months, I have spent a good deal of time listening to people in the financial services industry. We must work with them to ensure that any unnecessary burdens are removed. That is why I support the regulators' efforts to implement the strategy contained in the 1993 Large review, and, in particular, the emphasis on supervision and enforcement. That must be delivered more efficiently to provide proper investment protection.
    I am concerned by what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said about the length of the fact-finding procedure. It need not be over-burdensome. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), I suspect that part of the reason for the long-windedness of the form is that those who drew it up wanted considerably more information than was actually required.
    Attention was drawn to the need to ensure that friendly societies are not over-regulated. The Personal Investment Authority is currently considering the decisions reached by a committee that it set up to examine friendly society regulation. As the committee was chaired by the chairman of a friendly society, I am sure that its conclusions will be relevant and positive. The PIA has announced that the training and competence of home service agents will be examined, and proposes the establishment of a new qualification known as the home service planning certificate, which should ease the burden on those who sell on behalf of friendly societies.
    We must not forget the invaluable role of independent financial advisers. The high streets in our towns and villages invariably contain an office or shop with a sign saying, "Car, house and other insurance, pensions and financial advice". Those offices are run by men and women who have often learnt their skills in the nearby office of a well-known insurance company, or have been trained in a bank. They are as important to the local community as the butcher, the solicitor, the accountant and the supermarket: they provide general insurance services, and help people to plan for the future. The need for those independent advisers has never been greater; the requirement for individuals to take control of their financial future is obvious.
    When we discuss regulation and the future of financial services, we should bear in mind the real need to avoid sweeping statements and generalities. We should remember who we are talking about and what we want them to achieve. No system will ever be perfect, but successful regulation of the retail sector can be achieved through training and competence requirements, disclosure and a lighter touch. We need a less prescriptive regime than the present one. This is the so-called disclosure dividend, of which so much has been said; now, much must be made of it. The regulators and the industry are well aware of my views.
    1192
    The laws of caveat emptor apply to a considerable extent, so those who buy investment policies must themselves be trained. They need to know what they are asking for and what questions to ask, and they need to understand the replies.
    Mr. Darling: The Minister speaks of the need to train those who buy investment policies—the public. How does she propose to train the public?
    Mrs. Knight: There are a considerable number of ways in which we can do it. The first would be to talk about precisely what it is that an investor should be asking. When an individual has decided that he is going to buy a second-hand car, for example, he goes to the car showroom—possibly to four or five car showrooms—and looks under the bonnet, gets in the car, and takes it out for a drive on the road. If he is not confident about his knowledge of the vehicle, he will get a friend to come and have a look. If he is still not sure, he will get the Automobile Association to look it over. Only then will he will spend his money.
    The same responsibility for one's actions has to be taken if one purchases a pension—a sphere of which neither we nor the individuals involved have taken sufficient cognisance.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Lady surely must accept that there is a substantial difference between buying a second-hand car and buying a pension. The whole point of the regulatory regime is to ensure that the buyer and the seller are put on as equal a footing as possible. The way to ensure that is to concentrate on the training, competence and professionalism of those who sell pensions. The hon. Lady's comparison, frankly, will make many members of the public wonder about the Government's attitude. I think that she should clarify what she has said.
    Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman's comment is really a bit too much. Individuals must take responsibility for their actions; they must ask questions. It is true that a car is a tangible entity and a financial service is not. There are obvious differences, but that does not mean that individuals can ignore the responsibility that they have themselves to ask questions about the product that they are buying, whether it is a financial service or something else.
    The regulatory regime is there to assist the individual and ensure that there is training and competence for the salesman. I do not think that it is right and proper to say that an individual does not have to take any responsibility for his action in the sphere of financial services. He must have the same responsibility as in other spheres.
    Mrs. Carrington: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Information must be provided so that one financial product can be compared to another by an individual who does not have specialist knowledge or training. We are talking about regulation to ensure that the industry provides products that are easily comparable by someone who is not a specialist.
    Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend is correct, and that is what disclosure is all about. Disclosure provides individuals with knowledge about what they are buying, which was not previously the case. I say again that each individual has a responsibility to ask questions and think about what he is buying. The Government also have the responsibility to

    1193
    ensure that there is a working regulatory framework and the other features that have been mentioned by hon. Members. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and hope that he agrees with what I have said.
    I also hope that when the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) leaves the Chamber, he will think through some of the points that have been made because I think that his comment went a little bit far—perhaps it was on purpose. We are talking about people, companies, independent financial advisers and people's futures.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington made the point that capital is footloose and that countries are in competition around the world in financial services, as they are in other spheres. He asked what was being done to ensure that this country takes due cognisance of that fact in its regulatory process. I assure him that we are promoting the competitiveness of the financial services industry in the United Kingdom. We are ensuring that it is in a fit state to respond to the ever-increasing pace of developments in products and techniques, and we are keeping a careful watch on the burdens that our own regulatory system may impose so that the right balance is struck between encouraging innovation and maintaining proper protection for the investor.
    I take issue with the point that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central made about whether the Government were doing enough to fight Britain's corner in Europe.I can assure him that we are, and in a robust manner. We are arguing in the European Union for an approach to financial regulation that enhances Europe's strengths vis-à-vis the rest of the world, and for an approach that does not tie down too tightly the United Kingdom, which has specialities in this field that other European countries lack. I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central will remember that when he takes up this matter again.
    We are also fighting to obtain maximum access for our firms in overseas markets, either as part of multilateral negotiations or through bilateral efforts—and by looking at some products. It is quite correct that competition has come from Luxembourg, to name but one country; part of our response to such competition comes in the form of new products, of which open-ended investment companies are an example.
    Barings has been mentioned several times in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove highlighted the differences, as he saw them, between the Board of Banking Supervision report and the report of the Singapore authorities. I assure him that the two reports come to the same general conclusion, however. The Singapore report may come to firmer conclusions about the motives of certain senior managers, but it is important to remember that the BOBS report did not have access to much of the evidence in Singapore. Both reports have been extremely useful.
    Much has been said today and for several months about the Barings collapse. The episode carried serious messages for management in every financial institution around the world. Even those—there were many—who said that it could not possibly happen to them put investigations in hand just to be on the safe side. If there is a silver lining to the whole affair, it is that the entire international financial system is likely to be somewhat more secure as a result.
    1194
    There are important messages for regulators and supervisors as well. The Governor of the Bank of England has welcomed the 17 recommendations for the Bank in the Board of Banking Supervision's report. The Bank will respond to the board by the end of the year on its implementation of the recommendations, and the Governor expects to send a copy to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee once it has been presented to the board.
    Arthur Andersen has been appointed to review the way in which the Bank approaches supervision. The report should be completed by next April. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has asked the Treasury to conduct its own review of the role of the Bank as prudential supervisor of banks. With the Arthur Andersen review under way, however, and with the report by the SFA due shortly, together with the Select Committee's decision to undertake its own inquiry into Barings, it makes more sense for the Government to await those findings before deciding whether yet another report is required. A further report before the first report has been completed strikes me as slightly silly; waiting for those reports seems rather more sensible.
    The clear message to those who regulate as well as to those who manage financial institutions is that in a fast-moving and changing market the need to be up to date with precisely what is happening and its possible consequences is paramount.
    International co-operation has been highlighted in the debate. With the globalisation of business, international solutions are required. We take that very seriously. The United Kingdom is in the forefront of efforts to strengthen co-operation. We have negotiated a memorandum of understanding with several countries. The United Kingdom is an active member of the International Organisation for Securities Commissions and of the Basle banking group. In the summer we hosted a conference at Windsor, to which the regulators of futures and options exchanges from 16 countries were invited. They all jointly issued a declaration on the protection of customers' positions, funds, assets, default procedures and co-operation in emergencies. I can assure the House that we take our responsibilities seriously and pursue them actively.
    I end by thanking the Committee for its constructive and helpful report. Although I cannot pretend to agree with every word of it, I do agree with much of it. It is an excellent effort to move forward with the debate on the regulation of financial services.
    Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That at the sitting on Tuesday 19th December, the Speaker shall—

(i) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Fisheries not later than three hours after their commencement or Seven o'clock, whichever is the later, and Standing Order No.14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community Documents) shall not apply;

(ii) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Scottish Business not later than one and a half hours after their

1195
commencement, such Questions including those on any amendments to the Motion which she may have selected which may then be moved.—[Mr. Newton.]

HUMBER BRIDGE (DEBTS) BILL
Ordered,
That, in respect of the Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Newton.]

EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES
Ordered,
That the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8th December 1995, relating to fisheries: total allowable catches and quotas for 1996, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee A.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
9.48 pm
Sitting suspended.
10 pm
On resuming—
It being Ten o'clock,MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates), put forthwith the deferred Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Vote on Account, 1996-97 (Class XI, Vote 1, and Class XVI, Vote 1).

Class XI, Vote 1
Resolved,
That a sum not exceeding £13,948,653,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Department of Health on or in relation to hospital, community health, mental health, family health and family health service administration services, National Health Service trusts, and on related services.

Class XVI, Vote 1
Resolved,
That a sum not exceeding £30,079,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by Her Majesty's Treasury on economic, financial and related administration, including debt management; payments to certain parliamentary bodies; and certain other services including expenses in connection with Honours and Dignities and a grant in aid to the Private Finance Panel Executive.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions which he was required to put at that hour, pursuant to paragraph ( I) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.).

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1995-96
Resolved,
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,915,196,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges for defence and civil services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1996, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 4 of Session 1995-96.

ESTIMATES, 1996-97 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £81,414,396,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for defence and civil services in Classes I to X; Class XI, Votes 2 and 3; Classes XII to XV, Class XVI, Votes 2 to 15; Classes XVII and XVIII; and Classes XVIII, A and XVIII, B for the year ending on 31st March 1997, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of Session 1995-96.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Waldegrave, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, Mrs. Angela Knight and Mr. Michael Jack.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Mr. Michael Jack accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1996 and 1997: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 18 December and to be printed. [Bill 13].

Channel Tunnel Railway Lines
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Wells.]
10.2 pm
Sir John Stanley: When I had my previous Adjournment debate on the subject of blight and compensation in relation to channel tunnel trains, I earnestly hoped that it would be my last debate on that subject. I assume that my hon. Friend the Minister took the same view, especially as the debate began at 6.53 in the morning. Unhappily, I am obliged to return to that key issue, because important issues remain unresolved. Indeed, a major new issue has emerged since I brought the subject before the House.
I wish to raise three specific issues. The first is the well-worn topic that I have been addressing for more than four years—the extent to which the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 apply to existing lines to the channel tunnel, on which very major works have taken place to enable them to accommodate both passenger and freight trains.
I have consistently argued that that Act applies to at least some areas of the existing lines, and that interpretation has been endorsed by counsel, Mr. Gregory Stone, on behalf of the local authorities concerned. I believe that it was also endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who was then Minister for Public Transport, because of what he said in response to my Adjournment debate on 13 January 1994. I will not repeat what was said in that debate, apart from quoting again from the letter I received from Bob Horton, the chairman of Railtrack, on 19 September 1994. The chairman took a very different view from that of myself, Gregory Stone and the Minister concerned. Mr. Horton said:
"We could probably debate indefinitely the interpretation of the words that appear in Hansard. Railtrack's position is clear: even if the Minister was accepting on behalf of the Government that the Land Compensation Act 1973 does entitle those living near existing railway lines used by Channel Tunnel traffic to claim compensation (subject to proving diminution in value), Railtrack does not agree with that interpretation of the Act. I am afraid, therefore, that Railtrack will continue to resist these claims".—[Official Report, 15 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 1292.]
Railtrack's apparent conclusion in September 1994 was that it would resist all claims for injurious affectation compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1973 from properties anywhere along the existing lines to the channel tunnel from Waterloo to Cheriton, and through either the Tonbridge line or the Maidstone East line.
In the ensuing months, it appears that there has been a change in Railtrack's position with a view to its legal responsibilities. Unhappily, Railtrack has been extraordinarily unforthcoming in making public its change of view. The first indication which I picked up that it had changed its view was in the letter I received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 24 July this year, in which my right hon. Friend said:
"Railtrack contend that the vast majority of the engineering works carried out on existing lines in Kent do not constitute works of reconstruction, extension or alteration within the meaning of the Act."
The significant phrase in that sentence was "vast majority". If it is the case that Railtrack contends that the vast majority of works do not trigger entitlement to
1198
compensation, the very clear implication is that Railtrack does now accept that a minority of works at least trigger an entitlement to compensation.
It was because of that clear implication that I wrote back to the Secretary of State for Transport, asking him to obtain from Railtrack a list of the engineering works along the existing lines which Railtrack does accept fall within the meaning of the Act, and therefore trigger an entitlement to compensation.
The reply I received from my right hon. Friend, dated 6 October this year, was both extraordinary and extremely illuminating. My right hon. Friend said:
"You also asked for a list of the works that Railtrack clearly accept as falling within the meaning of the Act. I do not doubt that some of the engineering works that Railtrack have carried out may qualify as eligible works within the meaning of the Act; indeed, I understand that in a limited number of cases the company is considering claims and have instructed surveyors and compensation specialists to advise and negotiate with surveyors representing claimants. My officials asked Railtrack for a list of eligible works, but the company says that, to date, it has not accepted that any of the works cited by claimants qualify for compensation within the meaning of the Act. Therefore it is unable to provide a list. Although I have no power to intervene statutorily in Railtrack's handling of compensation claims, I intend raising this matter personally with Bob Horton at my next regular meeting with him."
I have to say that I found that to be extraordinary. First we have the Cabinet Minister responsible for the matter accepting in that letter that some works do qualify. We have a clear statement from him in that letter that Railtrack also clearly accepts that and has instructed surveyors and compensation specialists to negotiate with surveyors of the claimants, but at the same time, with extraordinary stubbornness, Railtrack is deliberately refusing to supply the list of eligible works that I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport demand.
I consider Railtrack's behaviour evasive, obstructive and well below the level of public accountability that one would expect from a public body such as Railtrack. I believe that its attitude is in breach of the provisions of the citizens charter. One of the kernel points of the charter is that public bodies and authorities should inform individual citizens of their rights. The taxpayers charter clearly states in relation to HM Customs and Excise:
"You are entitled to expect HM Customs and Excise to help you to understand your rights."
I submit that it is equally incumbent on a body such as Railtrack to help people understand their rights to compensation—rights in law, passed by Parliament. On this issue, it is incumbent on Railtrack immediately to make public a list of the eligible works that have been carried out along the existing lines—those works which in its view trigger an entitlement to compensation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been asking for such a list for months. I have been asking for it for months. It is Railtrack's obligation to disclose the list. I hope that my right hon. Friend will obtain it from Railtrack and make it available to all Members of Parliament for constituencies between Waterloo and Cheriton. I hope that he will make certain that that key information is placed in the public domain.
The second issue that I want to raise is the major blight that is being created by the proposals of the Central Railway Group to create an additional freight line from the midlands to Cheriton. The new scheme is already

1199
creating substantial blight. Those who consider that their homes are already blighted should exercise considerable care and take professional advice before they accept the proposals put before them by the Central Railway Group under its so-called property protection scheme. The proposals will involve individual householders making a contractual commitment to the company to sell their home to it at an agreed price at some future date.
The group's proposal contains a trap. Payment for those homes will take place only if the scheme goes ahead. It could be years before it is decided whether the scheme will go ahead and the individuals concerned could be left in blighted limbo for many years. They should give careful consideration to an alternative means of removing themselves from that blighted position.
I have received an important letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dated 13 October 1995, in which he makes it clear that if the Central Railway Group makes an application to him to handle the project under the procedures of the Transport and Works Act 1992, the statutory provisions will take effect from the date of the application. My right hon. Friend's exact words were:
"Assuming an application is made, the statutory blight provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 take effect from the date of the application."
That is extremely important to those who believe that they may suffer from statutory blight and I want my hon. Friend to deal with the following three questions in his reply.
First, will my hon. Friend confirm that those affected by statutory blight, because of the Central Railway Group's proposal, will be able to serve a blight purchase notice on the company to buy their homes at full, unblighted value from the date of its application for an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992?
Secondly, will my hon. Friend confirm that those affected by statutory blight will also be entitled to obtain from the Central Railway Group the statutory home loss payments that were increased by the Government in 1991?
Thirdly, will my hon. Friend also provide this assurance? If his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considers that the immediately available financial resources of the Central Railway Group are not sufficient to enable it to discharge its financial obligations to meet blight purchase notices, when the order comes before the House for debate on a Government motion, will he advise the House in the motion to refuse to proceed with the project?
Mr. Mark Wolfson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, on both the issue of compensation and the key second point about the Central Railway Group, a large number of constituents of a considerable number of hon. Members who might not be here this evening are equally affected by the problems of blight? It is a huge worry for them. Through no fault of their own, they are going to suffer horrendous financial difficulties.
Sir John Stanley: I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend says. This is a massive proposal and it affects a large number of constituencies and individuals, all the way from Rugby in the midlands to the Cheriton terminal area in Kent.
The third group of constituents to whom I must briefly refer are those who are blighted and still without compensation along the line of the channel tunnel rail
1200
link. As far as those in my constituency are concerned—those on Blue Bell hill in particular—I very much welcome the markedly different attitude that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken compared to that of his predecessor in relation to the findings of the ombudsman on maladministration by the Department of Transport.
I welcome the fact that, when writing to my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)— my right hon. Friend said:
"the Government is prepared to consider afresh whether a scheme might be formulated to implement the Committee's recommendation that redress should be granted to those affected to an extreme and exceptional degree by generalised blight from the CTRL"—
the channel tunnel rail link—
"from the period June 1990 to April 1994 and how it might operate."
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us in reply when we can expect his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to produce proposals to give effect to the recommendations of the ombudsman, which were accepted by the Select Committee.
10.18 pm
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) has reminded us, this is not the first time that we have debated these issues, although this evening it is at a more sociable hour. I thank him for this further opportunity to respond to him about the concerns of his constituents, for whom he has been such a vigorous and persistent advocate.
First, it is important to be clear about the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and the other measures intended to alleviate any adverse effects that may be caused by the operation of the railway system.
The Land Compensation Act 1973 allows householders to claim compensation from the responsible authority when the value of their property is diminished by physical factors, such as railway noise or vibration, caused by the use of new or altered public works. In the case of railways, the Act is not specific as to what is meant by "altered works" but it refers to their being
"reconstructed, extended or otherwise altered."
My right hon. Friend knows that the Act also provides for compensation to be claimed where there has been a change of use in respect of an existing railway line, but that in this case the Act specifies that "change of use" does not include intensification of an existing use. There is therefore no statutory requirement for compensation to be paid purely because traffic on an existing railway line has increased; this parallels the situation for roads. If people buy properties near an existing railway line—or, indeed, a road—they do so knowing that traffic can change in composition or volume. The law does not therefore require the body responsible to pay compensation in those circumstances.
In the case of an altered railway line, my right hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not for me to determine whether particular works undertaken are covered within the meaning of the Act; this is, in the first instance, for the responsible authority—in this case, Railtrack—to decide. It and its predecessor, British Rail, carried out the works.

1201
As my right hon. Friend knows, Railtrack has not to date accepted that any of the works cited by householders seeking compensation under the Act are works of
"reconstruction, extension or other alteration".
It is not for the Department of Transport to interpret the law but if householders believe that they have a case, the Act provides for them to pursue it with the Lands Tribunal and, ultimately, the courts. Householders who are not satisfied with Railtrack's response to their claims should seek professional legal advice.
As my right hon. Friend has acknowledged, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no statutory locus in the matter, he has both written and spoken to the chairman of Railtrack to ascertain the current position on claims which have been submitted to the company. The situation has not changed since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to my right hon. Friend in July and October this year, although Railtrack is conducting some technical investigations following claims arising from works in the area of Bickley. The outcome of those investigations is awaited. I give an undertaking to my right hon. Friend that both I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will pursue a response from Railtrack on the outcome of those investigations.
My right hon. Friend mentioned also the proposals of the Central Railway Group. I am pleased to confirm that statutory blight provisions under the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 will take effect from the date of an application under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
People whose land, or rights in land, would be compulsorily acquired under the proposals and were unable to sell their property at the open market value, would be able to serve blight notices on Central Railway. If Central Railway did not accept the owner's valuation, the matter would go to the Lands Tribunal for settlement.
Landowners who are entitled to serve blight notices may also be entitled to home loss payments. These are made in recognition of the personal distress and inconvenience suffered by people who are displaced by an authority acting under statutory powers.
In addition, people whose property, or rights in property, would be compulsorily acquired, are entitled to disturbance compensation for their reasonable expenses in moving. This would cover legal costs of conveyance of the house or flat, and other reasonable expenses as a result of the compulsory purchase.
If only part of the property is wanted, it may be possible to require Central Railway to buy the whole of the property, but this will depend on the particular circumstances. People affected in this way are advised to consult a solicitor or surveyor. If Central Railway disputes the claim, the matter can be referred to the Lands Tribunal for a decision.
Outside the limits of deviation of the works, claims for compensation for depreciation in the value of a property can be made under the Land Compensation Act; I have already outlined the provisions included in that Act.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the option to purchase scheme that Central Railway has been offering. I can confirm to him that I am advised that signing such options does not affect a person's statutory rights under the compensation code.
1202
With regard to the ability of the proposer of a scheme under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to fund the compensation, we would need to be satisfied that compensation could be paid. When a motion to allow the scheme to go to a public inquiry comes before the House, hon. Members, too, will wish to be satisfied that sufficient funding is available to deal with compensation for blight before the House gives authority to take the scheme to a public inquiry, which would be the next stage.
I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend for this opportunity to explain to the House the current position in relation to the Government's response to the sixth report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration about the channel tunnel rail link and exceptional hardship. The House last had a substantive discussion of this case in a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 6 March.
It may be helpful if I remind the House briefly of the history of this subject. The Parliamentary Commissioner's report was published on 9 February. The Commissioner had investigated five specimen cases relating to individuals who claimed that they could not sell their properties and had suffered exceptional hardship during the period of generalised blight relating to the rail link from June 1990 to April 1994. He found that my Department was guilty of maladministration in not considering the position of persons who had suffered that exceptional and extreme hardship and in not providing for redress where appropriate.
My Department has consistently rejected the Parliamentary Commissioner's findings: initially in its response to the Commissioner, which was published as an appendix to his report, and later in evidence given to the Select Committee by the permanent secretary on 1 March and by my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) on 23 May.
The Select Committee published its report on 25 July endorsing the Parliamentary Commissioner's findings in this case. The Government seriously considered the Select Committee's recommendations and my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Transport gave the Government's response on 1 November. That response was published the same day in the Select Committee's fifth special report.
The House will be aware that the Government concluded that they had to continue to resist the finding of maladministration, and that any new principle of administration implied in the Committee's report was unacceptable, but that they were prepared to consider afresh whether a scheme might be formulated to implement the Committee's recommendation that redress should be granted to those affected to an extreme and exceptional degree and to look at how it might operate. The Government agreed to look again at the possibility of a compensation scheme out of respect for the Select Committee and the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner, and without admission of fault or liability. We also made it clear that the Government would have to consider seriously the possible costs of a scheme, which cannot yet be established, and that, in view of their responsibilities to the taxpayer, they could not offer an open-ended commitment on an uncosted basis.

1203
Our consideration of whether such a scheme might be formulated is currently under way and we shall make as speedy progress as possible, taking account of the Government's undertaking to consult the Select Committee as proposals are developed and the need to consider seriously the possible costs of a scheme. However, until the process of fresh consideration is completed, it is impossible to say whether or what compensation arrangements might eventually apply.
I hope that I have been able to give my right hon. Friend a soupcon of reassurance on some of those important matters. I continue to appreciate his close interest in compensation and related issues. I hope that this will be the last time that we debate these issues, although that is ultimately a matter for my right hon. Friend.
Sir John Stanley: On my hon. Friend's first point, will he assure me that he and the Secretary of State will
1204
provide the House with a list of any other places along the line, apart from Bickley, where Railtrack feels that the works in question would entitle people to compensation? Will he ensure that that list is included in the information that he will give the House?
Mr. Watts: If there are instances of "new or altered" works which Railtrack accepts fall within the definition of the Act, those will be included in the list and that information will be made available to my right hon. Friend and the House. The difficulty is that until there are such works which Railtrack accepts are within the definition, there is no list. Therefore, any list that I might supply would merely be a blank piece of paper. We will convey to my right hon. Friend any information of the sort that he seeks which we can obtain from Railtrack.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  British Coal Pumping Stations (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on environmental problems caused by the closure of British Coal pumping stations in the City of Durham constituency. [5131]

  Mr. Clappison
  I understand that the mine pumping stations in the Durham area continue to be maintained by the Coal Authority.

  Metropolitan Wards
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the proposed average electorate of each ward in the review of metropolitan ward boundaries; [5629]

  (2) if he will make a statement on proposals in respect of ward boundaries in metropolitan areas; [5628]

  (3) what plans he has to reduce the number of councillors on metropolitan councils; [5631]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the effects of parliamentary constituency boundary proposals for changes to ward boundaries in metropolitan areas. [5627]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The timetable and procedure for periodic electoral reviews, including in metropolitan areas, are a matter for the Local Government Commission, within the time constraints set down in the Local Government Act 1992. The commission consulted earlier in the year about the general principles which it will follow during those reviews.

  Dioxins (Cheshire)
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all sites in Cheshire notified to his Department as contaminated with dioxin. [5437]

  Mr. Clappison
  No sites have been notified to my Department as contaminated with dioxins.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment(1)if he will make a statement on the threat to public health caused by dioxin-contaminated sits in Cheshire, and what action will be taken to clean up these sites; [5438]

  (2) what steps will be taken to protect public health in respect of sites in Cheshire that are contaminated with dioxin. [5439]

  Mr. Clappison
  I know of no sites in Cheshire which pose a risk to public health from dioxins.

  Coal Mines (Accidents)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) fatal and (b) non-fatal industrial accidents there have been at each coal mine in England in 1995. [5519]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information for individual mines is not produced. Statistics for the industry are published as an aggregate figure in the Health and Safety Commission's annual report. Those for the first quarter of 1995 are included in the 1994–95 statistics, which were published in the commission's annual report last month. Copies have been placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been(a) the number of fatal coal mine accidents? and (b) the accident rate per 1,000 employees, in each year since 1979. [5520]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is not available in the format requested for all years since 1979. Since 1984, the number of accidents have been recorded on a financial year basis. Information from April 1995 is not yet available. The table shows the number of fatal injuries and fatal accident rate per 1,000 employees from 1979.

  Year

  Fatal injuries

  Accident rate per 1,000 employees

  1979

  46

  0.19

  1980

  42

  0.17

  1981

  35

  0.15

  1982

  38

  0.17

  1983

  30

  0.15

  1984–85

  22

  0.13

  1985–86

  29

  0.18

  1986–87

  18

  0.14

  1987–88

  12

  0.11

  1988–89

  20

  0.23

  1989–90

  19

  0.27

  1990–91

  12

  0.19

  1991–92

  12

  0.23

  1992–93

  6

  0.12

  1993–94

  7

  0.27

  1994–95

  2

  0.16

  Non-native Animals
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all non-native species of birds, animals, fish and crustacean which(a) have established and (b) are suspected of having established a breeding population in the United Kingdom since 1945. [5552]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 13 December 1995]: The following species of bird, mammal, reptile and amphibian, and crustacea are thought to have been introduced since 1945 and are suspected of having established breeding populations. Introductions of all non-native freshwater fish species appear to have occurred before 1945. The Government's statutory scientific adviser, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, indicates that other species are likely to have briefly established populations since 1945 but have now become extinct. Due to recording techniques and only the fleeting presence of some of these species, data are not readily available.
  723

  Birds

  Animals (note some do not have common names)

  Reptiles and amphibians

  Crustacea (note some do not have common names)

  Ruddy duck

  American mink

  Alpine newt

  North American

  Ring-necked

  Pere Davids

  African clawed

  signal crayfish

  Parakeet

  deer

  toad

  Turkish crayfish

  Bar-headed

  Sea anenonies

  Fire-bellied

  Noble crayfish

  goose

  and corals:

  toad

  Red swamp crayfish

  Muscovy

  Rhizogeton

  Metatrichoniscoides

  duck1

  nudum

  leydigi

  Snow goose

  Clavopsella

  (a woodlouse)

  Swan goose

  navis

  Asellus

  Barnacle goose1

  Anguillicola

  communis

  Red-crested

  crassus

  (a freshwater

  Pochard

  (nematode

  woodlouse)

  white-fronted

  worm)

  Gammarus

  goose1

  Bristle worms:

  tigrinus

  Lesser white-

  Goniadella

  (a shrimp)

  fronted

  gracilis

  Arcitalitrus

  goose1

  Hydroides

  dorrieni

  Night heron1M

  ezoensis

  Hydroides

  dianthus

  Janua

  brasiliensis

  Pileolaria

  berkeleyana

  Marenzelleria

  viridis

  Ammothea

  hilgendorfi

  (Sea spider

  Molluscs:

  Rapana venosa

  Crassostrea gigas

  Tiostrea lutaria

  Aulacomya ater

  Ensis americanus

  Styela clava

  (sea-squirt)

  1These species occur naturally in the United Kingdom as vagrants or regular winter visitors, but their breeding populations are thought to be due largely to escapes or releases from captivity i.e. they are not native breeding species.

  Opencast Mines
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the planning applications for opencast coal mining sites he has received; which companies made the applications; and what his decision has been in each case since 1990. [5884]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not held centrally. It is for mineral planning authorities in the first instance to decide whether planning permission should be granted for opencast coal mining. Statistics are published annually for the County Planning Officers Society by Durham county council.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of bills to his Department were paid in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice in the last year for which figures are available. [5705]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Ninety-two per cent.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of the additional costs to be incurred by energy conservation authorities in producing reports required under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995; and from which departmental budget heading the required expenditure will be met. [6116]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  A total of £3 million has been transferred to the provision for rate support grant in 1996–97 and 1997–98 in respect of the new duty to produce energy conservation reports under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 in accordance with the new burdens procedure agreed with the local authority associations. The transfer has been made from this Department's energy efficiency expenditure programme.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he plans to stage the implementation of local government reorganisation to take account of the resources available. [6099]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 8 December,Official Report, columns 407–08.

  Local Government Pension Scheme
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to consult interested parties in England and Wales on proposed changes to the local government pension scheme; and if he will make a statement. [6557]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A consultation paper is today being issued to local authorities in England and Wales, and to a wide range of other interested parties involved with local authority pensions, which takes forward our intentions to reduce central Government's involvement in the local government pension scheme and, at the same time, to increase the part played by local government in managing its pension responsibilities.

  Our proposals would mean that the LGPS remains a public service pension scheme and that local government pensions will continue to be provided within a statutory framework. The benefits provided by the scheme both now and in the future will continue to have full statutory security. At the same time, local authority employers would have more discretion within that framework to develop more flexible pension arrangements and to adopt new pension structures to meet local circumstances.

  Proposals are also put forward in the paper to reduce significantly the regulatory content of the current scheme regulations. Consultees are expressly invited to contribute to the Department's efforts to streamline the provision governing the LGPS, to weed out unnecessary and redundant requirements and to make the scheme's provisions more user friendly. Overall, this should mean less regulation and ultimately a reduced level of involvement by the Department in the operation of the scheme.
  725
  Representations on the proposals are requested by March 1996. Draft scheme regulations will be circulated for formal consultation in late 1996 and come into force in early 1997.

  Housing Capital Funding
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to make an announcement about the distribution of housing capital funding for 1996–97. [6790]

  Mr. Curry
  I am today announcing decisions about the distribution of capital funding for housing in 1996–97.

  Councils will receive housing investment programme allocations totalling over £1.2 billion for 1996–97. Under the competitive HIP process, we have again been able to direct funding to those councils that are best able to make use of them.

  Within the HIP programme, £943 million is for general purpose allocations, the housing "annual capital guidelines". As last year, these have been allocated 40 per cent. on the basis of a statistical assessment of local housing needs and 60 per cent. on a competitive basis related to performance.

  As part of the assessment of its programme, each local authority is required to submit a housing strategy statement, setting out a comprehensive framework for housing programmes for at least the next three years, covering not only the plans of the local authority but the contribution to be made by the private housing sector. The strategy is prepared in consultation with all those interested in the local housing scene, including the Housing Corporation, housing associations, tenants' groups and the private sector. Once again, there is a continuing improvement in the performance of the great majority of local authorities, with most of them now producing good quality housing strategies.

  In addition to these annual capital guidelines, £270 million has been allocated for private sector renewal and housing defects in the form of "specified capital grant". Once again, 40 per cent. of funding has been distributed on a statistical assessment of local needs, and 60 per cent. on a competitive basis.

  Since the competitive system was introduced in 1991, the performance of local housing authorities has improved considerably. As described in the housing White Paper published in June, local authorities have an important role as strategic enablers and the Government wish to encourage all authorities to produce good strategies and fulfil their functions effectively and efficiently. Therefore, I propose to change the system of annual capital guideline and specified capital grant allocations for 1997–98 to a fully competitive basis, under which 100 per cent. of the allocations locally will be decided competitively. The Department will be consulting representatives of the local authority associations on this proposal early next year.

  I am depositing tables in the Library of the House showing each authority's annual capital guideline and specified capital grant allocation for 1996–97. Together, these comprise the HIP allocations. In addition, I am depositing a list of the authorities whose performance is assessed as being well above the average for their region.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the United Kingdom's progress towards meeting its commitment under the climate change convention to take measures aimed at returning carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. [6791]

  Mr. Gummer
  I have today published an update of the carbon dioxide chapter of the United Kingdom climate change programme. The document, entitled "Progress Report on Carbon Dioxide Emissions", sets out details of policy developments and progress since January 1994 on each of the measures in the programme aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

  The revised chapter reflects energy projections, published by the Department of Trade and Industry earlier this year, which indicate that carbon dioxide emissions will be 4 to 8 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2000. In the light of the latest evidence of man-made climate change and its effects, this is most welcome progress.

  This rate of progress puts us at the forefront of international efforts to combat climate change and demonstrates once again the United Kingdom's determination not to promise more that it can deliver on its environmental commitments, but to do better if at all possible.

  We shall continue to put pressure on others to achieve real cuts, and to agree new commitments for reducing greenhouse gas emissions for the period beyond 2000.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many civil servants are currently employed in those areas of his Department for which tenders have been sought under the private finance initiative, and how many he expects to be employed after the completion of this process. [5047]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No tenders have yet been sought for any PFI project. It is likely that about 25 IT staff out of the current total of 91 will be affected by any eventual local office county count system—LOCCS—contract. The LOCCS computer system is expected to save staff time equivalent to 600 posts; however, it does not follow that there will be a reduction in staff numbers of the same magnitude. Initiatives such as Lord Woolf s proposals for the civil courts will almost certainly require the redeployment of skilled staff to new tasks. It is also possible that about another 11 posts will be affected by plans to establish a probate record centre to take over routine records storage functions from the Court Service.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the effects on job security of existing employees of his Department of the private finance initiative. [5046]

  Mr. Evans
  It is likely that the LOCCS project will affect about 25 IT staff. The Court Service has said that it will consult its trade union side on how any transfer of these staff to the successful bidder might be achieved,
  727
  and on what terms, and whether there are alternatives to permanent transfer. Any permanent transfer would be on broadly equivalent terms, and conditions of service. It is also possible that the proposed probate records centre project will affect about 11 staff. The trade union side will also be consulted on these proposals.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to extend the private finance initiative to the administration of the magistrates courts. [4865]

  Mr. Evans
  There are no plans to include the administrative functions of the magistrates courts in PFI schemes for the provision of accommodation. Nor are there plans to apply PFI to the provision of existing computer systems there. The Department intends to explore whether PFI might make a helpful contribution in the replacement of those systems by the new standard system which is currently under development.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what routine administration elements of Crown and county court work tenders have been invited under the private finance initiative; and if this includes aspects of the work of court ushers, clerks and bailiffs. [5049]

  Mr. Evans
  Administrative functions currently performed in the Crown court and the county courts would not be covered by the LOCCS contract.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to respond to the concerns about the private finance initiative project, contained in Lord Woolf's interim report on the future of the civil justice system, with special reference to the role of the private sector in running the information technology infrastructure of the system and his Department's ability to retain control of issues of policy. [4868]

  Mr. Evans
  Any contractor will have to satisfy the Lord Chancellor's Department that confidentiality will be protected. The Department will retain full control of its policies and strategies.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will provide a breakdown of administration costs incurred to date and forecast for the future on PFI work.[5747]

  Mr. Evans
  Administrative costs incurred to date on the LOCCS procurement project amount to about £250,000. Expenditure of a further £300,000 is anticipated. As the scope of other PFI projects is still being defined and none has yet gone to procurement, it is too early to make meaningful estimates of the administrative costs to be incurred on them.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will provide revenue forecasts for the current year and the next five financial years of expenditure on schemes provided under the PH. [5748]

  Mr. Evans
  Tentative initial forecasts of revenue expenditure under the LOCCS procurement project are: 1995–96 nil; 1996–97—£6 million; 1997–98—£8 million; 1988–99—£9 million; 1999–2000—£10 million; 2001–01—£10 million. As the scope of other PFI projects 728
  is still being defined and none has yet gone to procurement, it is too early to make meaningful estimates of the revenue expenditure to be incurred on them.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when his Department will consult(a) the Lord Chief Justice, (b) the Vice-Chancellor, (c) the Master of the Rolls, (d) the president of the family division, and (e)other members of the senior judiciary under schedule 16 to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 on his proposals to contract out court functions, and what considerations underlay his decision not to consult them before tenders were invited. [5048]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Neither the local office county court system project nor the probate records centre project is at the stage where it becomes possible to have formal consultation under the terms of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.

  Court Listing
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment his Department has made of the constitutional implications of transferring the management of court listing to the private sector. [4866]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  There are no plans to transfer the management of court listing to the private sector.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of bills to his Department were paid in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice in the last year for which figures are available. [5701]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Department's general conditions of contract contain a clause informing suppliers that we shall make payment within agreed terms, or within 30 days of receipt of an invoice, where no such terms exist. The conditions also give advice on how to complain if the Department fails to make payment on time. Annual surveys of invoice payments are carried out, the latest of which showed that 93.8 per cent. of invoices were paid on time. The survey results, together with details of the Department's payment policies, are published in the annual report.

  Mental Incapacity Report
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Government's response to the Law Commission's report on mental incapacity will be published. [6115]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Government set up an interdepartmental working group, chaired by the Lord Chancellor's Department, to consider the Law Commission's report on mental incapacity. The group was asked to produce an initial report for consideration by Ministers by 1 September 1995 and has met this timetable. Ministers are now considering the report of the working
  729
  group, together with that of the Law Commission. The Government will make an announcement of their initial view on the Law Commission's report once Ministers have had the opportunity to consider the implications of the proposals.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of bills to his Department were paid in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice in the last year for which figures are available. [5702]

  Mr. Howard
  The latest available figure is 92 per cent. as published in the Home Office annual report 1995.

  Ministerial Meetings (Immigration)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many meetings the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) has had, to date, with right hon. and hon. Members since he was appointed a Minister in the Home Office to discuss immigration, asylum and nationality matters; how many requests for such meetings he has refused; and how many such meetings are pending. [6036]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Since my appointment on 17 October 1995, I have had 13 meetings with right hon. and hon. Members on immigration, asylum and nationality cases. Two are pending. In addition, I have had numerous other discussions with hon. Members on individual cases. Information on the number of requests for meetings that I have refused is not readily available.

  Charities (Police and Probation Services)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reimbursement measures exist for charitable organisations in return for the work they carry out on behalf of statutory bodies with special reference to the police and probation services. [6042]

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for each police authority and the chief officer of police to determine whether, and how to, reimburse organisations which carry out work for the force. Under rule 41(a) of the Probation (Amendment) Rules 1994, probation services may make payments to voluntary organisations for the provision of a range of services. It is for chief probation officers to decide which organisations should be aided, having regard to local needs and priorities.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the arrangements for notifying the Benefits Agency if a country has undergone, or is undergoing, events likely to give rise to a well-founded form of persecution among its nationals are now in operation. [5938]
  730
  Miss Widdecombe
  The arrangements will come into operation when the regulations about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is consulting have come into force. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department envisages that he will notify the Benefits Agency if a country undergoes a fundamental change of circumstances such that people are not normally being returned to that country for the time being.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is currently the average time a remand prisoner spends in custody while awaiting trial(a) in Durham and (b) in the United Kingdom. [5127]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter for England and Wales has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given. Information for Scotland and Northern Ireland are the responsibilities of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 14 December 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking, what is the average time a prisoner spends in custody whilst awaiting trial (a) in Durham and (b) in the United Kingdom.Information on the average time spent in custody for untried prisoners awaiting trial in Durham is not available. The available information on the estimated average time spent in custody for untried prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales in 1994 was given in a written reply to a Question from Mr. Jim Cunningham MP (Coventry South East) on 5 December (Co1.210).
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimate of the additional annual costs incurred as a result of prisoners being held on remand beyond the statutory time limit. [1701]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Janet Anderson, dated 14 December 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for the estimate of the additional annual costs incurred as a result of prisoners being held on remand beyond the statutory time limit.The available information relates to Prison Service costs for additional time served by prisoners awaiting Crown Court trial beyond the statutory time limit. About seventy five per cent of such prisoners receive a custodial sentence so that no net additional period in prison occurs. Overall, the additional annual cost incurred by the Prison Service is approximately £5 million in the current year.A reliable estimate of the cost of holding prisoners on magistrates' court remand in excess of the custody time limit is not available.

  Visitors
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 28 November,Official Report, column 667, if he will

  731
  make it his policy to record the dates on which visitors to the United Kingdom leave the country. [3791]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  No. A comprehensive system which matches arrival and embarkation records would not be a cost-effective way to operate immigration control. A more targeted approach in co-operation with the police and other agencies has proved to be a more successful way to detect and deal with people here unlawfully.

  Asylum and Immigration Bill
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with(a) employers' organisations, (b) the civil service, (c) local government and (d) the health service on the costs of the implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Bill and the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Amendment Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [6011]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The proposals in the Bill for preventing illegal employment were discussed with other Government Departments. A consultation document, including a compliance cost assessment, has been sent to employers' organisations, local government bodies, the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts and other interested organisations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has consulted widely about the proposed benefit changes through the Social Security Advisory Committee and with the local authorities' associations. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration has had discussions with the Association of London Government.

  Mr. Derek Lewis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what formula was used in calculating the performance-related bonus paid to Mr. Derek Lewis during his employment as Director General of the Prison Service; [5632]

  (2) if the terms and conditions of employment of the post of Director General of the Prison Service will include a performance-related element; [5630]

  (3) how much was paid to Mr. Derek Lewis as a performance-related bonus during his employment as Director General of the Prison Service; and what percentage this figure was in relation to the salary he received. [5633]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Under the terms of his appointment, Mr. Lewis was entitled to a performance bonus of up to 35 per cent., of his salary, assessed on the basis of qualitative and quantitative measures reflecting performance against the Prison Service's key targets as set out in the agency's corporate and business plans. Such measures included reductions in escapes and assaults and an increase in purposeful activity for prisoners. For the period from his appointment on 6 January 1993 to 31 March 1993, a bonus of £8,280 was paid solely on the basis of his personal contribution to the Prison Service. For the 1993–94 financial year, when the Prison Service met or exceeded all of its key targets except one, Mr. Lewis received a bonus of £35,000 which represented 28 per cent. of his salary of £125,000. The precise formula used to assess Mr. Lewis's performance was personal to 732
  him and I have no plans to publish it. Mr. Lewis waived the bonus for 1994–95, despite meeting his targets, because of the escape from Whitemoor. The question of a bonus for the current year forms part of Mr. Lewis's legal action which is pending before the courts. My right hon. and learned Friend will make an announcement about the appointment of the director general when a substantive appointment is made.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the maximum inmate population of Doncaster prison; and how many(a) sentenced and (b) remand prisoners under 18 years of age were held there in each month of 1995. [5517]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 14 December 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what was the maximum inmate population of Doncaster prison; and how many (a) sentenced and (b) remand prisoners under 18 years of age were held there in each month of 1995.
  The maximum inmate population (operational capacity) of Doncaster prison is currently 850 prisoners.
  The other information requested is given in the attached table. Records are only available from April 1995.

  Sentenced and remand prisoners under the age of eighteen held at Doncaster since April 1995

  Date

  Remand

  Sentenced

  Total

  April 1995

  54

  3

  57

  May

  64

  3

  67

  June

  58

  1

  59

  July

  67

  1

  68

  August

  94

  1

  95

  September

  78

  3

  81

  October

  89

  4

  93

  November

  55

  3

  58

  Second Passports
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the use of second passports purchased commercially in the United Kingdom. [5448]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The national forgery section of the immigration service holds extensive information gathered over many years on "second passports". Its records include details of various companies offering such documents for sale and examples of some of those on offer. This information has been widely circulated within the immigration service to ensure that any attempted circumvention of the immigration control by use of these documents is quickly identified.

  When arriving in the United Kingdom, or when seeking entry through the channel tunnel, a person must produce, on request by the immigration officer, a valid national passport or other document satisfactorily establishing his identity and nationality. A person holding a document purchased commercially would not fulfil this requirement.

  Internet
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with his international counterparts about the possibility of joint action being taken to regulate the content of material disseminated via the Internet. [5470]

  Mr. Sackville
  None. The regulation of the Internet and other computer networks is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  However, the interdepartmental group on obscenity is currently considering the issue of pornographic material disseminated via the Internet, and it has arranged a conference with Internet service providers in the United Kingdom to discuss the possible measures which can be taken to control access to such material.

  National Lottery Charities Board
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the names of regional advisory panel members for the National Lottery Charities Board, identifying those who are elected councillors and their political affiliation. [5445]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the National Lottery Charities Board. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

TREASURY

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all Departments for which forecasts of capital spending under the private finance initiative are available for(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–2001. [5756]

  Mr. Jack
  Table 6.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" gives the estimated figures for the survey period.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the policy with regard to the disclosure of information on schemes under the private finance initiative and the extent to which issues of commercial confidentiality affect such disclosure. [5758]

  Mr. Jack
  The duty of Departments to account to Parliament for their spending is not changed by the private finance initiative. Disclosure while negotiations are still proceeding would usually weaken the Government's negotiating position. Nevertheless, the National Audit Office has access to documents relating to private finance initiative contracts, as it does for other contracts. In line with reporting arrangements for other contracts, information on private finance initiative schemes can be disclosed after a contract has been settled, except where there is a specific undertaking of commercial confidentiality on a particular matter.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Department receives from other Departments information on all private finance initiative schemes. [5757]

  Mr. Jack
  The PFI is a decentralised initiative. Individual Secretaries of State have the responsibility for driving forward the initiative in their areas. As such, not 734
  every project will require direct Treasury approval and as a consequence we will not receive information centrally on every PFI project.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide for schemes so far agreed under the PFI the level of financing costs above the current cost of Government borrowing for the scheme with(a) the highest financing costs and (b) the lowest costs. [5727]

  Mr. Jack
  The information is not available in the form requested because it is a fundamental principle when considering schemes under the private finance initiative that what is assessed is the overall best value for money in providing a specified service, taking into account all aspects of design, building, finance and operation as a unified whole.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total annual cost to public funds of schemes to be funded by the private finance initiative at current prices for each of the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [5464]

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide revenue forecasts for the current year and the next five years of expenditure on schemes provided under the PFI. [5726]

  Mr. Jack
  It is for individual Departments to estimate the revenue costs of the PFI projects in their sphere of the responsibility, and to take these costs into account in their expenditure plans. However, on the basis of assessments of four major Departments, total service payments in the current year and the next three years are expected to be, very broadly:

  1995–96: []

  1996–97: 130

  1997–98: 295

  1998–99: 460

  However, these are only indicative numbers. The precise size and timing of revenue payments depend on agreement to projects, many of which are currently under negotiation, and on the subsequent delivery and levels of use of specific services to specified standards. Central information is not available for the full 10 years requested.

  Departmental Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the Treasury report on departmental fraud in all Government Departments for 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [6033]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Copies of the latest "Dear Accounting Officer" letter and accompanying analysis, which contain information on frauds reported by Departments for the financial year 194–95, were placed in the Library of the Houses on 11 December 1995. The documents are also available to the public.

  Draft EC Budget
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the organisations receiving subsidies for advancing the idea of Europe cited in budget item A–304 in the EC 1996 draft budget indicating the amounts they receive and the specific purpose behind the provision of funds. [5901]
  735
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The criteria for the types of project which will be eligible for funding from this budget line next year are set out in the commentary appended to line A–304 of the draft general budget of the European Communities, a copy of which is in the Library. Precisely how these funds are spent is a matter for the European Commission, to which questions about the detail of expenditure in 1996 and previous years should be addressed.

  European Community Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the statement of the Secretary of State for the Environment of 21 November,Official Report, column 454, if he will make it his policy to review past legislation in respect of additional burdens imposed by regulation implementing European directives. [5074]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 11 December 1995]: It is the policy in the Departments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that we do not "gold-plate" European directives by the addition of unnecessary burdens when implementing them in the United Kingdom. We will take every opportunity to look at existing legislation in the light of this policy.

  Inland Revenue (Referred Cases)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions in each year since 1965, High Court judges have referred details of a case to the Inland Revenue. [5549]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 13 December 1995]: The Inland Revenue does not maintain such records.

  Air Quality Monitoring
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the additional resources to be made available to local authorities to implement air quality monitoring commitments made in the Environment Act 1995 following his 1995 Budget statement. [4943]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.

  Phased implementations of local authorities' new duties in respect of air quality under the Environment Act 1995 will begin next year. The first phase will involve a representative number of local authorities in , England, Scotland and Wales. Criteria for selecting the authorities are being prepared by the local authority air quality management working group of central and local government officials set up by the Department of the Environment to assist with implementation of part IV of the Act. We will shortly announce the first phase authorities and will make funds available to cover necessary increased expenditure.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to publish the recent efficiency scrutiny on the TEC contract and management fee; and if she will make a statement. [6727]
  736
  Mr. Paice
  A copy of the report of the scrutiny team has been place in the Library.

  Although it is too early to comment on the detail of the report, I am very eager to reduce administrative burdens on TECs where these are shown to be unnecessary and the Department will be looking at its recommendations very carefully.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress Aztec and Solotec are making in meeting the criteria for the award of a three-year licence. [6726]

  Mr. Paice
  I am pleased to announce the award of three-year licences to Aztec and the South London training and enterprise council, which have now completed the process of meeting the rigorous standards we set.

  International Labour Conference
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has for publishing the White Paper on the instruments adopted at the 81st session of the international labour conference 1994. [6652]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have today published the White Paper entitled "International Labour Conference."

  Access to Work
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have been assisted under the access to work programme; and if she will make a statement. [6932]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In 1994–95, the first year of operation, over 10,300 people were assisted under the access to work programme. In 1995–96, it is estimated that some 10,000 people have already received support.

  On present trends, planned provision for the programme in 1995–96—£13.4 million—will be exceeded to a significant extent. While I have been able to allocate additional funds to meet the demands made so far on the programme this year, it is necessary to implement the priority within the programme for unemployed people in order to keep expenditure within the resources available.

  I am therefore announcing that, with effect from 18 December, funding will be targeted on meeting existing commitments; to applications to renew arrangements which fully satisfy the programme's present rules and criteria and which would otherwise lapse; and to people with disabilities who have been unemployed for at least four weeks. The Government believe that this is the most equitable way of allocating the limited resources available.

  The Government recognise the importance of the programme to people with disabilities and to employers. The planned provision for the programme next year has therefore been maintained. Before reaching decisions on 1996–97, the Govnerment will publish the research they have commissioned on the first year, and enter into discussions with the organisations principally concerned on the operation of the programme next year.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of bills to her Department were paid in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice in the last year for which figures are available. [5706]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A total of 6,419 invoices were sampled in four separate prompt payment exercises during 1994–95. The results showed that 6,387 of these invoices were paid within 30 days—95 per cent of the sample.

  Schools (Self-government)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many responses she has received to the consultation paper on self-government for voluntary-aided schools from(a) voluntary-aided schools, (b) grant-aided maintained former voluntary-aided schools, (c) local authority associations, (d) local education authorities and (e) Church bodies. [5777]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Body

  Number of responses

  (a) Voluntary aided schools

  1,629

  (b) Former voluntary grant-maintained schools1

  16

  (c) Local authority associations2

  4

  (d) Local education authorities

  74

  (e) Church Bodies3

  68

  1 Includes former voluntary-controlled, as well as former voluntary-aided, GM schools.

  2Includes national and local associations.

  3 Includes national religious bodies and Church of England and Roman Catholic diocesan boards.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many responses she has received in respect of the consultation paper on self-government for voluntary-aided schools; how many of them were in favour of each of the options listed in the paper; and how many of them were in favour of the proposals. [5780]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received almost 2,000 responses to the Department's consultation paper on self-government for voluntary-aided schools. We are currently completing the analysis of these responses. A summary will be made available in due course, and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many grant-maintained schools were formerly(a) voluntary-aided schools (b) voluntary-aided Church schools; and in each case what proportion of the total number of voluntary-aided schools this represents. [5781]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Some 231 grant-maintained schools were formerly voluntary aided, and 204 of these were voluntary-aided Church schools. This means that some 738
  6 per cent. of all existing and former voluntary-aided schools and 5 per cent. of existing and former voluntary-aided Church schools have transferred to the grant maintained sector.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made by her Department in taking forward proposals for the expansion of the assisted places scheme; and how much her Department estimates this will cost in the future financial years for which figures are available when this has been achieved. [5822]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on 29 November,Official Report, columns 711–12 about arrangements for the expansion of the assisted places scheme. As to the cost of the expansion in future years, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 4 December, Official Report, column 117.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which independent sector schools charged(a) the highest and (b) the lowest level of fees to pupils covered by the assisted places scheme in the academic year 1994–95; and what charges were levied. [5826]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The school which charged the highest fee in academic year 1994–95 was Charterhouse, at £9,459 in respect of its sixth form assisted pupils. Salesian college, Farnborough charged the lowest fee at £2,604.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much her Department has spent on the operation of the assisted places scheme in each year since 1981; how many(a) pupils and (b) institutions were covered by the scheme; and what was the overspend on the budget allocated to the scheme. [5791]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), on 24 October,Official Report, column 623, for the information about expenditure and the numbers of pupils covered by the scheme. The number of independent schools participating in the scheme for each academic year since 1981 is given in the following table:

  Assisted places scheme

  Academic year

  Number of participating schools

  1981–82

  220

  1982–83

  220

  1983–84

  223

  1984–85

  226

  1985–86

  226

  1986–87

  226

  1987–88

  226

  1988–89

  226

  1989–90

  278

  1990–91

  295

  1991–92

  295

  1992–93

  295

  1993–94

  295

  1994–95

  294

  The figures relate to England only.
  739
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools covered by the assisted places scheme received(a) more than £1 million, (b) over £750,000 (c) over £500,000 and (d) over £250,000 under the assisted places scheme for each academic year since 1981. [5819]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested for each academic year since 1981 is not available and could be derived only at disproportionate cost. Information is available in respect of the academic year 1994–95; the number of participating schools in each category is(a) four, (b) 19, (c) 76 and (d)

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many independent sector schools have had(a) more than 25 per cent.,(b) more than 50 per cent. and (c) less than 5 per cent. of their rolls made up of pupils covered by the assisted places scheme. [5829]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested is available in respect of the academic year 1994–95; the number of schools in each category is(a) 44, (b) 1 and (c)

  Discretionary Awards
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what evaluation has been made of the effect of the 1995–96 budget settlement on(a) discretionary awards and (b) the youth service;

  (2) what evaluation of the likely effect on (a) discretionary awards and (b) the youth service was made in calculating education standard spending assessments for 1996–97. [5831]

  Mr. Forth
  Spending on discretionary awards and the youth service in 1995–96 and in 1996–97 will depend on the decisions of individual local education authorities.

  Training (Social Fund Claims)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to reduce the amounts due to be paid to training providers in respect of training provided in 1994 and financed by the European social fund as a result of exchange rate fluctuations; what is the total amount to be held back; how many training providers will be affected; and if she will make a statement. [6147]

  Mr. Paice
  Because of fluctuations in the exchange rate, the Government have not yet received sufficient funds from the European Commission to pay 1994 European social fund final claims in full. Applicants will therefore receive 95 per cent. of the total eligible costs of their projects. No money is being held back. The final claims presented to the European Commission for 1994 have been paid in full in ecu; the shortfall for applicants results from the translation of ecu into sterling.

  Additional information is now being sought from applicants to enable the claim to be recalculated in a way which should provide more sterling to enable further payments to be made in due course. There were 1,512 applicant organisations in 1994.

  Employee Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the number and value of fraud cases excluded from the figures contained in his answer of 24 October,Official Report, column 612, because no perpetrators were found. [6088]

  Mr. Forth
  The number of cases excluded from the answer of the 24 October are as follows:

  Number of cases

  Amount involved

  Amount recovered

  1993–94

  DfEE

  4

  £13,244

  £ nil

  1994–95

  DfEE

  5

  £42,063

  £10.800

  1. Not all of the above cases were reported on the Treasury returns.

  2. The perpetrators of the above cases were not necessarily members of the Department or its agencies.

  3. There were no recorded cases involving the Employment Service or other agencies.

  School Admissions (Appeals)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many appeals were made by parents on the grounds of non-admission of their child to the school of their choice in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; how many of these appeals went before a statutory committee; and of these how many were (i) rejected and (ii) found in parents' favour. [6150]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The available information is shown in the following table:

  Appeals by parents against non-admission of their children to maintained (including grant maintained) primary and secondary schools in England

  Academic year 1993–94

  Total appeals lodged1

  Appeals heard by a statutory committe2

  Appeals rejected

  Appeals found in parents' favour

  45.876

  32,188

  18.891

  13.255

  1 Includes appeals which were withdrawn by parents or settled to mutual satisfaction before reaching a statutory committee.

  2 Includes appeals heard by a statutory committee for which a decision was still to he made at the end of the academic year.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many three and four-year-olds in each local education authority attended(a) nursery schools, (b) nursery classes and (c) reception classes in primary school. [6189]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information on pupils aged three and four in maintained nursery and primary schools for each local education authority in England is shown in the following table:
  741

  Pupils aged 3 and 4 in maintained nursery and primary chools in England

  Position as at January 1995

  Nursery schools

  Primary schools

  Nursery classes

  Infant classes1

  Camden

  61

  955

  1,015

  Greenwich

  647

  2,635

  1,024

  Hackney

  149

  2,172

  1,587

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  554

  1,167

  568

  Islington

  319

  1,575

  1,466

  Kensington and Chelsea

  249

  608

  385

  Lambeth

  450

  2,011

  1,018

  Lewisham

  231

  2,431

  1,131

  Southwark

  535

  2,562

  2,120

  Tower Hamlets

  721

  2,635

  1,705

  Wandsworth

  216

  2,176

  1,624

  Westminster

  190

  993

  574

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  2,054

  1,623

  Barnet

  575

  2,095

  2,205

  Bexley

  0

  1.442

  2,074

  Brent

  223

  2,377

  1,974

  Bromley

  0

  172

  2,385

  Croydon

  499

  1,512

  2,883

  Ealing

  454

  3,265

  2,426

  Enfield

  0

  1,663

  2,389

  Haringey

  223

  2,519

  1,848

  Harrow

  0

  1,009

  1,626

  Havering

  0

  495

  1,984

  Hillingdon

  120

  3,234

  87

  Hounslow

  0

  2,363

  1,725

  Kingston upon Thames

  242

  967

  1,038

  Merton

  0

  2,713

  983

  Newham

  959

  3,496

  1,280

  Redbridge

  0

  1,326

  1,397

  Richmond upon Thames

  68

  670

  1,114

  Sutton

  240

  1,727

  64

  Waltham Forest

  308

  2,405

  1,044

  Birmingham

  2,411

  8,538

  10,019

  Coventry

  141

  1,984

  2,788

  Dudley

  70

  2,992

  2,707

  Sandwell

  128

  4,537

  2,840

  Solihull

  0

  1,880

  1,949

  Walsall

  839

  3,557

  2,465

  Wolverhampton

  848

  3,050

  2,262

  Knowsley

  0

  3,003

  1,679

  Liverpool

  564

  5,698

  4,483

  St. Helens

  80

  1,605

  1,574

  Sefton

  318

  2,440

  2,507

  Wirral

  319

  1,954

  2,933

  Bolton

  491

  2,694

  2,618

  Bury

  159

  1,379

  1 ,595

  Manchester

  542

  7,039

  2,429

  Oldham

  0

  2,458

  2,236

  Rochdale

  912

  1,233

  2,112

  Salford

  1,075

  2,456

  2,264

  Stockport

  936

  1,146

  2,483

  Tameside

  281

  2,287

  2,135

  Trafford

  0

  2,526

  1,919

  Wigan

  190

  1,986

  2,732

  Barnsley

  181

  2,812

  1,101

  Doncaster

  0

  3,667

  2,817

  Rotherham

  403

  2,924

  1,160

  Sheffield

  851

  4,849

  2,438

  Bradford

  521

  5,965

  4,135

  Calderdale

  0

  1,946

  1,866

  Kirklees

  548

  3,890

  3,509

  Leeds

  77

  9,170

  5,730

  Wakefield

  481

  4,363

  1,770

  Gateshead

  73

  1,801

  1,653

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  622

  2,295

  2,289

  North Tyneside

  226

  2,468

  1,682

  South Tyneside

  454

  1,781

  1,388

  742

  Pupils aged 3 and 4 in maintained nursery and primary schools in England

  Position as at January 1995

  Nursery schools

  Primary schools

  Nursery classes

  Infant classes1

  Sunderland

  1,042

  2,405

  2,611

  Avon

  1,799

  3,434

  7,930

  Bedfordshire

  1,476

  3,744

  2,918

  Berkshire

  2,203

  4,657

  777

  Buckinghamshire

  571

  2,469

  3,100

  Cambridgeshire

  734

  1,497

  5,842

  Cheshire

  869

  4,614

  8,323

  Cleveland

  154

  9,368

  5,241

  Cornwall1

  111

  1,555

  3,617

  Cumbria

  817

  2,224

  4.066

  Derbyshire

  1,573

  8,132

  5,768

  Devon

  315

  2,697

  4,240

  Dorset

  0

  841

  5,000

  Durham

  2,618

  4,645

  5.112

  East Sussex

  258

  1,367

  5,186

  Essex

  300

  2,386

  8.694

  Gloucestershire

  0

  27

  4,616

  Hampshire

  339

  1,638

  13,645

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  1,682

  1,953

  Hertfordshire

  1,743

  7,780

  5,374

  Humberside

  1,163

  8,080

  5,400

  Isle of Wight

  0

  175

  922

  Kent

  83

  2,125

  13,509

  Lancashire

  3,664

  4,466

  12,867

  Leicestershire

  51

  5,219

  4,762

  Lincolnshire

  531

  1,536

  4,912

  Norfolk

  404

  857

  5,646

  North Yorkshire

  373

  3,512

  5,362

  Northamptonshire

  616

  2,419

  5,478

  Northumberland

  128

  2,923

  2,498

  Nottinghamshire

  595

  13,169

  2.099

  Oxfordshire

  1,079

  2,148

  1,317

  Shropshire

  176

  1,844

  2,127

  Somerset

  0

  587

  3,901

  Staffordshire

  2,077

  4,976

  9,068

  Suffolk

  101

  2,977

  2,591

  Surrey

  428

  2,635

  7,078

  Warwickshire

  759

  1,425

  4,228

  West Sussex

  434

  811

  3,011

  Wiltshire

  0

  577

  3,388

  England2 3

  52,558

  303.462

  343.824

  1 Includes reception and other classes.

  2 Includes Isles of Scilly.

  3 Includes Corporation of London.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total cost(a) nationally and (b) to each local education authority of teachers' pay increases in (i)1994–95 and (ii) 1996–97. [5792]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total estimated cost in England and Wales of the teachers' pay increase in 1994–95 was £309 million. The following table illustrates the cost of the award by updating the 1993–94 expenditure recorded by local education authorities in England and Wales for teaching staff salaries in nursery and primary, secondary and special schools by the 1994–95 teachers' pay award of 2.9 per cent. The 1993–94 expenditure figures are the latest available for LEA-maintained schools in England
  743
  and Wales. The figures in the table take no account of changes in teacher numbers or other factors that affect the teachers' pay bill.

  The School Teachers Review Body has not yet recommended a pay award for 1996–97.

  LEA expenditure on teachers' salaries

  £000

  Pre-primary and primary, secondary and special schools

  1993–94(actual)

  1994–95 increase (2.9per cent.)

  Corporation of London

  378

  11

  Camden

  37,774

  1,095

  Greenwich

  53,751

  1,559

  Hackney

  41,871

  1,214

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  25,087

  728

  Islington

  37,294

  1,082

  Kensington and Chelsea

  15,922

  462

  Lambeth

  39,698

  1,151

  Lewisham

  43,235

  1,254

  Southwark

  38,056

  1,104

  Tower Hamlets

  58,012

  1,682

  Wandsworth

  31,532

  914

  City of Westminster

  30,151

  874

  Barking

  34,487

  1,000

  Barnet

  55,491

  1,609

  Bexley

  40,962

  1,188

  Brent

  39,613

  1,149

  Bromley

  35,283

  1,023

  Croydon

  51,278

  1,487

  Ealing

  46,119

  1,337

  Enfield

  51,873

  1,504

  Haringey

  48,595

  1,409

  Harrow

  38,702

  1,122

  Havering

  41,677

  1,209

  Hillingdon

  26,648

  773

  Hounslow

  46,927

  1,361

  Kingston upon Thames

  21,879

  634

  Merton

  33,279

  965

  Newham

  54,533

  1,581

  Redbridge

  49,548

  1,437

  Richmond upon Thames

  25,724

  746

  Sutton

  22,531

  653

  Waltham Forest

  46,867

  1,359

  Birmingham

  211,785

  6,142

  Coventry

  69,840

  2,025

  Dudley

  55,540

  1,611

  Sandwell

  66,061

  1,916

  Solihull

  41,921

  1,216

  Walsall

  55,669

  1,614

  Wolverhampton

  53,635

  1,555

  Knowsley

  34,935

  1,013

  Liverpool

  104,939

  3,043

  St. Helens

  39,149

  1,135

  Sefton

  57,370

  1,664

  Wirral

  69,278

  2,009

  Bolton

  54,728

  1,587

  Bury

  33,505

  972

  Manchester

  91,541

  2,655

  Oldham

  56,483

  1,638

  Rochdale

  39,389

  1,142

  Salford

  47,64 I

  1,382

  Stockport

  53,551

  1,553

  Tameside

  39,501

  1,146

  Trafford

  36,262

  1,052

  Wigan

  66,655

  1,933

  Barnsley

  41,363

  1,200

  Doncaster

  62,198

  1,804

  Rotherham

  58,540

  1,698

  Sheffield

  92,046

  2,669

  Bradford

  109,072

  3,163

  Calderdale

  37,935

  1,100

  Kirklees

  81,076

  2,351

  744

  LEA expenditure on teachets' salaries

  £000

  Pre-primary and Primary, secondary and special schools

  1993–94 (actual)

  1994–95(2.9 per cent.)

  Leeds

  146,072

  4,236

  Wakefield

  63,131

  1,831

  Gateshead

  40,458

  1,173

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  53,518

  1,552

  North Tyneside

  40,501

  1,175

  South Tyneside

  31,493

  913

  Sunderland

  65,654

  1,904

  Isles of Scilly

  608

  18

  Avon

  177,289

  5,141

  Bedfordshire

  105,301

  3,054

  Berkshire

  135,540

  3,931

  Buckinghamshire

  112,209

  3,254

  Cambridgeshire

  103,041

  2,988

  Cheshire

  185,457

  5,378

  Cleveland

  124,442

  3,609

  Cornwall

  86,653

  2,513

  Cumbria

  88,947

  2,579

  Derbyshire

  168,175

  4,877

  Devon

  175,999

  5,104

  Dorset

  98,186

  2,847

  Durham

  120,743

  3,502

  East Sussex

  116,123

  3,368

  Essex

  211,358

  6,129

  Glouchestershire

  74,050

  2,147

  Hampshire

  256,960

  7,452

  Hereford and Worcester

  128,339

  3,722

  Hertfordshire

  186,227

  5,401

  Humberside

  177,122

  5,137

  Isle of Wight

  24,264

  704

  Kent

  227,895

  6,609

  Lancashire

  294,517

  8541

  Leicestershire

  185,004

  5,365

  Lincolnshire

  88,099

  2,555

  Norfolk

  124,807

  3,619

  North Yorkshire

  138,958

  4,030

  Northamptonshire

  109,086

  3,163

  Northumberland

  62,398

  1,810

  Nottinghamshire

  204,137

  5,920

  Oxfordshire

  105,430

  3,057

  Shropshire

  79,422

  2,303

  Somerset

  84,749

  2,458

  Staffordshire

  193,818

  5,621

  Suffolk

  130,118

  3,773

  Surrey

  143,690

  4,167

  Warwickshire

  90,965

  2,638

  West Sussex

  128,568

  3,728

  Wiltshire

  96,340

  2,794

  Clwyd

  79,496

  2,305

  Dyfed

  83,748

  2,429

  Gwent

  89,452

  2,594

  Gwynedd

  52,783

  1,531

  Mid Glamorgan

  126,517

  3,669

  South Glamorgan

  84,294

  2,445

  West Glamorgan

  79,266

  2,299

  Powys

  27,607

  801

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the national cost of a 2.5 per cent. increase in teachers pay in 1996–97. [5793]

  Mr. Squire
  The Department is still working on its hest estimate of the teachers' pay bill for 1996–97 for the School Teachers Review Body. On the basis of the estimated pay bill for 1995–96. the cost of a 2.5 per cent. increase in teachers' pay in 1996–97 in England and Wales would he approximately £280 million.

  Local Education Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average amount of money spent by her Department on a pupil in a public sector school at(a) primary and (b) secondary level for each academic year since 1981. [5795]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows in both cash and 1993–94 prices, the net institutional expenditure per pupil in local education authority-maintained(a) pre-primary and primary and (b) secondary schools, in each financial year between 1981–82 and 1993–94, the latest year for which outturn figures are available. These figures are available only in financial years.

  National Unit Costs Pre-Primary and Secondary Schools

  Net Institutional Expenditure

  Pre-primary and Primary

  Secondary

  Year

  cash terms £

  1993–prices £

  Cash terms £

  1993–94 prices £

  1981–82

  621

  1,174

  865

  1,635

  1982–83

  682

  1,203

  942

  1,662

  1983–84

  732

  1,234

  1,014

  1,710

  1984–85

  767

  1,232

  1,086

  1,744

  1985–86

  817

  1,244

  1,177

  1,792

  1986–87

  905

  1,337

  1,340

  1,980

  1987–88

  1,006

  1,411

  1,517

  2,128

  1988–89

  1,101

  1,448

  1,692

  2,225

  1989–90

  1,210

  1,487

  1,852

  2,276

  1990–91

  1,339

  1,524

  2,015

  2,293

  1991–92

  1,468

  1,572

  2,147

  2,300

  1992–93

  1,583

  1,629

  2,256

  2,322

  1993–94

  1,630

  1,630

  2,245

  2,245

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many independent schools excluding city technology colleges are operating in the current academic year in England. [5825]

  Mrs. Gillan
  There are currently 2,272 independent schools registered by the Department, excluding city technology colleges.

  Conductive Education
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans there are to make conductive education available for children whose parents choose it. [5834]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Responsibility for providing for children with special educational needs rests with local education authorities. For those children whose needs cannot be met within the ordinary resources of a mainstream school, LEAs will maintain statements of SEN, drawn up in consultation with parents. Where a child's statement specifies conductive education, the LEA has a duty to secure its provision.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment has been made of the value and achievements of conductive education. [5816]
  746
  Mrs. Gillan
  The results of a Department-funded five-year research project undertaken by the university of Birmingham were published in 1993. These indicated that conductive education did not generally produce better results than other methods for teaching children with cerebral palsy.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many institutions provide conductive education for children with special educational needs; and how many children are currently receiving conductive therapy in each institution. [5811]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Department does not collect this information.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Service Year Book
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the civil service year hook for 1996 will be published. [6728]

  Mr. Willetts
  The civil service year book 1996 will he published by HMSO on Monday 18 December. This is the first time it has been available for the beginning of the calendar year. This publication updates and extends the range of information available about ministerial appointments, Government Departments and agencies. A CD-ROM version will also he published simultaneously, providing additional key statistics. Copies of both will be placed in the House Libraries.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many non-departmental public bodies are currently in existence; what percentages of appointments to these bodies are held by women and by members of ethnic minorities; and when the annual list of such bodies will be published. [6649]

  Mr. Willetts
  On I April 1995, there were 1,227 non-departmental public bodies—a fall of 118 or 8.8 per cent. since 1994, and of 940 or 43 per cent. since 1979. As of I September 1995, 30 per cent. of appointments to these bodies were held by women and 2.9 per cent. by members of the ethnic minorities: this compares with 23 per cent. and 2.0 per cent. respectively four years ago, when the Prime Minister announced the Government's determination to increase the representation of women and ethnic minorities in this area. Details can he found in "Public Bodies 1995" published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Civil Service Recruitment
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the reports of the independent studies on marketing the civil service's fast stream recruitment scheme and the audit of the fast stream selection process which were announced earlier this year. [6878]

  Mr. Willetts
  The Government announced in January their intention to commission an external, expert review of the marketing of the fast stream recruitment scheme
  747
  and an independent audit of the selection process. Copies of the reports of both studies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The independent audit has investigated very thoroughly the current system of selection to the fast stream. Its general conclusions are that this is a well-administered and highly professional process and that all reasonable measures have been taken to develop a system which is fair and balanced. The report makes a number of recommendations which
  "represent suggestions for 'fine tuning' rather than radical change".
  Most of these have been accepted and action is in hand to implement them.

  The marketing study has identified a number of key actions needed if the attractiveness of the fast stream to potential recruits is to be strengthened and broadened. A programme of action has therefore been agreed, for introduction in the 1996 recruitment competition. The name of the revised scheme, will be the "fast stream development programme", retaining the "fast stream" brand identified by the marketing study as a valuable asset, but making clearer that entry is to a development programme of limited duration.

  The Government announced on 23 November their intention to transfer recruitment and assessment services to the private sector as a single viable business and in a way which will ensure that it retains its reputation for the provision of high quality recruitment services. The sale of RAS will include a contract for the fast stream recruitment process for future civil servants, specifying the services required, including any necessary changes stemming from the independent audit and marketing study.

  Fuller information about the revised scheme will be contained in the annual report on fast stream recruitment, due to be published in May 1996.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those European capitals he has(a) visited and (b) plans to visit to discuss deregulation and
  give the total estimated cost to public funds of these visits. [5877]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have discussed deregulation with Ministers, EU Commissioners and business leaders in Paris, Bonn, Madrid, The Hague, Copenhagen, Stockolm, Helsinki and Brussels. I intend to have further discussions with Ministers of the remaining European Union countries. The travel costs associated with the visits already undertaken is estimated to be £9,790. Arrangements for further visits are yet to be made.

  Computers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in what way the Government are responding to the problem of non-recognition by computers of the year 2000 in respect of those computers used by(a) their own Departments and (b) large and small businesses; and if he will make a statement. [5530]
  748
  The Deputy Prime Minister
  CCTA, the Government centre for information systems, has been discussing this matter with other Government organisations and the IT industry, and will be assessing existing guidance, and what action or advice may be required on the part of Government, during the first quarter of 1996.

  Advice and help to large and small businesses are available through specialist publications, from the Computing Services and Software Association and from a number of private sector suppliers.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide revenue forecasts for the current year and the next five years of expenditure on schemes provided under the PFI. [5715]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's Metropolitan Telecommunications Service is already largely provided by the private sector, which owns much of the infrastructure. The Office of Public Service hopes to involve private finance further in the provision of software used by Government Departments. This could involve capital expenditure of some £1.5 million in 1996–97, but it is not yet clear what revenue expenditure would replace the capital expenditure programme.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of bills to his Department were paid in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice in the last year for which figures are available. [5707]

  Mr. Willetts
  The Cabinet Office's performance in respect of the payment of invoices from its suppliers is published in the annual departmental report, Cm 2820. That report gave information in respect of 1994. The next report, due to he published in March 1996, will provide information relating to the payment of invoices during 1995.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much his Department has spent on official hospitality in the financial year to date; and what is the 1995–96 projected budget for official hospitality. [5585]

  Mr. Willetts
  Expenditure on official hospitality by the Cabinet Office, including the Office of Public Service, and its executive agencies, excluding HMSO—for the period I April 1995 to the end of November is £30,100. Expenditure by HMSO, which has a different accounting year, is £33,900. for the period 1 January to the end of November.

  The projected budget for official hospitality in the full financial year 1995–96 is £41,200. This excludes HMSO and COI. The latter does not separately identify hospitality within its budgeting system. as it is included as part of its overall budget for marketing and client relations. HMSO's projected budget for its financial year 1995 is £37,000.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  British Goods and Services
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) proportion and (b) value in pounds sterling of the overseas aid budget has been tied to the purchase of British goods or services in each year since 1979–80. [5120]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Bilateral tied aid (£ million)

  Percentage of total bilateral aid

  1979

  525

  77

  1980

  489

  70

  1981

  563

  67

  1982

  471

  70

  1983

  460

  66

  1984

  477

  61

  1985

  523

  63

  1986

  598

  71

  1987

  529

  69

  1988

  692

  69

  1989

  787

  71

  1990

  740

  71

  1991

  933

  73

  1992

  650

  67

  1993

  703

  65

  1994

  557

  54

  1. Tying status data is only available for the United Kingdom's bilateral aid programme. No reliable data are available for the tying status of technical cooperation so all of this aid is reported to the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD as being tied and is included in the above figures.

  2. The DAC definition of tied aid means that procurement is restricted to a specified number of countries. Data on aid specifically tied to the procurement of British goods and services are unavailable.

  3. In addition, aid is given to multilateral agencies who also procure
  British goods and services.

  Natural Resources Institute
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress there has been in deciding the future ownership of the Natural Resources Institute. [6789]

  Mr. Hanky
  We have carefully considered indicative offers for the ownership of the Natural Resources Institute received by the closing date of 16 October. The Government's objective is a transfer of ownership which will continue to provide a centre of multidisciplinary expertise on the sustainable management of renewable natural resources for ODA and other customers, gives staff a fair future, and represents value for money for the taxpayer. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has decided to invite final offers by the end of January 1996 from:
  Cranfield university:A consortium of the university of Edinburgh, university of Greenwich, Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine and Wye College. university of London:Serco International Ltd. in association with the university of Wales.750

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list all qualitative and quantitative research projects and surveys carried out for his Department into aspects of public attitudes and opinions(a) in general and (b) in relation to specific policy proposals in each of the past three years to December 1995, indicating for each project or survey (i) the date on which the research was commissioned, (ii) the amount which his Department spent, (iii) who carried out the research, (iv) the number of people surveyed or taking part, (v) the location and time scale and (vi) the number of people surveyed or taking part, (vi) which individuals and organisations have been given access to the findings. [5972]

  Mr. Newton
  No such surveys have been carried out for the Privy Council Office in the last three years.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Debates (Bilateral Agreements)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council in what circumstances it is his policy to accede to a request for a debate by an hon. Member on certain bilateral agreements or international treaties. [5410]

  Mr. Newton
  It is not possible to specify, in advance, the circumstances in which a request for a debate will he acceded to.

PRIME MINISTER

  Official Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 December. [4475]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 December. [4476]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Paris signing the Dayton agreement on Bosnia.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with Chancellor Kohl the aspects of the Lockerbie issue pertaining to events at the Rhein-Main airport at Frankfurt in December 1988. and the desirability of a trial of two Libyan suspects at The Hague, under a Scottish judge, under Scottish rules of evidence.

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no plans to do so.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Television Licence Fees
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will announce the television licence fees which will take effect from 1 April 1996. [3911]

  Mr. Sproat
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 November 1995, Official Report, c. 818]: After further detailed scrutiny, an administrative error has come to light regarding the rounding of the figure for the new colour television licence fee payable from 1 April 1996. As a result of this additional review, licence fee payers will now have to pay only £89.50 for a colour television licence rather than the £90 initially announced.

  This change will not affect the BBC's ability to provide its wide range of television and radio services. The BBC's own financial planning should already have anticipated the level of funding that it could expect in the financial year 1996–97.

  This announcement does not affect the new black and white television licence fee, which will be £30 from 1 April 1996. The necessary regulations will be laid before the House in due course.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Morocco
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to encourage the Government of Morocco to release Jamaa Ait Bakrim. [5660]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our embassy in Rabat have been in contact with the Moroccan Ministry of Human Rights about this case. We understand that Mr. Bakrim is accused of proselytising and that his case has gone to appeal.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's position on the future of Gibraltar. [6250]

  Mr. David Davis
  The then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) made clear the Government's position in the House on 6 December 1990,Official Report, columns 188-89. It has not changed.

  First, and most important, Britain stands by its commitment to the people of Gibraltar, enshrined in the 1969 constitution. The Government will not enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes.

  Secondly, we continue to recognise the validity of the treaty of Utrecht, which established British title to Gibraltar. Article X of that treaty gave Spain the right of "first refusal" if Gibraltar ceased to he British. Any constitutional change would have to he compatible with the treaty of Utrecht and sustainable in practice.
  752
  Independence would be an option for Gibraltar only if Spain agreed.

  Thirdly, Spain is Gibraltar's immediate neighbour. The Government recognise the importance of negotiations with Spain, including through the Brussels process, to overcome the existing differences over Gibraltar. Our ultimate goal is to achieve a lasting solution which is acceptable to all parties and mutually beneficial.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of bills to his Department were paid in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice in the last year for which figures are available. [5704]

  Mr. Hanley
  Both wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are committed to the Confederation of British Industry prompt payment code, which requires all invoices to be paid within the agreed credit period or within 30 days of receipt where no credit period has been agreed. The following table shows the percentage of invoices paid on time by the diplomatic wing, the Overseas Development Administration and the executive agencies Wilton Park and the Natural Resources Institute.

  DW

  ODA

  WP

  NRI

  1994–95

  92

  87

  95

  96

  1995–961

  92

  91

  100

  93

  1April-November.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide revenue forecasts for the current year and the next five years of expenditure on schemes provided under the PFI. [5754]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 7 November 1995,offical Report,column 694.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide a breakdown of administration costs incurred to date and forecast for the future on PFI work. [5743]

  Mr. Hanley
  The FCO—diplomatic wing and the Overseas Development Administration—has incurred £38,870 identifiable staff costs and £20,257 consultancy costs in administering the PFI to date. The resources required to administer the PFI are kept under review.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all qualitative and quantitative research projects and surveys carried out for his Department into aspects of public attitudes and opinions(a) in general and (b) in relation to specific policy proposals in each of the past three years to December 1995. indicating for each project or survey (i) the date on which the research was commissioned.
  753
  (ii) the amount which his Department spent, (iii) who carried out the research, (iv) the number of people surveyed or taking part, (v) the location and time scale and (vi) which individuals and organisations have been given access to the findings. [5986]

  Mr. Hanky
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers given by the then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) on 27 October 1994,Official Report, columns 760–61, and by the then Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 20 March 1995, Official Report, columns 48–49. The opinion survey in question has been published in the House of Commons Library.

  As part of a survey on the effectiveness of its external communications survey, the Overseas Development Administration commissioned National Opinion Poll to conduct a public opinion survey which looked generally at the way the public viewed the aid programme. This cost £3,705 plus VAT and was carried out in mid-November 1995.

  EC Consular Service
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to promote a European consular service to represent European Union citizens in third countries at the next intergovernmental conference. [5903]

  Mr. David Davis
  None. However, under article 8c of the EC treaty as revised at Maastricht, every citizen of the Union is entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any member state on the same conditions as the nationals of that state. This right has been implemented by decisions of the Council agreed in principle on 20 November 1995.

TRANSPORT

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all qualitative and quantitative research projects and surveys carried out for his Department into aspects of public attitudes and opinions(a) in general and (b) in relation to specific policy proposals in each of the past three years to December 1995, indicating for each project or survey (i) the date on which the research was commissioned, (ii) the amount which his Department spent, (iii) who carried out the research, (iv) the number of people surveyed or taking part, (v) the location and time scale and (vi) which individuals and organisations have been given access to the findings. [5978]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Fishing Vessels (Registration)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to change the regulation for registration of fishing vessels from other EC countries at British ports. [4153]
  754
  Mr. Norris
  The regulations were amended to take account of our treaty obligations by the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Ships) Regulations 1993.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of bills to his Department were paid in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice in the last year for which figures are available. [5695]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 18 July,Official Report, columns 1211–12.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide a breakdown of administration costs incurred to date and forecast for the future on PFI work. [5728]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), on 9 May,Official Report, column 349.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will provide revenue forecasts for the current year and the next five years of expenditure on schemes provided under the PFI; [5729]

  (2) if he will provide for schemes so far agreed under the PFI the level of financing costs above the current cost of Government borrowing for the scheme with (a) the highest financing costs and (b) the lowest costs. [5730]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 6 December,Official Report column 277.

  Departmental Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the total number and cost of all forms of fraud affecting his Department and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies, as set out in the returns to Her Majesty's Treasury for departmental fraud for each year since 1990–91; and if he will make a statement. [6137]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  Amount £

  1990–91

  3

  17,378

  1991–92

  7

  36,771

  1992–93

  10

  3,822

  1993–94

  15

  10,410

  1994–95

  9

  1176,896

  1 This includes the sum of £174,440 which reflects the losses suffered as a result of two overnight raids on departmental premises by thieves.

  Humber Bridge
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was(a) the total cost to public funds of constructing the Humber bridge (i) in capital costs and (ii) in accumulated revenue losses, (b) the amount of revenue loss in each of the last five years, (c) the charge for each vehicle crossing in each year since construction and (d) the number of vehicles of different types of vehicle crossing in each year; who pays the losses in respect of the bridge currently; what powers exist to control who pays the losses and what options are available under present legislation; and what changes he plans. [6161]

  Mr. Watts
  The cost of constructing the Humber bridge was met out of loans from the Department of

  Class

  June 1981 to 31 December 1985 £

  1 January 1986 to 31 December 1987 £

  1 January 1988 6 August 1989 £

  7 August 1989 to present £

  1) Motorcycles

  0.50

  0.60

  0.70

  0.70

  2) Private cars and light vans

  1.00

  1.20

  1.50

  1.60

  3) Cars and light vans with trailers

  2.00

  2.40

  2.90

  2.90

  4) Heavy commercial vehicles class A–2 axles

  4.50

  5.20

  5.20

  6.50

  5) Class B–3 axles

  6.00

  6.60

  6.60

  8.70

  6) Class C–4 or more axles

  7.50

  8.00

  8.00

  10.90

  7) Light commercial vehicles and minibuses

  2.00

  2.40

  2.90

  Merged with class three

  8) Buses and coaches

  4.50

  5.20

  5.20

  Merged with class four

  The number of vehicles using the crossing in each of those classes is:

  Description

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Motor-cycles

  44,070

  44,554

  46,073

  47,514

  Cars and light vans

  4,493,922

  4,740,806

  4,958,937

  5,081,583

  Cars and light vans with trailers (includes mini buses and light comm.)

  169.393

  179,654

  182,789

  186,959

  Heavy comm. 2 axles (includes service buses and coaches)

  139,427

  141,291

  144,120

  143,305

  Heavy comm. 3 axles

  27,296

  27,922

  28,941

  30,538

  Heavy comm. 4+ axles

  229,108

  228,732

  253,623

  257,799

  Heavy comm. sub total

  395,831

  397,945

  426,684

  431,642

  Exempt vehicles

  118,023

  127,563

  141,134

  161.272

  Total

  5,221,239

  5,490,522

  5,755.617

  5,908,970

  Under the present legislation, any deficits may be met by a precept upon three of the local authorities of Humberside. The Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill currently before Parliament will enable the Secretary of State to write off and suspend parts of that debt and so lift the risk of a substantial burden falling upon local council tax payers.

  Trans-European Networks
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies and other initiatives have been or are planned to be undertaken as a result of receiving funding from the trans-European networks; and what is their start and finish date and estimated costs. [6035]

  Mr. Watts
  As I explained in my reply to the previous question by the hon. Member for North Cornwall on 27 November,Official Report, column 267, only the 1995 funds for TENs have so far been allocated, and 75 per cent. of these have been allocated to the priority projects identified by the Essen European Council.
  756
  Transport and the Public Works Loan Board: this initial cost to Public Funds was £151 million. By September 1991 that opening debt had risen by £288 million to £439 million through the capitalisation of interest charges that could not be met out of toll revenue. From February 1992, grants under the Appropriation Acts have been paid to meet a capital repayment to the PWLB and unmet interest charges on the Department's loans. By March 1996 these will have totalled £168 million. Capitalised interest and grant Payments therefore represent a total extra cost of £456 million. In the last five years the revenue shortfall that has resulted in a capitalisation of debt or grant Payment has been approximately £39 million Per annum.

  The charges for each class of vehicle since the bridge opened are as follows:

  TENs funds are allocated against total eligible expenditure incurred in the year for which the funds are granted, but are not subsequently broken down as between the individual elements of eligible expenditure. A project begun in 1994, but not completed until 1995 or later, may therefore receive 1995 funds for the expenditure incurred on it in 1995 and thereafter.

  For the United Kingdom projects on the Essen list, the details are as follows:

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  (part of the Paris-Brussels-KoIn-Amsterdam-London High Speed Train link project)Continuation of feasibility study work begun in 1989 Study work expected to he completed 1997 Total eligible expenditure relating to 1995 funding: £25.6 million
  2. West Coast Main Line upgrading
  Completion of feasibility studies: studies to confirm cost estimates and for specialised design 757 Feasibility studies start date April 1994; design studies start date January 1995 Feasibility studies completed April 1995; design studies to be completed post 1999 Total eligible expenditure relating to 1995 funding: £12 million
  Ireland-UK-Benelux road link
  Studies of possible ways to increase M6 and Mll capacity, and of possible upgrading of junctions on Newry-Dundalk section of A1 Northern Ireland Studies start date: 1995 Studies completion date: Early 1996 Total eligible study costs: £6 million
  In addition, a number of smaller, mostly traffic management schemes were allocated funds in respect of study work carried out in 1995. The details for the one UK scheme concerned are as follows:
  Scheme title: ERTICO (European Co-ordination of Radio Data Systems-Traffic Message Control)Feasibility study of elements needed to establish a sustainable national service.Study work started September 1995; expected completion December 1997 Total eligible expenditure relating to 1995 funding: £900,000

  Spanish and Dutch-owned Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many Spanish and Dutch-owned vessels are registered in British ports, by port. [6026]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Marine Safety Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 14 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about Spanish and Dutch owned vessels registered in British ports.
  I regret the information you have requested is not available.

  Roads (Cancelled Contracts)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many contracts for future road building have been cancelled consequent on the Budget review of the roads programme; and what has been the cost to his Department of paying compensation for cancelled contracts. [5663]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Halynes to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 14 December 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts. has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, how many contracts for future road building have been cancelled consequent on the Budget review of the roads programme; and what has been the cost to his Department of paying compensation for cancelled contracts.
  No construction contracts have been cancelled as a result of the review. Commissions with design agents on 138 schemes are now being terminated, but no compensation has been paid to date.

  M25
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) at what time on 5 or 6 December a decision was made not to allow any more traffic to join the M25; [5875]

  (2) what public information announcements were made, and at what time, about conditions on the Surrey sections of the M25 on 5 and 6 December; [5876]

  (3) at what time gritting lorries from (a) Kent county council and (b) Surrey county council began gritting their sections of the M25 on 5 December. [5874]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Nicholas Ainger, dated 14 December 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about conditions on the M25 during the 5 and 6 December.
  Following salting overnight on 4/5 December, Kent County Council undertook gritting on their section of the M25 at 2pm. 5pm and throughout the evening on 5 December. Surrey County Council began their early salting programme at 4am on 5 December. carried out some random gritting at 4.15pm to deal with specific problem areas and took the decision at Gpm to start their main gritting programme for their section of the M25 at 7pm. Unfortunately. by that time, the motorway had become too congested and inaccessible for the gritting to be undertaken.
  At 3.45pm on the 5 December, Variable Message Signs were activated on the M25 to show speed limits and messages such as "ice on carriageways" and "slow ice skid risk". Signs showing "long delays M25 east" were turned on from Junction 11. At the same time, AA Roadwatch were notified so that they could advise local radio. They were updated at regular intervals. On 6 December. "long delay" signs were activated as far back as Junctions 13 and 14 from approximately 7am. Once again the AA Roadwatch continuously updated their advice to local radio.
  The decision to close the Kent bound carriageway of the M25 between Junctions 6 and 5 was taken by the police at approximately 7.50am on the 6 December. The closure lasted for two and a half hours until about 10.30 am. This was necessary to remove abandoned vehicles and to allow gritters onto the motorway.

  MI
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when phase 1 of the M1, junctions 25 to 28 will he completed; [5661]

  (2) when phase 2 of the M1, junctions 25 to 28 will he completed.[5662]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 14 December 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads. Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking the Secretary of State for Transport. when Phases I and 2 of M1 Junctions 25 to 28 will he completed.
  Following the recent review of the roads programme. we will he concentrating on enhancing the junctions on this length of the M1 to make good use of the existing motorway. In taking any junction improvements forward. we shall take into account the responses to the public consultation into the widening proposals in September 1994. It is not possible to say yet when this work will he completed. The second phase of the scheme. which is the proposed widening to dual 4 lanes, is now in the longer term programme and the consultancy for this work is being terminated. Work on all longer term schemes will he taken forward as the main programme is completed.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Attorney General if he will provide a breakdown of administration costs incurred to date and forecast for the future of PFI work. [5719]

  The Attorney-General
  As indicated in my answer of 7 November Official Report, columns 668, the Law Officers' Departments have not used the PFI for any project to date, and costs so far incurred have been minimal. It is not possible to predict what schemes might be approved under the PFI in future or, therefore, to forecast future administration costs.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will provide revenue forecasts for the current year and the next five years of expenditure on schemes provided under the PFI. [5720]

  The Solicitor-General
  No schemes have so far been approved by the Law Officers'Departments under the PFI and it is not possible to predict what schemes might be approved in future or, therefore, to forecast future revenue expenditure.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Attorney-General what percentage of bills to his Department were paid in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice in the last year for which figures are available. [5709]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible make every effort to settle invoices promptly. In 1994–95, the Serious Fraud Office paid 74 per cent. of invoices in accordance with contract terms or, where there were no such terms, within 30 days. The Crown Prosecution Service paid 81.4 per cent. of witness expense claims within 10 days.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list all qualitative and quantitative research projects and surveys carried out for his Department into aspects of public attitudes and opinions(a) in general and (b) in relation to specific policy proposals in each of the past three years to December 1995, indicating for each project or survey (i) the date on which the research was commissioned, (ii) the amount which his Department spent, (iii) who carried out the research, (iv) the number of people surveyed or taking part, (v) the location and time scale and (vi) which individuals and organisations have been given access to the findings.[5983]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service has carried out one survey of public opinion in the three years to December 1995. This was designed to examine public awareness of, and attitudes towards, the CPS. The details requested arc as follows:

  (i) date commissioned: March 1993

  (ii) cost: £2.200

  (iii) researcher: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  760

  (iv) number of people surveyed: about 1800 adults

  (v) location and time scale: throughout England and Wales: one month

  (vi) individuals/organisations given access: the Director of Public Prosecutions and her Management Board, CPS Press and Publicity, Policy Group.

DEFENCE

  Stores Losses
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what was the value of goods and equipment reported lost, stolen or missing by each Army command in each year since 1990; and what was the value of any such goods and equipment subsequently recovered as a result of investigations. [5328]

  Mr. Soames
  Total stores losses written off in Army budget areas were as follows:

  Value £ thousand

  1992–93

  Adjutant General

  11.5

  Quarter Master General

  922.1

  Assistant Chief of the General Staff

  331.3

  HQBAOR

  1.506.4

  CINC UK Land Forces

  1.386.6

  1993–94

  Adjutant General

  4.9

  Quarter Master General

  1.037.0

  UK Support Command (Germany)

  1,431.7

  CINC UK Land Forces

  1.724.1

  GOC Northern Ireland

  316.4

  1994–951

  Adjutant General

  3.0

  Quarter Master General

  1,199.0

  Land Command

  1,877.3

  GOC Northern Ireland

  562.8

  1 These figures do not include Germany for which returns arc not yet available.

  Figures for earlier years or for recoveries could not he broken down in this way without disproportionate cost. Where, however, recovery is made in the same year as the loss is recorded, the figures are net of recovery.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide for schemes so far agreed under the PFI the level of financing costs above the current cost of Government borrowing for the scheme with(a) the highest financing costs and (b) the lowest costs. [5718]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 7 November 1995,Official Report, column 666.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a breakdown of administration costs incurred to date and forecast for the future on PFI work. [5716]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Warley. West (Mr. Spellar) on 22 November 1995.Official Report, column 175.
  761
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide revenue forecasts for the current year and the next five years of expenditure on schemes provided under the PFI.[5717]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him on 22 November 1995,Official Report, column 666, and 7 December 1995, Official Report, column 343.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Nick Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what methods, other than experimentation on animals, have been used at Porton Down and elsewhere to test antidotes to chemical weapons. [5872]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DERA, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 14 December 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what methods other than experimentation on animals have been used at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE), Porton Down to test antidotes to chemical weapons has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which now includes CBDE as one of its divisions.
  CBDE continues to develop and use a range of in-vitro test systems for the identification and evaluation of medical countermeasures against chemical warfare agents. These systems include cell and tissue cultures, synthetic membranes and in-vitro diffusion systems.
  The military acceptability of proposed medical counter measures is assessed in service volunteers.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the chemical defence establishment at Porton Down filmed its LSD experiments on service volunteers during(a) Operation Recount, (b) Operation Small Change and (c) tests in the establishment's medical facilities. [5934]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DERA, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. David Clark, dated 14 December 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down filmed the LSD experiments on service volunteers during a) Operation Recount, b) Operation Small Change and c) tests in the Establishment's medical facilities has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). The Chemical Defence Establishment has undergone a number of changes since the 1960s and is now known as the Chemical & Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) which is a division of DERA.
  Information held at CBDE suggests that some of these trials which, as you know were conducted about thirty years ago at Porton Down, were filmed. Unfortunately, in the time allowed to answer your question it has not been possible to recover the films and confirm this. I will write to you as soon as it has been possible to do so.
  I am sorry I cannot be more positive on this occasion.

  762
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many animals were used in experiments to test antidotes to chemical weapons in each of the last five years at(a) the Porton Down establishment and (b) elsewhere. [5873]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DERA, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 14 December 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many animals were used in experiments to test antidotes to chemical weapons in each of the last five years at a) Potion Down and b) elsewhere has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which includes CBDE as one of its divisions.
  The number of animals used at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down in research programmes with the aim of evaluating medical countermeasures against chemical warfare agents for the last five years is detailed below:

  1990: 8,106

  1991: 4,964

  1992: 2,822

  1993: 2,498

  1994: 1,597

  No work is done elsewhere in the MoD using animals to test antidotes to chemical weapons.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all qualitative and quantitative research projects and surveys carried out for his Department into aspects of public attitudes and opinions(a) in general and (b) in relation to specific policy proposals in each of the past three years to December 1995, indicating for each project or survey (i) the date on which the research was commissioned, (ii) the amount which his Department spent, (iii) who carried out the research, (iv) the number of people surveyed or taking part, (v) the location and time scale and (vi) which individuals and organisations have been given access to the findings. [5989]

  Mr. Soames
  The information is as follows:

  Date

  Survey title

  Commissioned by

  Report due/done

  Sample size

  November 1992

  ACIO Research

  Army

  February 1993

  2.000

  December 1992

  Army Officer Creative Development Research

  Army

  February 1993

  49

  March 1993

  Recruitment Advertising Strategy Research

  RAF

  June 1993

  35

  May 1993

  Officer Advertising Creative Development Research

  Army

  June 1993

  72

  December 1993

  NECL Creative Development

  MOD

  January 1994

  10

  763

  Date

  Survey title

  Commissioned by

  Report due/done

  Sample size

  Research

  December 1993

  Soldier Slogan Research

  Army

  December 1993

  Not Known

  February 1994

  Advertising Strategy Development Research

  RN

  May 1994

  120

  March 1994

  University Finalists Survey

  MOD

  July 1994

  Not Known

  March 1994

  NELC Research

  MOD

  June 1994

  2,400

  May 1994

  Slogan Confirmation and Creative Development Research

  Army

  June 1994

  118

  June 1994

  Army Recruitment Targeting Research

  Army

  July 1994

  900

  June 1994

  Asians Language and Communication Survey

  RN

  July 1994

  3,000

  August 1994

  NELC tracking—Autumn 1994

  MOD

  November 1994

  4,800

  September 1994

  Army Recruiting Advertising Tracking

  Army

  November 1994

  2,000

  November 1994

  Potential Officers Career Literature

  RAF

  February 1995

  250

  December 1994

  Army Tracking Stage 2

  Army

  April 1995

  2,000

  January 1995

  Tne Recruitment of Ethnic Minorities into the Armed Forces the Armed Forces

  RAF

  September 1995

  5,000

  February 1995

  NELC Tracking—Spring 1995

  Army

  May 1995

  4,800

  February 1995

  Welbeck—2

  Army

  April 1995

  400

  February 1995

  MORI Undergraduate Study

  Army

  May 1995

  1,500

  March 1995

  Officers Commissions Research

  Army

  June 1995

  300

  March 1995

  Research into the effectiveness of RNPT Presentations and audience targeting strategy

  RN

  May 1995

  1,200

  April 1995

  New Reserves Forces Legislation

  MOD

  August 1995

  Not Known

  May 1995

  Soldiers Creative Advertising Development Research

  Army

  June 1995

  30

  764

  Date

  Survey title

  Commissioned by

  Report due/done

  Sample size

  June 1995

  Advertising Tracking—Summer 1995

  Army

  July 1995

  2,000

  July 1995

  Officer Advertising Creative Development Research

  Army

  August 1995

  45

  September 1995

  Advertising Tracking—October 1995

  Army

  October 1995

  2,000

  September 1995

  Recruitment Conversion Rates

  Army

  November 1995

  125

  October 1995

  Navy Advertising Strategy Review

  RN

  Novembet 1995

  50

  October 1995

  Soldier Recruitment Advertising Campaign

  Army

  November 1995

  336

  October 1995

  Advertising Tracking—November 1995

  Army

  November 1995

  2,000

  October 1995

  TA Recruitment Advertising—Communication Research

  Army

  December 1995

  300

  November 1995

  RAF Marketing Review Research

  RAF

  December 1995

  2,103

  The findings of the surveys arc used for internal management purposes and are not normally available outside my Department. The costs of each survey and the identity of the individual companies are commercial in confidence.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of bills to his Department were paid in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice in the last year for which figures are available. [5708]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Most of my Department's hills arc paid by the Defence Accounts Agency. The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency pays its own. I have asked the chief executives to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter front John Chisholm to Mr. Clive Betts, dated 14 December 1995:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of hills to his Department are paid in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or within 30 days of receiving goods or services or presentation of a valid invoice. I am replying on behalf of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).
  DERA contracts do not generally specify payment dates. It is. however. DERA policy to pay within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice. In fact. assuming that the 30 day period is measured front the point at which a validated invoice is received by our hill paying section. then virtually all bi are settled within 9 days.
  I hope this information is helpful to you.

  765
  Letter from P. J. Trevelyan to Mr. Clive Betts, dated 14 December 1995:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the percentage of bills to his Department which were paid in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice in the last year for which figures are available. This matter falls within my area of responsibility.
  Ministry of Defence contracts do not generally stipulate a payment date. Payment performance is calculated from the date of receipt of a valid bill in our Liverpool payment office, which pays the vast majority of MOD's contract bills.
  The last year for which figures are available ran from October 1994 to October 1995. During this time 99.99% of bills were paid within 30 days of receipt of a valid bill. The Liverpool payment office also measures its performance against the higher departmental standard of payment within 11 days; 97% of bills were paid within this period.

  Departmental Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number and monetary amount of all cases of(a) employee and (b) non-employee fraud and corruption within the Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies; for each year from 1990–91 to 1994–95 and for 1995–96 to date; what was the total sum subsequently recovered for each year; and if he will make a statement on the breakdown of fraud and corruption between (i) employees and (i) contractors and other staff. [6014]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The levels and value of reported non-procurement fraud and theft involving employees within the Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies since 1992–93 are as follows:

  Year

  Number of cases

  Value £thousand

  Value recovered £ thousand

  1992–93

  53

  200.0

  37.8

  1993–94

  107

  521.0

  74.7

  1994–95

  199

  1,057.7

  128.7

  1995–961

  74

  330.6

  26.5

  1To date.

  The levels and value of reported non-procurement fraud and theft since 1992–93 involving non-employees are as follows:

  Year

  Number of cases

  Value £thousand

  Value recovered £ thousand

  1992–93

  1

  4.9

  0.0

  1993–94

  1

  49.9

  0.0

  1994–95

  8

  37.9

  0.0

  1995–961

  5

  8.7

  1.7

  1To date.

  This breakdown is not available before 1992–93. The combined totals were:

  Year

  Number of cases

  Value £000s

  Value recovered £000s

  1990–91

  53

  984.0

  101.2

  1991–92

  45

  63.0

  22.5

  766
  With regard to procurement fraud perpetrated by contractors—including corruption and collusion involving MOD employees—he figures are as follows:

  Year

  Number cases

  Value £ thousand

  Value recovered £thousand

  1990–91

  23

  10.0

  No cash loss to MOD

  1991–92

  18

  150.0

  No cash loss to MOD

  1992–93

  27

  20.0

  No cash loss to MOD

  1993–94

  7

  1,511.5

  Recovery in hand

  1994–95

  10

  No cases yet concluded

  1995–961

  20

  No cases yet concluded

  1To date.

  Service Leave
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the normal arrangements for leave and home service between tours; and in how many cases in each year since 1992 those arrangements have been reduced, waived or suspended. [5480]

  Mr. Soames
  Annual leave entitlement varies between the services from 30 days to 42 days depending on rank, with the flexibility to carry forward up to 14 days from one year to the next. Additionally, there is provision under service regulations for periods of embarkation and disembarkation leave of between seven and 21 days depending upon marital status and overseas location. This is to enable personnel either to settle their affairs in the United Kingdom before proceeding on a tour of duty overseas or to settle themselves and their families after returning to United Kingdom.

  Personnel who are permitted or required to serve on a second consecutive and complete tour of duty overseas may be granted leave in the UK on completion of the first tour.

  Regular overseas tours outside north-west Europe are still commonplace in the Army. However, when a normal overseas tour has been completed, every effort will he made to post individuals for a further tour of at least 18 months in UK or north-west Europe before the next overseas posting on a normal tour.

  Posting and leave policy were subjects covered in the independent review carried out by Sir Michael Bctt. My Department is evaluating his proposals.

  The information on the number of cases in each year since 1992 where these arrangements have been reduced, waived or suspended is not held centrally and could he provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Accommodation (Scotland)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations of all(a) Army barracks, (b) Royal Marine accommodation and (c) Royal Air Force accommodation in Scotland (i) currently operational. (ii) in the process of being refurbished and (iii) scheduled for closure within the next two years. [4082]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 8 December 1995]: Army barracks in Scotland are located as follows:

  Redford Infantry Barracks. Edinburgh

  Dreghorn Barracks. Edinburgh

  767

  Fort George. Inverness

  Barry Buddon Training Camp, Dundee

  Refurbishment of single living accommodation is not currently being undertaken at any of these sites, nor are any of them currently scheduled for closure in the next two years.

  Royal Marines single living accommodation in Scotland is located at:

  RM Condor, Arbroath

  Clyde Submarine Base, Faslane

  RN Armaments Depot, Coulport

  Refurbishment of single living accommodation is currently being undertaken at Condor. None of these sites is currently scheduled for closure in the next two years.

  RAF single living accommodation in Scotland is located at:

  RAF Buchan, Grampian

  RAF Kinloss, Grampian

  RAF Leuchars, Fife

  RAF Lossiemouth, Grampian

  RAF Macrihanish, Strathclyde

  RAF Saxa Vord, Shetland

  RAF Stornaway, Western Isles

  RAF Turnhouse, Lothian

  RAF Edzell, Grampian

  Refurbishment of single living accommodation is being undertaken at RAF Leuchars, RAF Turnhouse is scheduled for closure in 1997. The United States navy is to withdraw from Edzell by 30 September 1997, but alternative defence uses have not yet been ruled out.

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) buildings, (b) fuel tanks and (c) major fixed plants and equipment (i) have been demolished or removed at RAF Finningley 1) in the last three months and (2) in 1995 and (ii) are planned to be removed or demolished in 1996. [5221]

  Mr. Soames
  The following buildings at RAF Finningley:

  (a) have been demolished or removed in the last three months: Hut

  4 x Portakabin

  Hawk de-tuner

  (b) have been demolished or removed in 1995:

  as above plus:

  5 x Portakabin

  4 x Store

  Miscellaneous shed

  Office Block

  Latrine Blocks

  Rest Room

  (c) will be demolished or removed in 1996:

  2 x Dispersal hut

  5 x Portakabin

  768
  The following fuel tanks:

  (a) have been demolished in the last three months:

  1 x Oil storage tank

  4 x Bulk Fuel Installation

  (b) have been demolished in 1995:

  As above.

  (c) will be demolished in 1996:

  1 x Bulk Fuel Installation

  The following major items of fixed plant and equipment:

  (a) have been removed in the last three months:

  Catering Equipment—Junior Ranks Mess and Sergeants Mess

  (b) have been removed in 1995:

  As above.

  (c) will be removed in 1995:

  2 x Flight simulators

  3 x Synthetic trainers

  Catering Equipment—Officers Mess

  Vehicle wash

  Fixed Machine Tools

  Certain landing and navigational aids will be redeployed from RAF Finningley in 1996, to support RAF operations elsewhere. Further airfield equipment may he removed once future use of the site has been determined.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the total amounts paid by his Department in compensation for incidents involving low flying in each financial year since 1989–90; and if he will provide a breakdown of the figures into amounts paid for(a) property damage, (b) aircraft crash damage,
  (c) personal injury, (d) livestock and (e) other. [5183]

  Mr. Soames
  The amounts paid are as follows:

  Year

  Amounts £

  1989–90

  414,000

  (a) 174,000

  (b) 42,000

  (c) 31,000

  (d) 167,000

  (e) Nil

  1990–91

  427,000

  (a) 86,000

  (b) 5,000

  (c) 66,000

  (d) 270,000

  (e) Nil

  1991–92

  440,000

  (a) 54,000

  (b) 33,000

  (c) 33,000

  (d) 320,000

  (e) Nil

  1992–93

  506,000

  (a) 45,000

  (b) 216,000

  (c) 63,000

  (d) 182,000

  (e) Nil

  1993–94

  558.000

  (a) 81,000

  (b) 44,000

  (c) 51,000

  (d) 379,000

  (e) 3,000

  769

  Year

  Amounts £

  1994–95

  703,000

  (a)86,000

  (b)148,000

  (c)121,000

  (d)327,000

  (e)21,000

  The figures above for aircraft crashes do not include payments made by Defence Land Agents under delegated powers.

  The figures above include compensation paid in respect of both UK and visiting forces military low flying.

  Apache Helicopters
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where he plans to base the Army Air Corps' Apache helicopters. [5170]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No decision has yet been taken.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on furnishing and decorating ministerial offices in his Department in each of the last three years. [5566]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information requested for each of the last three financial years for Ministers' own offices is as follows:

  1992–93: £5,594.31

  1993–94: £7,663.20

  1994–95: £390.60

  There has been no expenditure during the current financial year.
  Official Hospitality

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary for Defence how much his Department spent on official hospitality in 1994–95 and the financial year to date; and what is the 1995–96 projected budget for official hospitality. [5583]

  Mr. Soames
  During the financial year 1994–95, my Department spent £4.867 million on official hospitality, and, as at 1 November 1995, £3.099 million has been spent during the current financial year. Present forecasts indicate that approximately £4.843 million will be spent on official hospitality during financial year 1995–96. These figures include expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Defence itself, by formations and establishments of the armed forces at home and abroad, and by individual officers occupying command and international appointments for which entertainment allowances are payable.

  Nerve Agent Pretreatment Set Tablets
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice was issued to women in the armed forces serving in the Gulf between 1990 and 1991 as to pregnancy and childbirth in relation to NAPS tablets; and what medical considerations underlay this. [5475]
  770
  Mr. Soames
  No official advice was issued during the Gulf war concerning the taking of nerve agent pretreatment set tablets in relation to pregnancy and childbirth. Pyridostigmine bromide, the main ingredient of NAPS tablets, has no known contra-indications for pregnancy.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of redundancies in the armed forces in each year since 1992 and in 1995 to date; what has been the cost of redundancy payments and other related benefits and enhancements in each year; and which arms and sections of the defence forces were the source of such redundancies. [5479]

  Mr. Soames
  In the financial year 1992–93, there were 3,957 redundancies with payment of redundancy and other related benefits and enhancements of £232 million. There were 9,041 redundancies in 1993–94 and 11,095 in 1994–95 with total payments of £509 million and £453 million respectively. From April to November 1995, there have been 352 redundancies with payment totalling £24 million.

  These payments include special capital payments, and early payment of terminal grants, commuted pension payments and the first year's payment of immediate pensions.

  The Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force have all been subject to redundancy during this period. Redundancies were selected from all ranks, covering a wide range of categories and groups of personnel.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer of 28 November,Official Report, columns 1043-44, what assessment his Department has made of the analysis conducted by Professor Garth Nicholson of the university of Texas on the relationship between mycoplasmas and the group of medical complaints collectively referred to as Gulf war syndrome. [5675]

  Mr. Soames
  As part of my Department's routine monitoring of research material relating to the alleged Gulf war syndrome, consideration has been given to Dr. Nicholson's paper titled "Summary of Persian Gulf War illness pilot study on mycoplasmic infections". It has been concluded, however, that Dr. Nicholson's study does not provide any substantial or conclusive evidence of a connection between illnesses among veterans, mycoplasma infections and service in the Gulf. We will continue to monitor all information hearing on this issue in conjunction with medical experts nominated by the Royal College of Physicians.

  Royal Irish Regiment
  Mr. McNarmara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current strength of the Royal Irish Regiment; how many are(a) part of the regular Army and (b) recruited in Northern Ireland for (i) full-time service in Northern Ireland and (ii) part-time service in Northern Ireland; and what were the corresponding figures for the last five years from 3 November. [5039]
  771
  Mr. Soames
  All members of the Royal Irish Regiment are formally part of the regular Army. However, the Royal Irish Regimentncy—Home Service—contains a large part-time element and is not liable for service outside Northern Ireland. Soldiers to serve in either the Royal Irish Regiment (General Service) or the Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service) may be recruited in Northern Ireland or elsewhere. The current strength of the regiment, and previous strengths at 1 April in the years since its formation in July 1992, is as follows:

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Current

  General service (Full time)

  839

  905

  900

  940

  Home service (Full time)

  2,917

  2,905

  3,056

  3,010

  Home service (Part time)

  2,696

  2,485

  2,257

  2,140

  Thefts
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel have been convicted of theft of military property in each year since 1990. [5329]

  Mr. Soames
  Service personnel charged and convicted of the theft of Ministry of Defence property were as follows:

  Charged

  Guilty

  1990–91

  10

  10

  1991–92

  3

  3

  1992–93

  1

  1

  1993–94

  11

  5

  1994–95

  9

  7

  Absence without Leave
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many members of(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) the Royal Air Force are currently absent without leave; how many members of each of the services have been absent without leave at 1 April in each of the last five years; how many members of each of the services have been absent without leave in each of the last 12 months; what was the average length of absence for each service; and if he will make a statement on his policies for locating absent personnel and returning them to service; [5330]

  (2) how many personnel in each of the armed services who were first reported as absent without leave in each year since 1990, remain absent without leave. [5331]

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

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his estimates of the planned and actual number of employees of his Department's police for each year from 1990–91 to 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [6015]
  772
  Mr. Soames
  The actual number of staff employed by the MOD police for the years in question, as at 1 August each year, was:

  1990: 4,766

  1991: 4,962

  1992: 5,163

  1993: 5,026

  1994: 4,908

  1995: 4,714.

  The overall manpower requirements of the Ministry of Defence are kept under constant review, and we have recently issued for consultation proposals on our future defence police and guarding requirements.

  Mr. David Hart
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances Mr. David Hart is permitted to visit British defence manufacturers(a) as part of his duties as an independent adviser and (b) in an individual capacity; if he will list those firms which have been visited by Mr. Hart in the last 12 months; on which occasions his Department made the arrangements for these visits; who paid for the visits; and on what occasions the firms involved were given advance notice of the visit. [5933]

  Mr. Portillo
  During the last 12 months, Mr. David Hart visited British Aerospace and Loral in his capacity as the independent adviser to the Secretary of State for Defence. The visits were arranged by my officials; Mr. Hart paid for his own travel arrangements.

  Air Marshal Sir John Walker
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what relationship Air Marshal Sir John Walker currently has with his Department; and if he will make a statement. [5992]

  Mr. Soames
  Air Marshal Sir John Walker retired from the RAF on 5 January 1995. Since that time, he has had no formal relationship with my Department.

  Airspace Routes
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the criteria used to assess whether an advisory route class F airspace should be upgraded to an airway class A airspace; and if he will list all such advisory routes which have been so upgraded in the last five years. [5166]

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for airspace planning. I understand that the CAA would consider upgrading an advisory route, class F airspace, to an airway, class A airspace. if there were more than 10,000 air transport movements a year on that route. During the last five years. there have been no advisory routes upgraded to an airway.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Connected Lender Liability
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the report on connected lender liability issued by the Director General of Fair Trading in May this year; and if he will make a statement. [6880]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  We have given careful consideration to the arguments and recommendations in the report but are not at present persuaded by them. We will establish more fully the factual evidence bearing on the questions at issue, in particular on the associated costs and benefits for consumers, creditors and other industries. Therefore, my Department will shortly issue a consultation document and we shall consider responses to it before reaching final decisions.

  Oil and Gas Licensing
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those areas in Wales for which companies have expressed an interest in the seventh onshore oil and gas licensing round. [6163]

  Mr. Page
  We are unable at the present time to release details of the areas applied for in the seventh round as this information could give a competitive advantage to an applicant when deciding on a work programme. Details of the areas applied for will be made available once the work programmes are agreed. However, I can say that applications have been received for five blocks in Wales. None of the applications is for acreage within the watery areas around Wales.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many special advisers are employed by his Department; and what is the total annual salary bill for these posts. [5290]

  Mr. Lang
  I have one special adviser. Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers' salary spine of 34 points ranging from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary spine reflects this.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of bills to his Department were paid in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice in the last year for which figures are available. [5696]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A survey of the DTI's payment performance from December 1994 to October 1995 has just been completed. This has shown that, over the period. 93 per cent. of our bills were paid within 30 days or within the agreed credit period.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide forecasts for the current year and next five years of expenditure on schemes provided under the PFI. [5732]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Although my Department has a number of PFI projects under consideration, none has been finally agreed and no revenue forecasts have been made.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide a breakdown of administration costs incurred to date and forecast for the future on PFI work. [5731]

  Mr. Taylor
  The private finance initiative within the DTI is one of the responsibilities of the MINIS—management information system for Ministers—unit within the finance and resource management division of my Department. This unit is expected to cost £249,000 in 1995–96 and broadly similar amounts for future years.

  Swan Hunter (Redundancy Payments)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the total amounts paid to date by the redundancy payments section to former employees of the Swan Hunter shipyard, Tyneside in respect of(a) compensation for insolvent employers' failure to give proper statutory notice, (b) redundancy payments from the national insurance fund, (c) payments received through protective awards made by industrial tribunals and (d) refunds of notional tax deducted in the calculation of routine payments. [6143]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information is as follows:

  Amount £

  (a) Compensation for the employer's failure to give proper statutory notice

  2,759,178

  (b) Statutory redundancy payments

  7,236,025

  (c) Protective award payments

  1,968,607

  (d) Refunds of notional tax deductions

  75,692

  The identity of the 20 largest purchasers of postmark advertising is commercially confidential. "The Health of the Nation" strategy is to encourage people to make healthy choices. It does not seek to discourage consumption of individual food products.

  Postmark Advertising
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much net and gross income was derived from sales of postmark advertising in the last three years; if he will list the 20 largest purchases of postmark advertising over the last year; and if he will make it his policy that the Post Office should ban the advertising of products whose consumption is discouraged in "The Health of the Nation" targets. [4953]
  775
  Mr. Oppenheim
  I understand from the Post Office that income from postmark advertising in the last three years has been as follows:

  Year

  £

  1993–94

  200,450

  1994–95

  138,680

  1995–961

  171,360

  lTo date.

  Protective Clothing (Toxic Gas)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which headings of the export control order and the standard industrial trade classification cover(a) protective clothing for use against toxic chemical gas whether in an industrial or military setting and (b) equipment for the detection of toxic gas, and decontamination equipment for toxic gas; and in which years these products become licensable exports. [5476]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Protective clothing for defence against chemical warfare agents and equipment for the detection of them are controlled in entry ML7 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order (EG(C)0) 1994. This entry has been in force since at least 1978, but to go back further would incur disproportionate cost. Industrial equipment for detecting toxic gas is covered in entry 2B351, which came into force on 31 December 1992 under the EG(C)0 1992. Since 1 July 1995, the control exists through the Dual Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations 1995. In addition, the "End Use" control applies to otherwise unlicensable goods where chemical weapons use is known or suspected. Under the standard industrial trade classification the categorisation system is too broad to positively identify the type of equipment in this enquiry.

  Miracle Products
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what resolutions were passed at recent meetings of the Council of Consumer Ministers relating to "miracle products"; if he will set out the terms of all resolutions; if he will make a statement on the definition of the term "miracle product"; and if he will make a statement. [6121]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  At its meeting on 9 November 1995, the EU Consumer Council of Ministers adopted a resolution on products presented as being beneficial to health, commonly referred to as "miracle products".

  The resolution asks the Commission, in close co-operation with the member states, to describe the current situation regarding:
  the practice in the trade of miracle products in the member states the functioning, at Community and national level, of existing mechanisms regarding the protection of consumers against these practices and to submit its findings to the Council by 1 November 1996 at the latest.
  "Miracle products" are those products, other than officially registered medicinal products, presented as having properties which prevent, diagnose, treat, alleviate
  776
  or cure diseases or complaints or adjust bodily functions or mental state, but where there is generally no scientific evidence to substantiate such claims or properties.

  We hope that the Commission's study will clarify for those member states which experience problems in this area the range of existing powers available to them for dealing with the advertising and promotion of miracle products.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to make cloning of mobile telephones a criminal offence. [4484]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  On 24 October,Official Report, column 549, I announced the recommendations of the industry and Government study group on mobile telephone fraud. One of the main recommendations was that the Government should consider extending the range of offences under section 42 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 so that it would cover the possession or supply of equipment capable of use in the course of, or in connection with, the current section 42 offence of dishonestly obtaining telecommunication services with intent to avoid payment. I am considering this recommendation carefully.

  Exports
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what was the value of exports from(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland to the far east in each of the past five years; and if he will provide a breakdown by sector; [5110]

  (2) what was the (a) volume and (b) value of manufacturing exports per capita in each of the past five years for (i) England, (ii) Wales, (iii) Scotland and (iv) Northern Ireland; and if he will provide a breakdown by sector; [5111]

  (3) what percentage of Scottish exports consisted of (a) computers/electronics, (b) food and drink, (c) textiles and (d) all other exports, in the past five years. [5105]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Geographic analyses of United Kingdom exports are not available since information on the location of exporters is not comprehensive.

  Fur Imports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to oppose the delay of the implementation of a ban on the import of furs caught by leghold traps into the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [3179]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Government have made clear the United Kingdom's firm support for a ban on leghold traps. and have been in the forefront in pressing for this worldwide. The Commission will be submitting proposals to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament seeking postponement of the ban on imports of furs caught by this method. We shall he considering the details of these proposals when we see them.

  Post Office Profits
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to implement the proposal to allow the Post Office to keep 50 per cent. of its post-tax profits; and if he will make a statement. [5643]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 12 December 1995]We will continue to set external financing limits for the Post Office which reflect an appropriate balance between the needs of the business and its ability to contribute to public finances.

WALES

  Measles and Rubella Immunisation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the oral answer of 4 December,Official Report, column 11, if he will list the sources of the advice his Department has accepted on the safety of the measles and rubella immunisation programme; and if he will make a statement on representations his Department has received from parents dissatisfied with the effects of the MMR immunisation programme on their children. [5044]

  Mr. Richards
  On the safety of the measles and rubella immunisation programme I refer the hon. Member to the answers provided by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health on 6 November and 8 November.

  The Welsh Office has not received any representations from parents dissatisfied with the effects of the MMR immunisation programme on their children.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department spent on official hospitality in 1994–95 and the financial year to date; and what is the 1995–96 projected budget for official hospitality. [5589]

  Mr. Hague
  In 1994, the cost of hospitality, which is included in the running cost budget for my Department, was £28,784. The figure for 1995–96, up to 30 November 1995, was £12,598. The projected budget for 1995–96 is £28,000.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold),Official Report, 4 December, column 5, if he will publish a disaggregated breakdown for each year since 1980 of the inward investment to Wales by (a) region and (b) company involved. [5646]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality for a number of recorded cases, I cannot provide details of the companies involved. However, I will write to the hon. Member separately with details of the origin of recorded inward investment since 1983, together with the destination of that inward investment. A copy of that correspondence will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of bills to his Department were paid in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice in the last year for which figures are available. [5693]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roache) on 1 November 1995,Official Report, column 296.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what reasons a patient waiting for consultation or treatment in the NHS can be disqualified from being considered covered by the total waiting time guarantee or its component parts; and what steps he has taken to ensure commonality of definition of the reasons for disqualification by Welsh health authorities, GP fundholders and trusts. [6151]

  Mr. Hague
  The operational guidance for total waiting times, issued to NHS Wales in March 1995, describes the circumstances under which patients waiting longer than the limits will not be judged as being in breech of the patient's charter guarantees. Health authorities, GP fundholders and hospitals are expected to work within the framework of the guidance. The Welsh Office will review the process when the relevant monitoring returns are received.

  A copy of the guidance has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Training for Work Programmes
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 11 December,Official Report, column 553, what steps he proposes to relate outcome-related payments to training and enterprise councils under training for work programmes for the long-term unemployed to the duration of the job obtained. [6149]

  Mr. Hague
  With effect from 27 March 1995, outcome-related payments for training for work trainees obtaining jobs became payable to training and enterprise councils in Wales, in two stages. Two-thirds of an agreed rate is payable after seven days continuous employment has been completed. within 13 weeks of a trainee leaving the programme. The remaining one-third becomes payable if the trainee is in employment eight weeks later.

  My officials are currently reviewing the effectiveness of this two-stage job outcome payment procedure.

  Welsh Grand Committee
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to publish a list of dates and venues of Welsh Grand Committee meetings in 1996. [5906]

  Mr. Hague
  In due course. The proposed changes to Standing Orders have yet to he debated by the House.

  Consultant and GP Cover
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what consultations he has had with the chairmen of local medical committees in Wales concerning the availability of(a) consultant and (b) general practitioner medical cover for elderly mentally ill patients and bed provision transferred from the NHS hospitals to private nursing homes; what provision he has made for specialist mid-career training in geriatric and psycho-geriatric medicine for GPs required to cover private nursing homes receiving such transferred bed capacity; and if he will make a statement. [6164]

  Mr. Hague
  Within the last 12 months there have been no such discussions, nor have any specific arrangements for mid-career training been made.

  Diabetics (Chiropody)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had from organisations representing diabetics in relation to waiting times and lists for chiropody and on the clinical priority to be given to such treatment. [6139]

  Mr. Hague
  I am not aware of any representations. It is for health authorities to assess the health needs of their populations, and to decide on priorities for expenditure within their overall resources.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many independent schools are operating in the current academic year. [5824]

  Mr. Richards
  There were 63 in Wales in September 1995.

  Consultant Cover
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen of Welsh health authorities concerning the transfer of appropriate geriatric and psycho-geriatric consultant cover corresponding to transfers of beds for the elderly mentally ill from NHS hospitals to private nursing homes. [6162]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  NHS Treatment
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what statistics he has on the number of patients waiting for in-patient treatment and out-patient diagnosis longer than the patients charter maximum for reasons relating to(a) exercising choice of consultants, (b) failure to attend for first out-patient consultation and (c) other reasons; and if he will make a statement. [6165]

  Mr. Hague
  All patients who have been on the in-patient or out-patient waiting lists for longer than the patients charter targets are reported to the Welsh Office and the numbers are published in "NHS Wales: Quarterly Statistics" available in the Library. No separate analysis is made of those patients who exercise a choice of consultants: to do so would impose an unacceptable administrative burden on hospitals. If patients who fail to 780
  attend for out-patient appointments are referred back to their GPs, they would normally be removed from the waiting list.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the Newport business school report compiling a league table of Welsh NHS trusts' commercial viability in relation to four key financial ratios. [6140]

  Mr. Hague
  Yes. I have made arrangements with the Newport business school for copies to be made available in the Library of the House as soon as possible.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the administrative cost of collecting prescription charges; and what this figure is as a percentage of the total revenue received from prescription charges. [6152]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 22 June 1995,Official Report, column 417, total revenue received from prescription charges and prepayment certificates between April 1994 and March 1995 was £17.8 million. On this basis, the administrative costs shown represent about 18 per cent. of prescription charge revenue.

  School Visits
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions over the past three years he, his predecessor or Ministers in his Department, have visited schools in West Glamorgan; and if he will list the schools concerned. [6127]

  Mr. Richards
  Schools visited in West Glamorgan over the past three years were as follows:

  Mr. David Hunt:

  April 1993—Bishopston Comprehensive School, Swansea

  Mr. John Redwood:

  April I994—Dynevor Comprehensive School, Swansea

  Mr. Rod Richards:

  July 1995—Bishop Gore Comprehensive School, Swansea

  November 1995—Bishops Vaughan Grant-Maintained

  Comprehensive School. Swansea.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State 14 Wales if he will provide revenue forecasts for current year and the next five years of expenditure on schemes provided under the PFI. [5724]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 7 November 1995.Official Report, column 808.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a breakdown of administration costs incurred to date and forecast for the future on PFI work. [5723]
  781
  Mr. Hague
  It is not practicable to isolate the costs of running the private finance initiative in all the many areas of my Department's work which it affects. The costs of the private finance unit, which co-ordinates this activity, are about £52,000 a year.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for the academic year 1994–95 in descending order the independent schools by the proportion of their

  1994–95 Academic Year

  School

  Roll

  APS pupils

  Percentage APS pupils on roll

  Average fees1 £

  Total2 received by schools £

  Howell's Denbigh

  286

  73

  26

  5,688

  368,215

  Howell's Cardiff

  689

  173

  25

  3,441

  460,586

  Christ College

  364

  88

  24

  5,616

  418,460

  Llandovery College

  239

  55

  23

  5,160

  281,347

  Monmouth Boys

  626

  144

  23

  4,551

  471,728

  Rydal Penrhos (Girls division)

  332

  61

  18

  5,599

  320,961

  Rydal Penrhos (Co-educational division)

  330

  52

  16

  6,095

  306,717

  Monmouth Girls

  631

  74

  12

  3,879

  203,552

  1Some schools charge different fees according to different stages in school.

  2 Accounts for 1994–95 not yet finalised.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department has spent on the operation of the assisted places scheme in each academic year since 1981; how many(a) pupils and (b) institutions were covered by the scheme; and what was the overspend on the budget allocated to the scheme. [5790]

  Mr. Richards
  Details on costs of the assisted places scheme by financial year are as follows. Costs by academic year are not available.

  Year

  Cost£

  Pupils

  Schools

  Overspend£

  1981–82

  160,783

  114

  9

  —

  1982–83

  274,777

  220

  8

  —

  1983–84

  459,626

  318

  8

  —

  1984–85

  626,876

  403

  8

  —

  1985–86

  842,488

  495

  8

  —

  1986–87

  1,519,772

  580

  8

  429,772

  1987–88

  1,394,246

  622

  8

  47,246

  1988–89

  1,359,681

  633

  8

  —

  1989–90

  1,589,392

  631

  8

  —

  1990–91

  1,756,283

  634

  8

  —

  1991–92

  2,064,813

  662

  8

  116,813

  1992–93

  2,457,230

  700

  8

  57,230

  1993–94

  2,621,261

  691

  8

  —

  1994–95

  2,771,504

  720

  8

  —

  Mr. Donohue
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which independent sector schools charged(a) the highest and (b) the lowest level of fees to pupils covered by the assisted places scheme in the academic year 1994–95; and what charges were levied. [5827]

  Mr. Richards
  The highest tuition fees of assisted places scheme participating schools in Wales in the academic year 1994–95 were Rydal school—senior pupils—and Colwyn Bay at £6,528, the lowest were £3,441 set by Howell's school, Cardiff.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many independent sector schools have had(a) more
  782
  school rolls made up of pupils covered by the assisted places scheme, and the total number of pupils on the school roll; what proportion of the roll at each school was covered by the scheme; how many pupils were covered by the scheme at each school; how many pupils were on the roll of each school; what level of fees was charged for pupils under the scheme at each school; and what sums were received by each school under the scheme. [5902]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is as follows:

  than 25 per cent. (b) more than 50 per cent. and (c) less than 5 per cent. of their school rolls made up of pupils covered by the assisted places scheme for each academic year since 1981. [5807]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  More than 25 per cent.

  More than 50 per cent.

  Less than 5 per cent.

  1981–82

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  1

  —

  3

  1983–84

  1

  —

  1

  1984–85

  1

  —

  —

  1985–86

  2

  —

  —

  1986–87

  2

  —

  —

  1987–88

  2

  —

  —

  1988–89

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  —

  —

  —

  1990–91

  —

  —

  —

  1991–92

  —

  —

  —

  1992–93

  —

  —

  —

  1993–94

  —

  —

  —

  1994–95

  2

  —

  —

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools covered by the assisted places scheme received(a) more than £1 million, (b) over £750,000, (c) over £500,000 and (d) over £250,000 under the
  assisted places scheme for each academic year since 1981. [5817]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Over £1 million

  Over £750,000

  Over £500,000

  Over £250,000

  1981–82

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983–84

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984–85

  —

  —

  —

  —

  783

  Year

  Over £million

  Over £750,000

  Over £500,000

  Over £250,000

  1985–86

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986–87

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1987–88

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1988–89

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1989–90

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1990–91

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1991–92

  —

  —

  —

  4

  1992–93

  —

  —

  —

  5

  1993–94

  —

  —

  —

  7

  1994–95

  —

  —

  —

  7

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made by his Department in taking forward proposals for the expansion of the assisted places scheme; and how much his Department estimates this will cost in future financial years for which figures are available when this has been achieved. [5821]

  Mr. Richards
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to the right hon. Member for Conway (Sir W. Roberts) on 29 November,Official Report, columns 757-58 The estimated cost of the scheme for the financial year 1996–97 is £3.781 million.

  Local Education Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average amount of money spent by his Department on a pupil in a public sector school at(a) primary and (b) secondary level for each academic year since 1981. [5796]

  Mr. Richards
  Figures of net institutional expenditure per pupil, based on local education authorities' expenditure, for 1980–81 to 1992–93, are contained in the Welsh Office's education finance bulletin, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Figures for 1993–94 are currently being calculated and as soon as they become available, they will be incorporated in a new issue of the bulletin.

  NHS Trusts
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each NHS trust in Wales together with an assessment of whether it reaches the Government's requirements to(a) achieve the 6 per cent. rate of return on average net assets, (b) break even, taking one year with another and (c) remain within the external financing limit. [5904]

  Mr. Richards
  Information on the financial performance of NHS trusts in Wales is contained in the annual reports they are required to produce. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will assess the financial performance of the NHS trusts in Wales in utilising appropriate financial ratios. [5905]

  Mr. Richards
  No. The financial performance of NHS trusts in Wales will continue to be assessed against the statutory duties, established by the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, to break even. taking one year with another; manage their external financing limits and record a required rate of return.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits (Disabled People)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the recent changes in allowances for people with disabilities. [3853]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) on 12 December,Official Report, column 621.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated number and percentage of single people aged under 25 years who are in employment and claiming housing benefit; and what assessment he has made of the impact that restricting housing benefit to the average cost of local shared accommodation for single people aged under 25 years will have on(a) labour mobility and (b) work incentives. [4553]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The estimated number of single childless people under 25 in employment and claiming housing benefit is 29,000. This is 3 per cent. of the total number of single childless people under 25 who live away from the parental home.

  Housing benefit will continue to meet in full rents up to the general level of non self-contained accommodation in the locality. It will not prevent those affected from moving in search of employment. It is likely to increase work incentives by improving the position of those in work and above benefit levels, compared with those dependent wholly on benefits.

  Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if carpal tunnel syndrome caused by the use of a word processor is listed as a industrial injury which is open to compensation and if he will make a statement. [4512]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Carpal tunnel syndrome is eligible for benefit under the industrial injuries scheme only in relation to hand-held vibrating tools. Compensation from a negligent employer may be sought at common law through the civil courts for any work-related injury.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what mechanisms exist for liaison between his Department and the Departments of Health and of the Environment in respect of(a) cold weather credits and (b) the Christmas bonus; and if he will make a
  statement on recent discussions in this area. [4541]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  All three Departments continue to liaise effectively on the issues raised by the campaign for cold weather credits, although there have been no recent discussions on any specific proposals.

  The Christmas bonus is paid under the relevant social security legislation. Liaison with the Departments of Health and of the Environment is not appropriate.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which national climatological message
  785
  stations cover post codes BB8, BB9 and BB12 in respect of the cold weather payments regulations. [4952]

  Mr. Evans
  Post codes BB8, BB9 and BB12 are served by the Meteorological Office weather station at Wilsden, west Yorkshire. All weather stations and the area they cover are listed in the schedules to the social fund cold weather payments regulations, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Bettts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of bills to his Department were paid in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice in the last year for which figures are available. [5697]

  Mr. Burt
  Since 1992, this Department has conducted an annual exercise to establish what proportion of bills for goods and services have been paid timeously—that is within any special terms agreed, or if none exist within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice, whichever is the later. Details of the percentage of payments made timeously from 1992–93 are in the table.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  DSS HQ

  90

  97

  89.5

  Benefit Agency

  93

  95

  96

  Contributions Agency

  93

  99

  99

  Resettlement Agency

  96

  87

  98

  Child Support Agency

  95

  90

  96

  Information Technology Services Agency

  96

  95

  99

  War Pensions Agency

  Part of BA

  89

  96

  Total

  94

  94

  96

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with local government representatives on the financial effects of the Asylum and Immigration Bill and the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Amendment Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [6012]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Local authorities have been consulted on these proposals through their associations, and many of them also made representations to the Social Security Advisory Committee. We shall publish our response shortly.

  Departmental Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the total number and cost of all forms of fraud affecting his Department and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies, as set out in the returns to Her Majesty's Treasury for departmental fraud for each year since 1990–91; and if he will make a statement. [6138]

  Mr. Heald
  The Department's annual returns to Her Majesty's Treasury for years 1990–91 to 1993–94 are set out in Table 1. Since the number of full-time fraud investigators dealing with departmental fraud was 786
  increased in 1993, the number of successful investigations has increased. The return for 1994–95 is set out in the table 2.

  Table 1

  Year

  Number of cases in which disciplinary action taken

  Loss to public funds

  1990–91

  14

  £45,892

  1991–92

  8

  £18,962

  1992–93

  22

  £138,608

  1993–94

  15

  £114,780

  Table 2: Fraud established in completed investigations (1994–95)

  Number

  None

  146

  Travel and subsistence

  11

  False accounting

  1

  Failure to receipt

  2

  Unauthorised access

  15

  Unauthorised disclosure

  3

  Giro/order book fraud

  6

  Theft

  2

  False employment details

  3

  Other

  13

  Total completed

  202

  Total where fraud established

  56

  Established loss to public funds in 1994–95

  Total

  £169.145.76

  Research Projects
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all qualitative and quantitative research projects and surveys carried out for his Department into aspects of public attitudes and opinions(a) in general and (b) in relation to specific policy proposals in each of the past three years to December 1995, indicating for each project or survey (i) the date on which the research was commissioned, (ii) the amount which his Department spent, (iii) who carried out the research, (iv) the number of people surveyed or taking part, (v) the location and time scale and (vi) which individuals and organisations have been given access to the findings. [5974]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is given. Information on the time scale of individual research projects and surveys could he obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  GENERAL

  1. War Pensions Agency Customer Satisfaction Survey 1994

  (i) Commissioned December 1994

  (ii) Cost £93 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Public Attitude Surveys ltd.

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—1.350

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report published in DSS Research Series October 1995

  2. Contributions Agency Customer Satisfaction Survey 1993

  (i) Commissioned June 1993

  (ii) Cost £160 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—British Market Research Bureau International (BMRB)

  787

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—5,958 plus 20 depth interviews

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report published in DSS Research Series July 1994

  3. Contributions Agency Customer Satisfaction Survey 1994

  (i) Commissioned June 1994

  (ii) Cost £154 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—BMRB International

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—6,545

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report published in DSS Research Series July 1995

  4. Contributions Agency Customer Satisfaction Survey 1995

  (i) Commissioned July 1995

  (ii) Cost £107.5 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—BMRB International

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—4,000

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Due to be published mid-1996 in the DSS Research Series

  5. Resettlement Agency Customer Satisfaction Survey 19931

  (i) Commissioned Summer 1993

  (ii) Cost £40 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—BMRB International

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—428

  (v) Location—All Resettlement Units

  (vi) Availability—Report received. Report to be published early in 1996 with the 1994 survey

  6. Resettlement Agency Customer Satisfaction Survey 19941

  (i) Commissioned Autumn 1994

  (ii) Cost £19.5 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—BMRB International

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—210

  (v) Location—All Resettlement Units

  (vi) Availability—Report received. Report to be published early in 1996

  7. Child Support Agency National Client Satisfaction Survey 1993

  (i) Commissioned Spring 1993

  (ii) Cost £160 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Market and Opinion Research International

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—1,882

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report published in DSS Research Series July 1994

  8. Child Support Agency National Client Satisfaction Survey 1994

  (i) Commissioned July 1994

  (ii) Cost £225 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Market and Opinion Research International

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—3,233

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report published in DSS Research Series July 1995

  9. Child Support Agency National Client Satisfaction Survey 1995

  (i) Commissioned June 1995

  (ii) Cost £295K

  (iii) Contractor—Market and Opinion Research International

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—2337

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Final report not yet received

  788

  10. The Benefits Agency National Customer Survey 1993

  (i) Commissioned May 1993

  (ii) Cost £187 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Public Attitude Surveys Limited

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—3.500

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report published by BA Spring 1994

  11. The Benefits Agency National Customer Survey 1994

  (i) Commissioned June 1994

  (ii) Cost £211 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Public Attitude Surveys Limited

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—3,324

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report published by the BA April 1995

  12. The Benefits Agency National Customer Survey 1995

  (i) Commissioned July 1995

  (ii) Cost £175 thousand (plus VAT)

  (iii) Contractor—Public Attitude Surveys Limited

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—3,500

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Final report not yet received.

  13. Educating Employers: Evaluation of Employer Educational Surveys

  (i) Commissioned October 1993

  (ii) Cost £35.5 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Public Attitude Surveys (PAS) Limited

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—1.543

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report published in DSS Research Series August 1994

  14. Managing Money in Later Life

  (i) Commissioned May 1994

  (ii) Cost £40 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Social and Community Planning Research (SCPR)

  (iv) number of people interviewed—52

  (v) Location—Brentwood, Bridlington, Folkestone, Leeds, London, Manchester, Poole, Reading, Stoke-on-Trent, Worcester, South Wales, Devon, Hampshire, Leicestershire and Yorkshire

  (vi) Availability—Report published in DSS Research Series August 1995

  15. Public knowledge of the national insurance system and attitudes towards the contributory principle.

  (i) Commissioned January 1994

  (ii) Cost £21.5 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS)

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—2,028

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report circulated internally in DSS. Data deposited in ESRC data archive

  16. Survey of public perceptions of non-state pensions.

  (i) Commissioned February 1995

  (ii) Cost £40 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—OPCS

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—1.989

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—To be published in DSS in-house series (December 1995)

  789

  17. Public perceptions of the level of confidentiality afforded to DSS customers.

  (i) Commissioned October 1994

  (ii) Cost £26 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Alan Hedges

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—70

  (v) Location—London, Reading, Huddersfield and Birmingham

  (vi) Availability—Report not yet received.

  18. The Use and Contribution of Child Benefit within the Family Budget

  (i) Commissioned September 1993

  (ii) Cost £13 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Centre for Research in Social Policy, University of Loughborough

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—69

  (v) Location—Leicester and Melton Mowbray

  (vi) Availability—Report published

  19. Lone Parents, Work and Benefits

  (i) Commissioned February 1994

  (ii) Cost £100 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Policy Studies Institute

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—880

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Final report not yet received

  20. Evaluation of the Newcastle in-work benefits initiative

  (i) Commissioned March 1993

  (ii) Cost £10 thousand (DSS contribution)

  (iii) Contractor—Alan Hedges

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—100

  (v) Location—Newcastle

  (vi) Availability—Report published in DSS in-house series July 1994

  21. The role of Advice Centres and Local Offices in the provision of advice and information about Social Security.

  (i) Commissioned October 1993

  (ii) Cost £50 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Centre for Research in Social Policy, University of Loughborough

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—300

  (v) Location—South Yorkshire, East Anglia, London

  (vi) Availability—Report published in DSS Research Series April 1995.

  22. First Time Customers

  (i) Commissioned May 1993

  (ii) Cost £113 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Social Policy Research Unit, University of York

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—3,700

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report published in DSS Research Series May 1995.

  23. Customer satisfaction with BA local office service

  (i) Commissioned October 1994

  (ii) Cost £38 thousand

  (iii) Contractor-Social and Community Planning Research

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—91

  (v) Location—three local offices

  (vi) Availability—Final report not yet received.

  24. Customer contact with the Benefits Agency

  (i) Commissioned May 1995

  790

  (ii)Cost £211 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Centre for Research in Social Policy. University of Loughborough

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—3,200

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Final report not yet received.

  25. Deterrent effects of prosecution

  (i) Commissioned January 1995

  (ii) Cost £48 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Policy Studies Institute

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—45

  (v) Location—three local offices

  (vi) Availability—Final report not yet received.

  26. Communications between Income Support customers and the Benefits Agency

  (i) Commissioned September 1995

  (ii) Cost £17 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—British Market Research Bureau International

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—36

  (v) Location—three local offices

  (vi) Availability—Final report not yet received.

  27. Evaluation of One Stop: One Place

  (i) Commissioned September 1994

  (ii) Cost £68 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Research Services Limited

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—3,100

  (v) Location—six local offices

  (vi) Availability—Report published in DSS in-house series June 1995.

  28. CA Leaflet research

  (i) Commissioned July 1994

  (ii) Cost £19 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Winstanley Douglas Grantham

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—184

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report received November 1995. Internal CA distribution only.

  29. Social Security Advice Line for Employers (SSALE)

  (i) Commissioned March 1994

  (ii) Cost £42 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—IFF Research

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—1,000

  (v) Location—Newcastle

  (vi) Availability—Report received September 1994, Internal CA distribution only.

  30. Tripartite Telephone helpdesk research

  (i) Commissioned September 1995

  (ii) Cost £33 thousand (plus VAT)

  (iii) Contractor—IFF Research

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—1.800

  (v) Location—Scotland

  (vi) Availability—Final report not yet received.

  31. CA customer service general research

  (i) Commissioned December 1994

  (ii) Cost £17 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—BMRB

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—28

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report received March 1995. Internal CA distribution only.

  791
  Research Relevant to Specific Policy Proposals

  1. Evaluation of Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA): Survey of Unemployed Claimants

  (i) Commissioned June 1995

  (ii) Cost £443.6 thousand1

  (iii) Contractor—Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP)

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—850 (baseline survey pre-JSA, with a similar number after the introduction of JSA)

  (v) Location—National

  (vi) Availability—Final reports not yet received 1 DSS share of costs over 4 years—project jointly funded with DfEE and ES

  2. BA/ES pilot evaluation

  (i) Commissioned early 1993

  (ii) Cost £50 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Public Attitude Surveys Limited

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—1,260

  (v) Location—55 Employment Service job centres

  (vi) Availability —Report published by PAS March 1994

  3. Lone Parent Caseworker Pilots

  (i) Commissioned February 1995

  (ii) Cost of £141 thousand

  (iii) Contractor-Centre for Research in Social Policy, University of Loughborough

  (iv) Number of people interviewed-I,000

  (v) Location—Folkestone, Rochdale, Stevenage, West Notts.

  (vi) Availability—Final report not yet received

  4. Anti-Fraud attitude survey

  (i) Commissioned September 1993

  (ii) Cost £24 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Research Surveys of Great Britain Ltd (RSGB)

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—1,022

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report received September 1993. Internal DSS distribution only

  5. Anti-Fraud campaign strategy development

  (i) Commissioned July 1992

  (ii) Cost of £33 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Reflexions

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—117

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report received August 1993. Internal DSS distribution only

  6. Why Translate? Pilot Study

  (i) Commissioned november 1993

  (ii) Cost £20 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—MORI

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—112

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report received November 1993. Internal DSS distribution only

  7. Incapacity Benefit: Advisors and GPs

  (i) Commissioned January 1995

  (ii) Cost £31 thousand

  (iii)Contractor—DVL Smith

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—30

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report received February 1995. Internal DSS distribution only

  792

  8. Family Credit campaign tracking

  (i) Commissioned April 1993

  (ii) Cost £33 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—RSGB

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—1.200

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report received June 1993. Internal DSS distribution only

  9. DWA/MENCAP Video Evaluation

  (i) Commissioned November 1993

  (ii) Cost £10 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Winstanley Douglas Grantham

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—14

  (v) Location-national

  (vi) Availability—Report received November 1993. Internal DSS distribution only

  10. DWA data base evaluation

  (i) Commissioned November 1993

  (ii) Cost £15 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Recruitment and Assessment Services (RAS)

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—502

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report received November 1993. Internal DSS distribution only

  11. DWA Advisors Monitor

  (i) Commissioned April 1993

  (ii) Cost £26 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—MAI

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—46

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report received April 1993. Internal DSS distribution only

  12. You and Disability Responders

  (i) Commissioned March 1995

  (ii) Cost £20 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—BMRB

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—375

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report received March 1995. Internal DSS distribution only

  13. Pensions Publicity Awareness

  (i) Commissioned October 1995

  (d) Cost £24 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—BMRB

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—20,650

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report received October 1995. Internal DSS distribution only

  14. Disability Strategic Development

  (i) Commissioned May 1995

  (ii) Cost £57 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Andrew Irving Associates

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—96

  ( v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report received July 1995. Internal DSS distribution only

  15 Working with Benefits tracking

  (i) Commissioned June 1995

  (ii) Cost £126 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Research International

  793

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—2,400

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report received August 1995. Internal DSS distribution only

  16. Unemployed Lifestyles

  (i) Commissioned September 1995

  (ii) Cost £48 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—Andrew Irving Associates

  (iv) Number of people interviewed —115

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report received October 1995. Internal DSS distribution only

  17. NICS Holiday

  (i) Commissioned September 1995

  (ii) Cost £32 thousand

  (iii) Contractor—NOP

  (iv) Number of people interviewed—80

  (v) Location—national

  (vi) Availability—Report received October 1995. Internal DSS distribution only

  The Department's Research Programme is announced each year. Details and overall costs of all projects are set out in the Department's Research Yearbook, published annually by HMSO, copies of which are available in the Library. Previous editions cover projects from 1989 onwards; the Yearbook for 1994–95, to be published today (14th December) will contain details of current projects.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates he has made of days lost at work because of mental ill health in each of the last five years. [6108]

  Mr. Heald
  Information is not available in the format requested.

  The available information in the table relates to the number of days of certified incapacity recorded in connection with claims to sickness benefit and/or invalidity benefit, and claims to severe disablement allowance from 6 April 1992. The data cannot be taken as a total of the days lost at work because no account can be taken of those who have entitlement to Statutory sick pay from their employer, for which no figures are available. Figures also include claimants unemployed, and people who have never worked, prior to the time of their claim to benefit.

  Number of days certified incapacity of claimants for State incapacity benefits due to mental disorder

  Period

  Number of days

  3 April 1989 to 31 March 19901

  79,670,000

  2 April 1990 to 30 March 19911

  91,479,000

  1 April 1991 to 4 April 19921

  105,849,000

  6 April 1992 to 3 April 19932

  159,994,000

  5 April 1993 to 2 April 19942

  172,251,000

  Notes:

  1Sickness Benefit and Invalidity Benefit claims only.

  2Sickness Benefit, Invalidity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance claims.

  1. Based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants within Great Britain. rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claims there have been for the new incapacity benefit within the Merthyr benefit district; and how many of these were claimants with mental health problems; [4102]

  (2) how many claims for incapacity benefit have been made since April in the Merthyr benefit area; how many of these have been from (a) men and (b) women; and how many have been successful. [4100]

  Mr. Burt
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter front Peter Mathison to Mr. Ted Rowlands, dated 13 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about how many claims there have been for the new Incapacity Benefit within the Merthyr benefit district; how many of these were claimants with mental health problems; how many of the new claims have been from (a) men and (b) women; and how many have been successful.
  Information is not available in the format requested. Statistics on the number of new claims are collated at District level. There have been 6,230 new claims for Incapacity Benefit, during the period 13 April to 1 December, in the Eastern Valleys District. This District comprises of the Merthyr Tydfil, Aberdare. Bargoed and Caerphilly offices.
  Information about how many customers within the Merthyr Tydfil office who have claimed Incapacity Benefit and who are suffering with mental health problems could he obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  Statistics are not kept on the number of men or women who have claimed Incapacity Benefit.
  Figures for the number of successful claims to Incapacity Benefit are not available. Statistics are only available for the number of claims disallowed. In the Merthyr Tydfil office, 310 claims to Incapacity Benefit were disallowed during the period 13 April 1995 to 1 December 1995. This figure may include claims made before 13 April 1995.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average waiting period between an application for a war pension appeal and an appeal hearing. [5005]

  Mr. Heald
  This is a matter for Mr. John Sheppard, the acting chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Sheppard to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 13 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about War Pensions appeals.
  There are two different types of War Pension appeal. An entitlement appeal can he made against the decision that there is no entitlement to a War Disablement Pension. An assessment appeal may he made where the pensioner awarded a War Disablement Pension disagrees with the assessment of his disability.
  The War Pensions Agency (WPA) is responsible for preparing the appeal papers for the independent Pension Appeal Tribunals (PAT), who come under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor's Department. The PAT consider all War Pension appeals and are responsible for arranging appeal hearings.

  795
  Once an appeal has been lodged the WPA looks at all the evidence afresh and is then required to produce a Statement of Case. This is a complex document detailing all the relevant evidence which is sent to the appellant for comment before being submitted to the PAT. The average time taken by WPA to complete this action in 1995/96, is 263 working days for an assessment appeal and 326 days for an entitlement appeal. These average times are longer than would normally be the case and are a reflection of the considerable increase in appeals that occurred in 1994. The WPA has also been phasing in a new computer system and a major restructuring of the organisation this year, but now that these changes are complete, there should be a gradual and sustained improvement in the clearance of appeals.
  Once the Statement of Case is with the PAT they make the arrangements for the appeal to be heard. They too have been affected by the increase in appeals over the last couple of years. The average time taken since April for the PAT to schedule a hearing following receipt of the Statement of Case from WPA is 42.35 weeks.
  The PAT has also addressed the problem by increasing the number of courts held each day. These have increased from 4-5 at the end of 1994, to 7-8 now, and the intention is to further increase the number to 10 next April. In addition there has been an increase in the number of cases heard each day by each court.
  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of war pension appeals outstanding; what was the number of such appeals originally in each year of original claim; and how many were outstanding at(a) 31 December 1994 and (b) 31 December 1993. [5489]
  796
  Mr. Heald
  These are matters for Mr. John Sheppard, the acting chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Sheppard to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 13 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of outstanding War Pension appeals.
  There are two different types of appeal. An entitlement appeal may be lodged where the Agency has been unable to accept that a particular medical condition has been caused by service in the Forces; an assessment appeal can be made where the appellant disagrees with the assessment of disablement arising from an accepted condition.
  The table below shows the number of appeals outstanding within the Agency on the dates you refer to.

  31 December 1993

  31 December 1994

  30 November 1995

  Entitlement

  8,857

  7,102

  6,085

  Assessment

  6,949

  8,263

  6,617

  Total

  15,806

  15,365

  12,702

  I am unable to break down these figures to show the years of the original claims because there are no time limits for making entitlement appeals and different time limits depending on the type of assessment appeal. It does not follow, therefore that the appeals received in any period are related to decision made in any specific earlier period. Indeed, some entitlement appeals are made up to 20 or 30 years after the original decision on the claim.
  I hope you find this information useful.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Drownings (Bangor)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his Department's responsibility for the river flowing from Clandeboye estate into the Kilcooley estate in Bangor where two children drowned on the night of 15 November. [2508]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and I am advised by the chief executive that the section of the watercourse in question forms the boundary between the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and a private housing development. The Housing Executive, as the riparian owner of that part of the stream adjacent to the estate, has joint responsibility for its maintenance to ensure a free flow of water, and carries out maintenance on a monthly basis.

  Royal Family (Pictures)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy with respect to the display by civil servants in their offices of pictures of members of the royal family. [3219]

  Sir John Wheeler
  There are circumstances in which the display of a portrait of Her Majesty the Queen or other members of the royal family is officially approved. The display of any pictures by individual civil servants in their offices is, of course, subject to civil service policy on promoting a good and harmonious working environment for all its employees.

  Central Services Agency
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what stage has been reached in the market testing of the legal services of the central services agency for the health and public social services. [5018]

  Mr. Moss
  On 25 September 1995, the chief executive of the management executive established a project hoard to take forward this market test. The project board is finalising the form of the tender documents, and a public notice inviting interested parties to tender is imminent.

  Legal Services
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what way the current proposals for market testing of legal services avoid offending public probity as expressed by the chief executive of the management executive in a letter to the general manager of the Northern health and social services hoard dated 2 February. [5019]

  Mr. Moss
  The present proposal to market test legal services will use a process and deliver a product which will comply with the full rigour of public probity. It will observe generally accepted principles of full and open competition and aim to produce a framework from which health and personal social services clients will he able to obtain value for money legal services.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how the arrangements for the market testing of the 798
  legal services directorate differ from those applied to other public sector services in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. [5021]

  Mr. Moss
  The legal services directorate of the Central Services Agency provides legal services to a range of clients operating within the health and personal social services. These clients are acting together through a project board to market test legal services. In this respect, the approach may be perceived as different from that adopted in the majority of market tests, where there is usually a single customer. In addition, the market test involves the creation of a list of firms with the requisite competency to undertake the work. This approach will give users a choice of legal representatives.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who was responsible for producing the draft arrangements for the provision of legal services to HPSS clients. [5020]

  Mr. Moss
  The "Protocol for the Management of Legal Cases in the Health and Personal Social Services" was produced by the Central Services Agency in consultation with the chief executive of the management executive.

  Local Enterprise Development Unit
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was expenditure has been incurred by LEDU in respect of promoting equality of economic opportunity throughout Northern Ireland. [4778]

  Mr. Ancram
  LEDU is fully committed to supporting the elimination of all forms of unlawful discrimination in employment and to using its services to help to secure the objectives of the fair employment, sex discrimination and disabled persons legislation, and seeks to ensure equality of opportunity and fair treatment for all in the implementation of all its programmes.

  In addition, LEDU is fully committed to the Government policy of targeting social need and has committed funding of £3,658,349 so far in 1995–96 to client companies and individuals operating in disadvantaged areas.

  Larne Lough
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of shellfish cultivation in Larne lough; and what action he has taken to ensure that the objectives set out in the draft conservation plan for Larne lough special protection area. [4798]

  Mr. Moss
  Before issuing licences for shellfish farming, the Department of Agriculture consults the Department of the Environment to establish whether the proposals would have a detrimental environmental effect. The Department of the Environment considers the proposals in the context of the information that it holds on the flora and fauna of the littoral and sub-tidal habitats and any other plans or proposals for the area. Both Departments also consider any risk arising from the introduction of non-native species. In addition to the steps outlined above, the Department of the Environment will
  799
  monitor bird populations and marine and coastal habitats, to assess whether changes of conservation significance are taking place in the lough.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many licences for shellfish cultivation in Larne lough(a) have been granted and (b) are currently under consideration. [4797]

  Mr. Ancram
  Two fish culture licences have been granted in respect of shellfish cultivation in Larne lough and two applications for licenses for shellfish farming in the lough are currently under consideration.

  Shellfish Order (Northern Ireland) 1930
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to(a) amend or (b) repeal the Shellfish Order (Northern Ireland) 1930. [4783]

  Mr. Moss
  Records indicate that no such order exists.

  Belfast Lough
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the high and low tide marks are indicated on the foreshore around Belfast lough. [4784]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland under its chief executive, Mr Michael Brand.

  I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. F. Codd to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 7 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked the Chief Executive to reply to your Question about high and low tide marks on the foreshore around Belfast Lough. In the absence of the Chief Executive I am replying on his behalf.
  There is no indication of tide marks on the foreshore. Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland large-scale maps show natural features including the coast, which is depicted by two lines; the High Water Mark Mean Tides (HWMMT) and the Low Water Mark Mean Tides (LWMMT) which are predicted levels.

  "The Nemesis File"
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of Stae for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the statement of a Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers NCO contained in the "The Nemesis File." [4864]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I have not read this book, but I am aware the Ministry of Defence issued a statement at the time of the book's publication expressing serious doubts about the author's claim to have been a member of the SAS. In view of the nature of the allegations, however, the RUC serious crime squad will investigate the claims made in the book.

  Punishment Beatings
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the frequency of punishment beatings in the period(a) before. (b) during and (c) after President Clinton's visit to Northern Ireland; and what assessment he has made of this estimate. [5553]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:
  800

  Casualties as a result of "punishment" attacks (shootings and assaults)

  Month

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Total

  June 1995

  4

  13

  17

  July 1995

  11

  18

  29

  August 1995

  5

  12

  17

  September 1995

  4

  12

  16

  October 1995

  4

  21

  25

  November 1995

  11

  11

  22

  December 1st-11th

  1

  2

  3

  Total

  40

  89

  129

  These statistics have been provided by the RUC and arc subject to amendment.

  Between 22 November and 4 December no such attacks were carried out by either loyalists or republican groups. It is clear the groups perpetrating these savage and cowardly acts are acting under control. As President Clinton said while in Northern Ireland, they should cease now.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of bills to his Department were paid in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice in the last year for which figures are available. [5699]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Departments are required to provide details of their performance in their departmental reports.

  In 1994–1995, the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments paid 94.7 per cent. of their bills in accordance with agreed contractual conditions, or within 30 days of receiving goods and services, or on presentation of a valid invoice.

  Mr. Patrick Finucane
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the recommendations of(a) the International Commission of Jurists, (b) the United Kingdom nominee on the UN Sub-Commission on Rights, (c) the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and (d) the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights in respect of a judicial inquiry into the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the death of Mr. Patrick Finucane. [5810]

  Sir John Wheeler
  There has keen an RUC investigation into the murder of Mr. Finucane. The circumstances relating to the murder were also investigated by members of the enquiry team headed by Mr. John Stevens. A full investigation report was submitted by Mr. Stevens to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, who directed that there should be no prosecutions. I have no plans to establish a judicial inquiry.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he will take to establish a judicial
  801
  inquiry into the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the death of Mr. Patrick Finucane. [5809]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I have no plans to establish a judicial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Mr. Finucane. These were investigated by Mr. John Stevens and a summary of the report was published.

  Conductive Education
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of the value and achievements of conductive education. [5814]

  Mr. Ancram
  No formal assessment of the value and achievements of conductive education has been undertaken in Northern Ireland. In 1993, the Government sponsored a research project into the relative merits of conductive education and conventional approaches for particular categories of children at the Birmingham institute for conductive education.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to make conductive education available for children where parents wish it. [5832]

  Mr. Ancram
  Under the 1991 international agreement with Hungary, the United Kingdom is guaranteed access to a number of places for children and for trainee conductors at the Peto institute in Budapest. In Northern Ireland, the making of provision for children with special educational needs is a matter for education and library boards in the first instance. I am aware that one board has been considering how conductive education techniques might be integrated into its special education provision, but no specific plans have yet evolved.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many institutions provide conductive education for children with special educational needs; and how many children are currently receiving conductive therapy in each institution. [5813]

  Mr. Ancram
  Conductive education is provided at an independent school, the Buddy Bear trust school in Dungannon. There are three children enrolled.

  Emergency Legislation
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to implement the recommendation of the Human Rights Committee of the UN in respect of repealing laws infringing civil liberties which were designed for periods of emergency. [5808]

  Sir John Wheeler
  r: My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 12 June, before the Human Rights Committee made its recommendations, that there is to be an independent review of emergency legislation.

  Autistic Children
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what facilities and services are available to identify and provide for the(a) educational, (b) medical, and (c) other needs of children with autism. [5835]

  Mr. Ancram
  It is the responsibility of the education and library boards to assess and provide for the special educational needs of all children in Northern Ireland with 802
  special educational needs, including autistic children. Placements may be made in special schools, in special units attached to mainstream schools or in mainstream schools themselves. One board operates an advisory and support service for autistic children and their families, and another has recently appointed a seconded teacher to assist and support special schools. As far as the health and personal social services are concerned, the assessed needs of children with autism are met within the learning disability programme of care.

  Military Complaints Procedures Assessor
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to reappoint Mr. David Hewitt as independent assessor of military complaints procedures in Northern Ireland. [6792]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have today reappointed David Hewitt as independent assessor of military complaints procedures in Northern Ireland until 31 March 1997.

  The Army's presence on the streets of Northern Ireland in support of the RUC has, of course, diminished greatly since the cessation of military operations announced by the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries, but the Government believe that there remains a useful role for the independent assessor although the need for the post will be kept under review.

HEALTH

  NHS Contracts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 24 November,Official Report, column 336, if he will provide a breakdown of NHS contracts by (a) type and (b) region. [3330]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is available in the review of contracting, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Hospital Medical Registrars
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner and registrar appointments have been filled by British citizens and how many from each country outside the United Kingdom over the latest convenient period; and what estimate his Department has made of the number who(a) complete their appointment and return home and (b) remain in the United Kingdom. [5352]

  Mr. Malone
  The information on general practitioners is not available. The available information for hospital medical registrars is given in the "Hospital Medical Staff England Tables", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Paracetamol
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to consult consultants in toxicology at
  803
  London teaching hospitals regarding the safety of the current formulation of paracetamol. [5498]

  Mr. Malone
  We have no plans to consult toxicologists at the London teaching hospitals regarding the safety of the current formulation of paracetamol.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has approved the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's revised code of practice. [6788]

  Mr. Horam
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today laid before the House copies of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's revised code of practice. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Ritalin
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what system is in place to monitor the scale of treatment of children with controlled drugs such as Ritalin and similar products; [5153]

  (2) how many children in the United Kingdom are being or have been treated with Ritalin-methylphenidate in the last 10 years for which figures are available; [5154]

  (3) how many children under six years of age in the United Kingdom are currently being treated with Ritalin; [5155]

  (4) how much Ritalin has been manufactured in the United Kingdom in the last 10 years for which figures are available. [5156]

  Mr. Horam
  Information about the number of children treated with Ritalin is not available centrally. Ritalin is not manufactured in the United Kingdom.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a breakdown of administration costs incurred to date and forecast for the future on PFI work. [5740]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply the then Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), gave the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 2 May,Official Report, columns 175–76.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide for schemes so far agreed under the PFI the level of financing costs above the current cost of Government borrowing for the scheme with(a) the highest financing costs and (b) the lowest costs. [5742]

  Mr. Horam
  Comparing private finance initiative projects with publicly funded alternatives is not a question of comparing interest rates. PFI projects are given approval only if the PFI approach brings improvements in cost-effectiveness for the national health service. The specific information requested is not available.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide revenue forecasts for the current year and 804
  the next five years of expenditure on schemes provided under the PFI. [5741]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 6 December,Official Report, column 224.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of bills to his Department were paid in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice in the last year for which figures are available. [5703]

  Mr. Horam
  In 1994–95, the latest year for which figures are available, 91.9 per cent. of the Department's invoices were paid within the agreed credit period or within 30 days where no credit period had been set. For the period April to September 1995, this figure has increased to 95 per cent.

  Suicides
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he collates in respect of the suicide rates among patients recently discharged from hospital. [6113]

  Mr. Horam
  None.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on suicides that have taken place in each of the last five years among(a) men and (b) women, indicating the method of suicide; [6112]

  (2) how many suicides have taken place among men aged 15 to 24 years in each of the last 10 years. [6111]

  Mr. Horam
  Data on deaths from suicide—ICD1 E950–E959; E980– E989—are published in table 2 of the publication, "Mortality statistics; Cause; England and Wales; series DH2", copies of which are available in the Library.

  The latest data available2 are for the years 1983–1992.

  (1 International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision).
  2 The coding of causes of death in England and Wales was changed in 1993 to an automated system. Though the results from this are generally satisfactory, Office of Population/Censuses and Surveys have identified significant problems in the coding of external causes of death. Certifications of deaths in 1993 and 1994 which could have been due to external causes are all being examined and re-coded as necessary. More reliable data, comparable to that for previous years, will be available in the firth quarter of 1996.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many suicides have taken place in each of the last five years as a proportion of all annual deaths. [6110]

  Mr. Horam
  The numbers of suicides1 which have taken place in each of the last five years as a proportion of all annual deaths are shown in the table.
  805

  1990

  1991

  1992

  19931

  19941

  Total suicides

  5,544

  5,486

  5,486

  4,894

  4,787

  Total deaths

  564,846

  570,044

  558,313

  578,170

  551,455

  Percentage

  0.98

  0.96

  0.98

  0.85

  0.87

  1 International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision Codes E950–E959, E980–E989 excluding E988.8 for 1990–1992; E950–E959, E980–E989 for 1993 and 1994

  1 Provisional.

  The figures for 1993 and 1994 suicide deaths are Office of Population/Censuses and Surveys' current best estimates. The coding of causes of death in England and Wales was changed in 1993 to an automated system. Though the results from this are generally satisfactory, OPCS have identified significant problems in the coding of external causes of death. Certifications of deaths in 1993 and 1994 which could have been due to external causes are all being examined and re-coded as necessary. More reliable data, comparable to that for previous years, will be available in the first quarter of 1996.

  Post-Operative Complications
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many in-patients have suffered post-operative complications in each of the last 10 years. [6105]

  Mr. Horam
  It is not possible to identify all post-operative complications from the data available centrally. Some information is published in volume 1 of "Hospital Episode Statistics: England", for the years 1988–89 to 1993–94, copies of which are available in the Library. This shows the number of finished consultant episodes where the primary diagnosis is linked to complications of surgical or medical care which cannot be classified elsewhere in the system.

  Post-Operative Infections
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients in NHS hospitals have been diagnosed as suffering from post-operative infections in each of the last 10 years; [6103]

  (2) what information his Department maintains on post-operative infection rates in NHS hospitals. [6104]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Medicinal Herbs
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make it his policy to oppose any further regulations from the European Union which would restrict United Kingdom consumers' access to herbal medicines and remedies of their choice; and if he will make a statement. [6120]

  (2) what is his policy in respect of availability of herbal remedies; and if he will make a statement. [6119]

  Mr. Malone
  The Government support the availability of herbal remedies within a framework of statutory controls to protect public health. We consider that existing legislation provides an appropriate measure of protection.

  We are unaware of proposals from the European Union for the regulation of herbal remedies. We would consider any such proposals in the light of our overall policy to protect public health, but to do so with the minimum necessary regulation.
  806
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what consultation he undertook with(a) manufacturers, (b) consumers and (c) practitioners using medicinal herbs prior to deciding whether to support recent resolutions at the Council of Health Ministers relating to the status, marketing and availability of medicinal herbs; and if he will identify separately his consultation with the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy; [6118]

  (2) what resolutions were passed at recent meetings of the Council of Health Ministers relating to medicinal herbs; if he will set out the terms of all resolutions; and if he will make a statement. [6117]

  Mr. Malone
  A resolution on medicinal plant preparations was adopted at the European Commission Council of Health Ministers meeting on 30 November. It invites the Commission to study public health safeguards relating to such preparations. It makes no policy proposals or statements. A copy of the resolution has been placed in the Library.

  Scanning Equipment
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department issues to district authorities in respect of the provision of scanning equipment for 24-hour emergency use. [6097]

  Mr. Horam
  It is for individual authorities, after discussions with provider units, to determine the level of provision of scanning equipment necessary for 24-hour emergency use.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 December,Official Report, column 200, how many (a) independent and (b) local authority residential care homes there were, by area, in each region in each of the last five years. [6141]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on numbers of homes for elderly and physically disabled people for the years 1989 to 1994 has been published in "Residential Accommodation for elderly people and people with physical and/or sensory disabilities: all residents in local authority, voluntary and private homes, year ending 31 March 1989 to year ending 31 March 1994, England". Information on the total number of homes for all client groups for the years ending 31 March 1994 and 1995 has been published in Department of Health statistical bulletins on residential accommodation for each of these years. Copies of all these publications are available in the Library.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with local government representatives on the financial effects of the Asylum and Immigration Bill and the Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Regulations in respect of expenditure under the Children Act 1989; and if he will make a statement. [6013]

  Mr. Horam
  We have received representations from local government and officials are considering them.

  Paediatric Intensive Care
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will undertake an inquiry into the circumstances relating to the death of Nicholas Geldard at Leeds infirmary on 8 December; and if he will make a statement on the case; [6095]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the availability of intensive care facilities for children in the Greater Manchester area on 8 December. [6096]

  Mr. Horam
  The North West regional health authority is looking into the circumstances of this case as a matter of urgency. Its review will include an examination of the local availability of intensive care facilities for children on the day in question.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 4 December,Official Report, column 35, which trusts have been given permission by him to borrow from commercial sources. [6145]

  Mr. Horam
  All national health service trusts are permitted to borrow from commercial sources. Trusts must satisfy themselves that any such borrowing represents value for money.

  Supervision Registers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been placed on supervision registers since NHS executive HSG(94)(5) in each(a) district and (b) region. [6114]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have been closed in each of the last five years; and how many are planned for closure in the next five years.[6106]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 7 November,Official Report, column 683.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what staff shortages his Department has identified across all grades in the NHS; and what steps are being taken to address them. [6102]

  Mr. Malone
  It is for local employers to determine what, if any, non-medical staff shortages exist. It is their responsibility to take appropriate action to retain and recruit existing qualified staff and ensure that adequate provision has been made to train the number of newly qualified staff they require.

  National health service trusts now have greater freedoms than ever before to develop local pay and working arrangements to underpin their retention and recruitment strategies.

  In the case of medical staff, the NHS executive and the Welsh Office receive advice from the specialist work force advisory group about the number of trainees needed
  808
  to ensure an adequate supply of properly trained doctors and dentists in each specialty, although it is not always possible to recruit to training posts that are available. The specialist work force advisory group has given priority to considering specialties where there are identified shortages.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the quality assurance procedures currently in place within the Medicines Control Agency. [5948]

  Mr. Malone
  The agency's performance is measured against a number of high level targets, set to protect public health in the field of medicinal products, which include targets related to standards of safety and quality. These are published in the agency's annual business plan and its accomplishments against them in its annual report, copies of which are available in the Library. The agency has in place a large number of standard operating procedures applicable to its many functions in order to meet its quality objectives. For example, the medicines inspectorate operates in compliance with the international quality system ISO 9002 and has achieved formal certification against this standard.

  All agency procedures are subject to audit by the National Audit Office and internal Department of Health auditors.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library responses from the chairman of health authorities and trusts to the Minister of State's letter of 24 August about mental health services. [6107]

  Mr. Bowls
  An announcement will he made in due course.

  Influenza
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 7 December,Official Report, column 382, at what stage his Department will issue an alert about an influenza epidemic; and what further steps his Department proposes to take to protect those at risk from influenza. [6146]

  Mr. Horam
  The Departments of Health and the Environment issued guidance for health and local authorities on the management of communicable disease in HSG(93)56, copies of which are available in the Library. The guidance states that health authorities and local authorities should have up-to-date joint plans covering the structures and procedures for managing communicable disease control—specific diseases are not singled out—in their areas, both on a day-to-day basis and if an outbreak occurs; and that these plans should be reviewed annually. The leaflet "What should I do about flu?", produced by the Department this year, also contains advice to those at risk of serious illness should they develop influenza on how they should protect themselves. Over 6 million does of influenza vaccine have been distributed so far this influenza season.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths from hypothermia took place among(a) men aged 65 years and over and (b) women aged 60 years and over in 1994 by region. [6142]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is shown in the table.

  Numbers of deaths which occurred in 1994 with a mention of hypothermia (ICD 991.61) on the death certificate by regional health authority of usual residence (including Wales), for: males aged 65 years and over, and .females aged 60 and over

  Regional health authority

  Males

  Females

  Northern

  10

  13

  Yorkshire

  9

  15

  Trent

  7

  18

  East Anglian

  10

  12

  North-west Thames

  9

  14

  North-east Thames

  8

  15

  South-east Thames

  8

  14

  South-west Thames

  4

  7

  Wessex

  4

  6

  Oxford

  5

  10

  South Western

  7

  14

  West Midlands

  11

  21

  Mersey

  1

  7

  North Western

  9

  18

  Wales

  5

  14

  Total

  107

  198

  1 ICD International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is(a) the normal period of appointment and (b) the maximum cumulative period of appointment for members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines: and in what circumstances the maximum cumulative period of membership may be exceeded. [5926]

  Mr. Malone
  Members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines are normally appointed by the United Kingdom Health Ministers for three-year periods with the maximum cumulative period of appointment being six years, as set out in paragraph 4 of the 1970 regulations. Members can be, and are, reappointed for further terms of office. A new three-year period of appointment announced on 11 December, takes effect on 1 January 1996.

  Medicines Act 1968
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times regulations under schedule 1 to the Medicines Act 1968 have been made; and what was(a) the title, (b) the date of making and (c) the date of coming into effect of each such regulation. [5924]

  Mr. Malone
  Once. The Medicines Commission and Committees Regulations 1970 No. 746 was made on 11 May 1970 and came into operation on 26 May 1970.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many recorded deaths have been accounted for by mental illness in each of the last five years. [6109]
  810
  Mr. Horam
  Information relating to 1990 to 1992 is available in Office of Population Censuses and Surveys DH2 series, copies of which are available in the Library. Information for 1993–94 are shown in the table.

  Deaths from mental disorders (ICD1 290–3/9) in England and Wales, by sec, 1993–94

  Number

  19932

  Male

  2,530

  Female

  5,189

  Total

  7.719

  19942

  Male

  2,683

  Female

  5,288

  Total

  7,971

  1 International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision.

  2 Provisional.

  If, as a result of a mental disorder, a person commits suicide or dies in an accident, the death is not coded to mental disorders and not therefore included in the above figures.

  Deaths for 1992 and earlier years represent the number of deaths registered in each year, while deaths from 1993 are those which occurred in each year. In addition, new procedures for coding cause of death from 1993 and the absence of medical inquiries mean that figures for 1993 onwards may not be exactly comparable with earlier years.

  Chronic conditions such as senile dementia decreased sharply as a result of these changes.

  Public Information Lines
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the public information lines under the jurisdiction of his Department; what bodies have carried out these assessments; and what has been the cost of these to his Department. [4231]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: Examination of the effectiveness of public information lines under the jurisdiction of the Department is not conducted routinely by outside bodies as an assessment is usually made from the result of responses. However, two reviews have been conducted in recent years on individual helplines.

  In 1993, Price Waterhouse undertook a fundamental review of the national HIV/AIDS helpline, at a cost of nearly £40,000, and examined the need for related drugs and sexually transmitted diseases services. Their report concluded
  "telephone helpline services for HIV/AIDS, other STDs and drugs can be justified at a cost effective component of prevention services".
  Following the report's recommendations, a tendering exercise was carried out to establish operationally integrated national helplines for HIV/AIDS and drugs.

  In 1994, the NHS executive commissioned Insight Management Consultants to undertake an evaluation of the regional health information services, at a cost of £20,000. It reported back to the NHS executive in November 1994.
  811
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many public information lines his Department operates; how many calls have been made to those lines; what has been the cost of them; and what audit procedures are in place to monitor these costs. [4239]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: There are eight main information lines falling under the Department's jurisdiction for which a total of 1,863,463 calls have been received at a cost to the Department of £10,299.124. Where applicable, the Central Office of Information carries out the following procedures to monitor the costs:

  (i) COI auditors regularly inspect suppliers' books, working practices and cost charging procedures.

  (ii) At the start of any new campaign, COI goes out to tender to a number of already approved suppliers to ensure the selection of the most cost-effective company to handle responses.

  (iii) Due to its extensive use of British Telecom facilities, COI has achieved volume discounts of approximately 46 per cent. (value £108,717) on its BT charges since April 1995.

  (iv) In addition, COI obtains negotiated discounts from its telephone marketing suppliers.

  Community Care Services
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 4 December,Official Report, column 43, what has been the level of community health programme expenditure by providers in each (a) district and (b) region in each of the last four years. [6144]

  Mr. Horam
  The tables represent an aggregate summary by regional health authority and as such are only broadly indicative of the spending position. Information for district health authorities could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Provider (NHS Trusts and directly managed units) expenditure on community Health Programme by region in England

  £ thousand

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Northern

  141,491

  155,637

  168,722

  Yorkshire

  165,595

  175,297

  179,120

  Trent

  200,475

  251,191

  261,579

  East Anglian

  85,374

  100,168

  106,406

  North-west Thames

  153,548

  190,870

  208,781

  North-east Thames

  200,942

  229,316

  245,934

  South-east Thames

  217,955

  203,426

  238,788

  South-west Thames

  120,909

  164,601

  169,025

  Wessex

  146,672

  153,715

  152,993

  Oxford

  108,862

  110,051

  140,806

  South Western

  163,421

  219,583

  229,217

  West Midlands

  248,060

  276,152

  269,084

  Mersey

  119,927

  152,468

  140,007

  North Western

  204,925

  232,503

  256.634

  Special health authorities

  2.177

  1,219

  1,543

  England total

  2,280,333

  2,616,197

  2,768,639

  Source:

  The annual financial returns of NHS trusts.

  1. The annual financial returns of the directly managed units of district and regional health authorities.

  2. The annual financial returns of the special health authorities of the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  812
  The following table details provisional information for 1994–95:

  Provider (NHS trusts and directly managed units) expenditure on community health programme by region in England

  1994–95 thousand

  Northern and Yorkshire

  376,732

  Trent

  259,551

  Anglia and Oxford

  293,248

  North Thames

  453,234

  South and West

  411,691

  West Midlands

  294,336

  North Western

  419,258

  Special health authorities

  0

  Total England

  2,954,350

  Source:

  The annual financial returns of NHS trusts.

  1. The annual financial returns of the directly managed units of district and regional health authorities.

  2. The annual financial returns of the special health authorities of the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

SCOTLAND

  District Nurses and Health Visitors
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the numbers of district nurses in training and the number of health visitors in training in Scotland for each of the years between 1988 and 1995, inclusive, broken down by(a) real frequency and (b) whole-time equivalents. [3446]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Actual numbers in training as at the end of March each year are set out in the table and have been supplied by the National Board for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland.

  District nurses

  Health visitors

  1988

  149

  120

  1989

  134

  111

  1990

  117

  111

  1991

  88

  92

  1992

  68

  68

  1993

  62

  45

  1994

  63

  61

  1995

  96

  100

  Note:

  Whole-time equivalent student numbers are not available but up until 1992–93 the vast majority of students were full-time. In 1993–94 and 1994–95 just over half the students in each specialty were part-time and the remainder full-time.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the expenditure on administration(a) for each health board in 1991–92 and (b) for each health board and NHS trust within its area in 1994–95. [4955]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is shown in the table. For 1994–95, expenditure for all NHS trusts within each health board area are included. Figures
  813
  have been taken from the annual accounts of health boards and NHS trusts. The expenditure shown for administration includes senior nurses and clinicians who have transferred to the general/senior managers pay scales.

  £ thousand

  Health board area

  1991–92

  1994–95

  Argyll and Clyde

  18,963

  22,066

  Ayr and Arran

  15,192

  21,248

  Borders

  5,068

  6,761

  Dumfries and Galloway

  6,997

  10,509

  Fife

  12,946

  19,803

  Forth Valley

  12,099

  17,154

  Grampian

  23,978

  33,405

  Greater Glasgow

  58,673

  89,312

  Highland

  11,445

  15,113

  Lanarkshire

  19,715

  31,974

  Lothian

  37,198

  55,424

  Orkney

  831

  1,485

  Shetland

  1,481

  1,844

  Tayside

  21,291

  28,818

  Western Isles

  1,820

  2,829

  Scotland total

  247,697

  357,745

  A75
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the programmes to upgrade the A75 route; what contracts are presently under construction; what contracts are to be awarded in 1996; and what support the European Union is giving to the A75 route. [5355]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Preparations for major improvements at the Glen are in an advanced stage and we hope to determine in the near future a planned start date for construction. In addition, a number of works are being implemented through the on-going accident investigation and prevention system, either at specific sites where accidents have been recorded or through mini-route accident reduction plan studies of sections of the road where the accident rate is the highest. Minor junction improvements are also planned.

  The A75 is included in the trans-European transport network—TENs. It forms part of the only road-related TENs priority project in the United Kingdom, the Ireland UK-Benelux road link. Support from the EU's TENs funds may be available, at a rate of 10 per cent. capital costs or 50 per cent. of feasibility studies. While road programmes are eligible under the current European structural fund objective 5b programme in Dumfries and Galloway, they must compete for the limited funds available in the programme.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the standards of service set for emergency call response times for the Scottish ambulance service; and how often they are met within the Greater Glasgow health board area. [5086]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The target response times that apply within the Greater Glasgow health board area and information on how the Scottish ambulance service NHS trust performed against the targets are as follows:
  814

  Emergency calls—Greater Glasgow

  Population Density

  Target—95 per cent. of calls responded to within

  Performance

  1994–95 percentage

  1995–196

  High (>3 people per acre)

  14 minutes

  89

  89

  Medium (0.5–3 People Per acre)

  18 minutes

  93

  94

  1 Based on I April to 30 November 1995.

  Water and Sewerage Services
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the outstanding capital debt on water and sewerage services for each regional and islands council in the most recent year; and what arrangements he has made for this debt to be transferred to the three new water and sewerage authorities on 1 April 1996. [5288]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The latest year for which figures are available is 1994–95. The information as at 31 March 1995 as contained in capital outstanding returns from local authorities is set out in the following table:

  £000s

  Borders regional council

  31,581

  Central regional council

  75,798

  Dumfries and Galloway regional council

  55,292

  Fife regional council

  103,743

  Grampian regional council

  210,308

  Highland regional council

  73,837

  Lothian regional council

  268,769

  Orkney Isles islands council

  8,939

  Shetland Isles islands council

  1,594

  Strathclyde regional council

  565,047

  Tayside regional council

  131,000

  Western Isles islands council

  15,835

  Total

  1,541,743

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the external consultants, employed to date to assist with the transfer of water and sewerage services to the new water authorities in Scotland, and what fees they have received. [5528]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 December 1995]: The Babtie group has been commissioned to assist with the transfer of water and sewerage assets to the new water authorities. Payments have totalled £407,724.77 to date, under two contracts.

  Relevant debt outstanding at 31 March 1996 will be transferred to the new water authorities by virtue of section 91 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994. The mechanism of transfer is currently under consideration.

  Sheep
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he will take to arrest the decline in sheep numbers in the hills and uplands of Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [4807]
  815
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 11 December 19951: Following the Government's autumn review of farm incomes in the hills and uplands we decided to hold rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances—HLCA— at current levels. This, at a time when net farm incomes were forecast to rise on average by some nine per cent. and by 15.5 per cent. for specialist sheep units, was a significant achievement after what had been a particularly severe public expenditure round. In addition, the number of animals on which subsidy has been paid in the less-favoured area is relatively stable. The maintenance of HLCA rates clearly demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to sheep production in Scotland's less-favoured areas.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department spent on official hospitality in 1994–95 and the financial year to date; and what is the 1995–96 projected budget for official hospitality. [5587]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In 1994–95 the cost of hospitality, which is included in the running cost budget for my Department, was £53,806. Expenditure for the financial year to date is £28,668. The projected budget for 1995–96 is £59,000.

  Munitions Disposal
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has concerning the dumping of explosives and related materials at a point south-west of Arran since 1965; and if he will make a statement. [4832]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 12 December 1995]:. Beaufort's dyke is the only charted munitions disposal site to the south-west of Arran. Details of disposals there are contained in the Ministry of Defence report placed in the House of Commons Library on 15 November.

  There have also been commercial explosives disposals to the east of Arran at Birch point. The report of a marine laboratory survey of that area was placed in the House of Commons Library on 25 July 1990.

  Beaufort's Dyke
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the report of the survey by the marine laboratory of the north channel around Beaufort's dyke; what arrangements he proposes to make for the publication of the report; and if he will make a statement. [5460]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 12 December 19951: The initial results of the survey will be in the new year. The report setting out the results will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many political advisers worked for the Secretary of State for Scotland in(a) 1978, (b) 1987, (c) 1992 and (d) 1995; and what was the annual cost of these posts in each year. [6082]
  816
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of special advisers employed by my Department in each of the years referred to is as follows:

  1978: None

  1987: 1

  1992: 2

  1995: 2

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to previous earnings, and arc confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers salary spine of 34 points ranging from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary spine reflects this.

  Gourock Ropeworks
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Inverclyde district council, Historic Scotland. Renfrewshire Enterprise and other interested parties about the proposed demolition of Gourock Ropeworks in Port Glasgow; and if he will make a statement. [5494]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has had no recent discussions on the matter of demolition. 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.

  Letter to Dr. Norman Godman from Graeme N. Munro, dated 14 December 1995:
  You tabled a Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland for written question on 12 December asking what recent discussions he has had about the demolition of the Gourock Ropeworks 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.
  I would refer you to the letter I wrote to you dated 5 April of this year which was published in the Official Report of the House (Vol.257, 86 part 2 Cols 1167–68) of the same date. In the letter I explained the position on demolition. In order to demolish a listed building such as the Gourock Ropeworks building, listed building consent is required. In relation to a demolition the Secretary of State has to be consulted on any application for consent. To date no application for listed building consent has been received by Historic Scotland for the Secretary of State's consideration.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of bills to his Department were paid in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice in the last year for which figures are available. [5698]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Details of the Scottish Office payment performance are as follows:

  Year

  Percentage of Payments Paid early or on time

  1991–92

  82

  1992–93

  85

  817

  Year

  Percentage of Payments Paid early or on time

  1993–94

  89

  1994–95

  96

  DNA Technology
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what discussions his Department has had with the chief constables of Scottish police forces concerning the provision of a database allowing for the collation and use of DNA samples taken under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995; [5782]

  (2) if he will make available funding for a pilot project to provide a DNA database in Scotland on a comparable basis with the Forensic Science Service study commissioned by the Home Office; [5783]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the need for a database in Scotland for the collation and use of DNA samples taken in accordance with the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995. [5784]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his statement on 11 December, we have made funds available for the Scottish police to make full use of the new DNA technology. We have just received a report from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland; and the Scottish Office Home Department is having detailed discussions as to the best way of using the powers under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995, after they come into effect on 1 April.

  We do not see any need for a pilot project: we expect that the Scottish police will be able to proceed as soon as possible to make full use of DNA technology.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schools covered by the assisted places scheme received(a) more than £1 million,
  (b) over £750,00, (c) over £500,000 and (d) over £ 250,000

  School

  Total school roll

  Number of assisted Places

  Percentage of assisted places

  Assisted place Fees charged£

  Total grant paid £

  Kilquhanity1

  27

  11

  41

  2,430

  34,082

  Keil

  207

  69

  33

  4,479

  239,782

  Morrisins1

  584

  140

  24

  3,351

  417,900

  Park1

  284

  68

  24

  3,708

  247,987

  Rudolf Steiner

  266

  62

  23

  3,594

  191,526

  Kilgraston

  267

  54

  20

  4,161

  184,177

  St. Denis and Cranley

  165

  31

  19

  4,203

  128,276

  Laurel Bank1

  354

  63

  18

  4,014

  232,914

  Merchiston Castle1

  393

  69

  18

  6,480

  333,381

  H.S. of Dundee1

  1,143

  194

  17

  3,608

  591,142

  Glenalmond

  245

  41

  17

  7,575

  257,408

  George Heriot's1

  1,512

  250

  17

  3,624

  699,790

  Kelvinside

  546

  87

  16

  4,135

  318,494

  St. Aloysius1

  1,082

  168

  16

  2,978

  472,009

  Rannoch

  250

  38

  15

  5,490

  175,887

  Wellington1

  354

  53

  15

  4,290

  202,604

  818
  under the assisted places scheme for each academic year since 1981. [5818]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Under the assisted places scheme, grant is paid to parents of assisted pupils. Schools administer the allocation of grant to parents. The amounts distributed to schools for this purpose are set out in the table.

  Academic Year

  Over £1 million

  £750.001 to £1,000,000

  £500.001 ti £750.000

  £250,001 to £500.000

  1981–82

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1983–84

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1984–85

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1985–86

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1986–87

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1987–88

  1

  —

  —

  3

  1988–89

  1

  —

  —

  4

  1989–90

  —

  —

  2

  5

  1990–91

  —

  —

  3

  4

  1991–92

  —

  1

  2

  6

  1992–93

  —

  1

  3

  7

  1993–941

  —

  1

  3

  8

  1994–951

  —

  2

  2

  9

  1 Provisional.

  Until school session 1988–89, Edinburgh Merchant schools—EMC— administered Stewart's Melville college, Mary Erskine school for girls and George Watson's college and one grant total was allocated to EMC to fund assisted places in each of these schools. From session 1989–90, grant was paid separately to George Watson's college.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for the academic year 1994–95 in descending order the independent schools by the proportion of their school rolls made up of pupils covered by the assisted places scheme and the total number of pupils on the school roll; what proportion of the school roll at each school was covered by the scheme; how many pupils were covered by the scheme at each school; how many pupils were on the roll of each school; what level of fees was charged for pupils under the scheme at each school; and what sums were received by each school under the scheme. [5870]

  Mr. Robertson
  The information requested for the 1994–95 school session is set out in the table:
  819

  School

  Total school roll

  Number of assisted places

  Percentage of assisted places

  Assisted place fees charged £

  Total grant paid £

  Crawfordton

  45

  6

  13

  4,542

  22,853

  George Watson's1

  2,033

  248

  12

  3,876

  751,969

  St. Margaret's [Edinburgh]1

  664

  74

  11

  3,895

  271,812

  Stewart's Melvill and Mary Erskine School1

  2,556

  282

  11

  3,912

  900,020

  St. Leondard's

  329

  36

  11

  5,682

  164,382

  Lomond

  504

  54

  11

  4,119

  183,741

  Sthrathallan1

  495

  46

  9

  7,485

  299,342

  Fernhill1

  326

  30

  9

  2,850

  78,155

  Craigholme1

  493

  45

  9

  3,330

  134,235

  Hutcheson's1

  1,813

  163

  9

  3,389

  478,942

  Glasgow Academy

  1,010

  90

  9

  4,014

  329,362

  Loretto

  378

  33

  9

  7,235

  198,443

  Butterstone1

  58

  5

  9

  4,930

  23,817

  Aberlour1

  112

  9

  8

  4,875

  33,255

  Fettes1

  475

  35

  7

  7,305

  204,576

  Gordonstoun1

  456

  31

  7

  6,690

  182,064

  Belmont1

  382

  25

  7

  3,570

  78,623

  Dollar

  1,111

  69

  6

  3,719

  209,028

  Edinburgh Academy

  902

  53

  6

  4,935

  229,807

  Albyn1

  415

  24

  6

  3,536

  69,591

  St. Columba's1

  571

  33

  6

  3,690

  117,233

  Robert Gordon's1

  1,353

  70

  5

  3,548

  204,100

  Clifton hall

  120

  6

  5

  4,827

  28,452

  HS of Glasgow

  989

  49

  5

  3,987

  143,797

  Croftinloan

  81

  4

  5

  5,475

  20,768

  St. Margaret's [Aberdeen]

  415

  20

  5

  3,353

  53,433

  St. George's

  877

  42

  5

  4,097

  122,151

  St. Mary's

  93

  4

  4

  4,536

  15,992

  Craigclowan

  240

  10

  4

  3,495

  23,450

  Lathallan

  145

  6

  4

  4,622

  28,244

  Ardvreck

  147

  6

  4

  4,588

  22,589

  Beaconhurst

  249

  10

  4

  4,095

  31,815

  New Park

  128

  4

  3

  3,951

  15,839

  Belhaven

  74

  2

  3

  5,039

  9,789

  Cargilfield

  192

  4

  2

  5,695

  12,897

  Hamilton College

  757

  14

  2

  2,273

  27,095

  Drumley House

  115

  2

  2

  4,415

  7,069

  Park Lodge

  0

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  Nil

  1 Provisional figures. Final audited claims for 1994–95 schools session yet to be submitted.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many independent sector schools have had(a) more than 25 per cent., (b) more than 50 per cent. and (c) less than 5 per cent. of their school rolls made up of pupils covered by the assisted places scheme for each academic year since 1981. [5794]

  Mr. Robertson
  The information requested was not collected centrally for school sessions 1981–82 to 1992–93. Information for school sessions 1993–94 and 1994– 95 is set out in the table.

  School session

  Assisted pupils over 25 per cent. but not more than 50 Per cent. Of school roll

  Assisted pupils more than 50 per cent. of school roll

  Assisted Pupils less than 5 per. of school roll

  1993–94

  2

  Nil

  11

  1994–95

  2

  Nil

  14

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made by his Department in taking forward proposals for the expansion of the assisted places scheme; and how much his Department estimates this will cost in the future
  820
  financial years for which figures are available when this has been achieved. [5820]

  Mr. Robertson
  Consultation on ways of expanding the assisted places scheme are currently underway with the Scottish Council of Independent Schools and a statement will be made in due course. The estimated cost of the scheme in the current financial year will be around £11 million. An additional £9 million in total is being made available for expansion of the scheme over the next three years.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which independent sector schools charged(a) and highest and (b) the lowest level of fees to pupils covered by the assisted places scheme in the academic year 1994–95; and what charges were levied.[5828]

  Mr. Robertson
  The highest tuition fee charged to pupils covered by the assisted places scheme in academic year 1994–95 was at Glenalmond college at £7,575 per annum. The lowest fees were charged at Hamilton college—£2,273 per annum for pupils aged 12 to 18 years.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department has spent on the operation of the assisted places scheme in each year since
  821
  1981; how many (a) pupils and (b) institutions were covered by the scheme; and what was the overspend on the budget allocated to the scheme. [5789]

  Mr. Robertson
  The information requested is set out in the table. Expenditure on the assisted places scheme is cash limited each year and there have been no overspends on the budget allocated in any year since the scheme commenced.

  School session

  Total expenditure £

  Pupils covered

  Schools covered

  1981–82

  799,203

  790

  39

  1982–83

  1,718,485

  1,450

  41

  1983–84

  2,454,386

  1,900

  42

  1984–85

  3,298,461

  2,265

  42

  1985–86

  4,217,234

  2,620

  42

  1986–87

  4,861,150

  2,626

  41

  1987–88

  5,310,061

  2,680

  41

  1988–89

  5,758.542

  2,695

  41

  1989–90

  6,681,213

  2,841

  59

  1990–91

  7,641,895

  2,861

  59

  1991–92

  8,706,443

  2,911

  58

  1992–93

  9,755,844

  3,038

  58

  1993–941

  10,127,276

  3,058

  55

  1994–951

  10,456,738

  3,042

  55

  1 Provisional.

  Conductive Education
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many institutions provide conductive education for children with special educational needs; and how many children are currently receiving conductive therapy in each institution. [5812]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Various institutions in Scotland, including a number of local authority and grant-aided special schools, provide education that is inspired by the principles of conductive education. However, detailed information on precise numbers is not held centrally.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment has been made of the value and achievements of conductive education. [5815]

  Mr. Robertson
  The Scottish Office has not made an assessment of the value and achievements of conductive education specifically.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans there are to make conductive education available for children whose parents choose it. [5833]

  Mr. Robertson
  Educational provision using the principles of conductive education is already available in Scotland.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many independent schools are operating in the current academic year. [5823]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  There are currently 117 independent schools in Scotland registered with the Registrar of Independent Schools.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines currently apply for the 822
  protection of public access to woodlands being sold by the Forestry Commission; when those guidelines were circulated to Forestry Commission staff; when they became operational; and if he will publish them. [6090]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The current access guidelines for continued public access to Forestry Commission woodlands after sale were introduced in October 1991, after being circulated to Forestry Commission staff. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what criteria have been adopted in assessing whether a woodland is important for public access when it is being considered for disposal by the Forestry Commission; and how the decision on whether it is important is made; [6089]

  (2) what is the minimum number of walkers in a woodland identified for disposal by the Forestry Commission required for that woodland to be classified as important for public access; [6091]

  (3) how many Forestry Commission woods have been classified as (a) important for public access and (b) unimportant for public access; arid if he will list all such woods classified as either, indicating the location of each and the reasons they were deemed to be (a) or (b) [6094]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 28 November 1995,Official Report, column 590.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number and total area of Forestry Commission woods sold in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales since access agreements were introduced in 1991 to protect public access, indicating for each country the number and area with and without access agreements. [6093]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information is as follows:

  Forestry Commission Woods sold between 1 October 1991 and 30 September 1995

  With access agreement Number

  Area1

  Without access agreement Number

  Area1

  Total Number

  Area1

  England

  6

  136

  189

  5,006

  195

  5,142

  Scotland

  4

  325

  216

  24,110

  220

  24,435

  Wales

  18

  382

  211

  4,146

  229

  4,528

  1 Areas are given in hectares.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average amount of money spent by his Department on a pupil in a public sector school at(a) primary and (b) secondary level for each academic year since 1981. [5797]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Direct expenditure by the Scottish Office on the education of school pupils in public sector schools is limited to grants made available to Jordanhill school, a grant-aided school; and Dornoch academy and St. Mary's Episcopal primary school, which are both self-governing schools. Comprehensive information on the division of resources between the primary and secondary departments at Jordanhill school is not available. The annual recurrent grant to Dornoch
  823
  academy in the financial year 1994–95, following the school's incorporation as a self-governing school in April 1994, was £387,000. On the basis of the school roll at September 1994, expenditure per pupil was therefore £6,672. St. Mary's Episcopal primary school was incorporated in October 1995.

  Expenditure per pupil in education authority schools is the responsibility of each education authority. Local authority expenditure is supported by central Government, for example, through the annual local government financial settlement. Such financial support is not specific to particular local authority services an it is for each authority to determine the allocation of all the resources at its disposal.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what approaches Irvine Housing Association Ltd. has made to Scottish Homes seeking additional funding for its activities since the association's establishment; how much Irvine housing association has received in support from Scottish Homes up until this point; what form this support has taken; and what outstanding requests for support are being considered by Scottish Homes. [5801]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is a matter for Scottish Homes. I have asked its chairman, Sir James Mellon, to write to the hon. Member.

  New Towns
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what adjustment will be made in the Scottish Office's budget to reflect the revenue raised by his Department through the disposal of the housing and industrial assets of Scotland's new towns. [5803]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Income from the disposal of Scottish new town housing and industrial assets was fully reflected in my right hon. Friends's statement of 11 December on public expenditure.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the average number of pupils in classes in(a) secondary and (b) primary schools adjusted for the time during which teachers are non-class-committed under existing staffing agreements for each education authority in Scotland and for each education division within Strathclyde for each academic year since 1979. [5805]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 27 March 1995,Official Report, column 586-87. The information provided took into account teacher time on non-class-committed duties.

  Inward Investment
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown, by source,824
  of the inward investment attracted to Scotland in each of the last five years, and if he will provide details of each inward investment project attracted to Scotland since April 1994.[6462]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Planned inward investment by source

  North America

  Asia Pacific

  United Kingdom

  Europe

  Total

  1994–95

  Number of projects

  41

  9

  32

  15

  97

  Planned investment (£ million)

  358.5

  613.1

  77.9

  77.2

  1,126.7

  Planned jobs (new and safeguarded)

  5,738

  2,259

  3,099

  1,233

  12,329

  1993–94

  Number of projects

  36

  8

  34

  17

  95

  Planned investment (£ million)

  366.2

  23.7

  66.4

  131.3

  587.6

  Planned jobs (new and safeguarded)

  5,464

  1,074

  3,135

  1,399

  11,072

  1992–93

  Number of projects

  25

  9

  22

  9

  65

  Planned investment (£ million)

  186.1

  70.2

  66.4

  29.3

  352.0

  Planned jobs (new and safeguarded)

  3,919

  668

  2,085

  1,387

  8,059

  1991–92

  Number of projects

  13

  5

  23

  18

  59

  Planned investment (£ million)

  248.9

  17.0

  48.5

  66.6

  381.0

  Planned jobs (new and safeguarded)

  3,026

  431

  1,407

  1,138

  6,002

  1990–91

  Number of projects

  15

  9

  25

  14

  63

  Planned investment (£ million)

  58.8

  92.7

  182.5

  60.2

  394.2

  Planned jobs (new and safeguarded)

  1,760

  2,154

  5,195

  1,135

  10,244

  The figures relate only to projects handled by Locate in Scotland or the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department. They are based on information provided by the companies themselves at the time of the investment decision and take no account of subsequent developments. A few projects may not have proceeded and others may have been reduced in scale as a result

  825
  of changes in the commercial environment. Equally, however, some projects may have led to more investment and more jobs than originally anticipated; and the figures take no account of the substantial number of new jobs created indirectly in supplier companies. Experience over a number of years indicates that, on average, around two-thirds of planned direct jobs are created.

  Date of announcement

  Company

  Location

  Type of project

  Planed investment (£ million)

  Planned jobs

  New

  Safeguarded

  April 1994

  NEC Semiconductors (UK) Ltd.

  Livingston

  Expansion

  28.0

  1—

  1—

  April 1994

  International Components Corporation

  East Kilbride

  New Project

  6.0

  400

  —

  May 1994

  Teledyne Controls

  Cumbernauld

  New Project

  0.5

  15

  —

  May 1994

  Compaq Computer Manufacturing

  Erskine

  Expansion

  10.0

  300

  —

  May 1994

  Safetynet plc

  Dunfermline

  New Project

  1—

  12

  —

  May 1994

  Solway Seafoods Ltd.

  Bladnoch

  New Project

  1—

  30

  —

  June 1994

  Cerprobe Corporation

  East Kilbride

  New Project

  1—

  11

  —

  June 1994

  Scotia Pharmaceuticals

  Stirling

  New Project

  1—

  60

  —

  August 1994

  BioMar Ltd.

  Grangemouth

  New Project

  1—

  20

  —

  August 1994

  Iceland Software Inc.

  Glasgow

  New Project

  1—

  25

  —

  August 1994

  PCL Group

  Glasgow

  New Project

  1—

  250

  —

  September 1994

  Motorola

  East Kilbride

  Expansion

  250.0

  250

  —

  September 1994

  NEC Semiconductors (UK) Ltd.

  Livingston

  Expansion

  530.0

  430

  —

  September 1994

  Digital Equipment Corporation

  Irvine

  New Project

  1—

  1—

  —

  September 1994

  Solectron Corporation

  Dunfermline

  Expansion

  10.0

  200

  —

  October 1994

  British Sky Broadcasting

  Dunfermline

  New Project

  10.0

  1000

  —

  October 1994

  OKI (UK) Ltd.

  Cumbernauld

  Expansion

  1—

  58

  114

  October 1994

  Madison Cable Corporation

  Dundee

  New Project

  12.0

  200

  —

  October 1994

  Micronas Oy

  Fife

  New Project

  2.0

  24

  —

  October 1994

  Probe Technology

  East Kilbride

  New Project

  1—

  11

  —

  October 1994

  Shin-Etsu Handotai Co Ltd.

  Livingston

  Expansion

  23.0

  100

  —

  November 1994

  Pine Plastics Ltd.

  East Kilbride

  Expansion

  1—

  60

  —

  November 1994

  JVC

  East Kilbride

  Expansion

  9.2

  155

  —

  December 1994

  Schlumberger Technologies Ltd.

  Dundee

  Expansion

  1—

  90

  85

  December 1994

  Zepf Technologies Inc.

  Cumbernauld

  New Project

  1—

  28

  —

  December 1994

  British Gas

  Uddingston

  Expansion

  1—

  100

  —

  January 1995

  Jabra Corporation

  Livingston

  New project

  1—

  1—

  —

  February 1995

  Meric International Corporation

  Irvine

  New Project

  8.0

  450

  —

  February 1995

  GE Capital Motor Finance

  Edinburgh

  Expansion

  —

  55

  —

  March 1995

  Naco Materials Handling Group Europe Ltd.

  Irvine

  New project

  1—

  15

  —

  March 1995

  EWOS Ltd.

  Livingston

  New project

  1—

  40

  —

  March 1995

  EWOS Ltd.

  Bathgate

  Expansion

  1—

  1—

  —

  March 1995

  Ciba Classical Pigments

  Paisley

  Expansion

  40.0

  80

  —

  April 1995

  Birkbys Plastics Ltd.

  Glenrothes

  New project

  1—

  100

  —

  April 1995

  Patrol Manufacturing

  Glasgow

  New project

  0.5

  40

  —

  June 1995

  Selfcare Inc.

  Inverness

  New Project

  9.6

  375

  —

  June 1995

  Konrad Keller GmbH

  Alness

  New Project

  1—

  16

  —

  June 1995

  Burr Brown Corporation

  Livingston

  Expansion

  1—

  32

  79

  July 1995

  MAN Truck and Bus UK Ltd.

  Bellshill

  New Project

  2.0

  45

  —

  July 1995

  PET Processors LLC

  Dumfries

  New Project

  1—

  15

  —

  July 1995

  Cannon (UK) Ltd.

  Glenrothes

  New Project

  10.0

  220

  —

  July 1995

  Exabyte Corporation

  Larbert

  Expansion

  1—

  100

  —

  August 1995

  British Gas

  Edinburgh

  New Project

  1—

  500

  —

  August 1995

  National Australian Group

  Clydebank

  New Project

  1—

  250

  —

  August 1995

  BT

  Motherwell

  New Project

  2.7

  170

  —

  August 1995

  Motorola

  Bathgate

  Expansion

  1—

  400

  —

  August 1995

  Forbo Nairn

  Kirkcaldy

  Expansion

  15.0

  14

  —

  September 1995

  TSB

  Glasgow

  New project

  15.0

  900

  —

  September 1995

  Precision Tube Technology

  Peterhead

  New Project

  4.5

  40

  —

  September 1995

  IBM

  Greenock

  Expansion

  1—

  200

  —

  826
  All our dealings with inward investors are undertaken on a commercially confidential basis and it would not therefore be appropriate to publish details of individual projects except in cases where details of the project have been announced by the company itself. The following table contains details of the inward investment projects attracted to Scotland which have been the subject of public announcements since April 1994.
  827

  Date of announcement

  Company

  Location

  Type of project

  Planned investment (£ million)

  Planed jobs

  New

  Safeguarded

  September 1995

  Bi-Link Metal Specialities

  Cumbernauld

  New Project

  6.0

  100

  —

  October 1995

  Lexmark International

  Rosyth

  New Project

  26.0

  500

  —

  November 1995

  Chunghwa Picture

  Mossend

  New Project Tubes Ltd.

  260.0

  3,300

  —

  November 1995

  Motorola

  East Kilbride

  New Project

  1—

  10

  —

  November 1995

  Shin-Etsu Handotai

  Livingston

  Expansion

  160.0

  235

  —

  November 1995

  Foxconn UK Ltd.

  Erskine

  New Project

  1—

  15

  —

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Milk
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money the United Kingdom will receive from the EU to help pay for milk in secondary schools and milk in school catering in 1995–96. [4128]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We estimate that EU expenditure on the discretionary elements of the school milk scheme will amount to approximately £6.1 million in the United Kingdom in 1995£96. Doing away with the discretionary element will result in public expenditure savings of about £4 million.

  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the cost to the EU of the common agricultural policy milk and milk products regime in 1995. [4145]

  Mr. Baldry
  The provisional outturn for the cost of the EU diary regime in the 1995 FEOGA year is 4 billion ecu.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make publicly available the submission by the United Kingdom to the European Commission requesting a derogation allowing the United Kingdom to continue to use EU aid for milk used in the preparation of school meals; and if he will place a copy of the submission in the Library.[3382]

  Mr. Hogg
  [holding answer 30 November 1995]: I am arranging for a copy of the document to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the dairy industry to discuss BSE. [4143]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Minister last met representatives of the dairy industry to discuss BSE-related issues on 6 December.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the number of cases of BSE in the United Kingdom.[4141]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) this afternoon.
  828
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ban from human food all specified offals from calves under the age of six months.[4849]

  Mrs. Browning
  The controls on the specified bovine offals are designed to ensure that all tissues that potentially harbour BSE infectivity are removed from cattle at slaughter and are destroyed. These tissues should not, therefore, enter the human or animal food chain. The current controls are based on scientific evidence and are endorsed by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. The six-month cut-off was originally based on the distribution of scrapie agent in infected sheep. Experimental studies show that BSE infectivity cannot be detected in either the brain or spinal cord up to and including 18 months after cattle were fed a large dose of infected brain. Indeed, infectivity has been found in no tissue other than the small intestine in these experiments so far. The small intestine from cattle of any age is banned from entering the food chain. The six-month cut-off for brain and spinal cord therefore represents a very wide margin of safety in relation to the experimental results and there is no reason to revise them.

  Hill Farming
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy for encouraging the younger generation to enter hill farming. [4144]

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the reply given earlier by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).

  In addition, farmers in the less-favoured areas benefit from the substantial public funding in the form of livestock subsidies. These are expected to amount to £610 million in 1995, rising to £655 million in 1996.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what amount the planned expenditure of the EU on the CAP in 1996 differs from actual expenditure last year. [4146]

  Mr. Baldry
  The 1996 draft budget for the CAP exceeds expenditure in 1994 by about 7.9 billion ecu, or £6.7 billion at current rates of exchange.

  Fruit and Vegetables
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his plans to reduce the trade deficit in fruit and vegetables. [4147]
  829
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom trade balances in fruit and vegetables; and what action the Government are taking to improve it. [4152]

  Mr. Boswell
  The trade deficit in horticultural products, currently standing at some £3 billion, reflects a range of factors, including imports of non-indigenous and out-of-season produce. Our strategy—which includes the appointment of a horticultural export promoter to the Department's market task force—is to encourage the industry to play to its strengths and match the excellence of its product with high-class marketing.

  Farm Animals (Slaughter)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken to promote the slaughter of farm animals before transport. [4148]

  Mrs. Browning
  We have an excellent record on meat products, which are well up on last year, when they exceeded live exports in value terms by a factor of nearly 7:1. We are working with the industry and the Meat and Livestock Commission to convert even more of the trade in live animals to a trade in meat.

  Fish Diseases Laboratories
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people are employed in(a) his Department and (b) the new fish diseases laboratories in Weymouth; and what was the investment in the laboratories. [4149]

  Mr. Boswell
  At 1 October, the total number of staff employed in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, inclusive of the agencies, was 11,195. Of this number, 54 were employed at the fish diseases laboratories at Weymouth. The anticipated outturn cost for the provision of the laboratories at Weymouth is approximately £13 million.

  Farmers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a scheme of voluntary early retirement for farmers. [4150]

  Mr. Boswell
  No. Council regulation 2079/92 permits member states to provide early retirement pensions to farmers aged between 55 and normal retirement age who release their land for amalgamation with other holdings or for non-agricultural use. This option has not been taken up in the UK because we take the view that its terms are not appropriate to the conditions of agriculture here.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the rural policy White Paper. [4151]
  830
  Mr. Boswell
  During the preparation of the White Paper "Rural England—A Nation Committed to a Living Countryside" about 380 organisations and individuals responded to the invitation to give their views. Regional seminars involving key representatives from various interest groups in all regions were also held. Since the White Paper was published there have been a number of occasions attended by Ministers which have provided the opportunity for further representations to be made. In that period we have also received five letters to Ministers on the White Paper.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to monitor the use of pesticides. [4154]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government undertake a comprehensive monitoring programme which covers pesticide usage, residue levels and wildlife incidents. This information is reported to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and is used by the regulatory Departments to inform their policies relating to approval and control of pesticides. All monitoring results are made publicly available.

  Dairy Crest
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the sell-off of Dairy Crest. [4155]

  Mr. Baldry
  It is the responsibility of the Residuary Milk Marketing Board to decide, in the light of commercial and market conditions, when and how the disposal of Diary Crest is to be effected.

  Farmers (Lichfield)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet farmers from the Lichfield area to discuss EU documentation; and if he will make a statement.[4156]

  Mr. Boswell
  I have no plans to meet farmers from the Lichfield area at the moment. However, as I announced on 9 November, we have set up an efficiency scrutiny which aims to reduce the burden of paperwork, including EU documentation, on farmers in England and Wales.

  Organic Turkeys
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage the production and consumption of turkeys reared to organic standards and by welfare-friendly methods. [4142]

  Mrs. Browning
  The welfare of all livestock on agricultural land is protected by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, which makes it an offence to cause unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress to livestock, and subordinate legislation. The welfare of turkeys is further protected by a welfare code which sets out more detailed requirements.

  We are encouraging the production of all types of organic food. We support the work of the independent UK

  831
  register of organic food standards which control production standards for all sectors, including poultry.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been spent on furnishing and decorating ministerial offices in his Department in each of the last three years. [5567]

  Mr. Boswell
  Expenditure on furnishings and decorating ministerial offices in each of the last three years is included in the running cost expenditure of the Department, which is published in the annual report.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide revenue forecasts for the current year and the next five years of expenditure on schemes provided under the PFI. [5722]

  Mr. Boswell
  While several projects are currently being assessed for their potential, no schemes have so far been agreed under the private finance initiative, and no revenue forecasts have been made.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of bills to his Department were paid in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice in the last year for which figures are available. [5710]

  Subject

  Date

  Organisation

  Numbers taking part

  Location

  Timescale of fieldwork

  (i)

  (iii)

  (iv)

  (v)

  (v)

  1. Fridge use and maintenance leaflet-communication research

  July 1993

  Reflexions

  96

  Great Britain

  1 month

  2. Foodsense awareness

  July 1993

  RSGB

  2,000

  Great Britain

  1 month

  3. Foodsense strategy research

  September 1993

  Andrew Irving and Associates

  96

  England (North, South Midlands)

  2 months

  4. Improved methods of food preference mapping

  October 1993

  Mobile Sensory Testing Services Ltd.

  864

  United Kingdom

  3 years

  5. MAFF exhibition research

  June 1994

  Martin Hamblin

  1,101

  Bath, Northampton and Newcastle

  8 months

  6. Exhibition research

  August 1994

  Diagnostics

  434

  London

  1 month

  7. Valuation of non-use environmental benefits. The value of natural areas.

  October 1995

  University of Portsmouth

  2,000

  England

  1 year

  8. Customer satisfaction survey of regional service centres

  February 1995

  BJM Research and Consultancy Ltd.

  1,800

  England

  6 weeks

  9. Balance in the countryside-evaluation of brochure and information pack.

  November 1994

  Reflexions

  30

  Great Britain

  6 weeks

  10. Environmentally sensitive areas research

  February 1995

  RSGB

  1,500

  England

  1 month

  11. Survey on the consumer understanding of numerical nutrition labelling

  January 1995

  Research Services Ltd.

  1,000

  United Kingdom

  4 months

  12. Foodsense advert awareness

  August 1995

  RSGB

  4,000

  Great Britain

  4 months

  13. Foodsense booklet review

  August 1995

  Benson, Slesenger Research

  48

  England

  6 weeks

  14. Socio-economic and environmental evaluation of the farm woodland premium scheme

  June 1995

  Entec UK Ltd.

  542

  England and Wales

  2 months

  15. Evaluation of ESA landscapes—research in the south downs and Somerset levels and moors

  September 1992

  University of Newcastle

  3.077

  England

  2 months

  832
  Mr. Boswell
  From 1991 to 1994, prompt payment performance was measured by a manual sampling process. For 1993–94, this sampling established MAFF's overall payment performance including payments to farm businesses as 85 per cent.

  During 1994, MAFF was in the process of installing a computerised payments system and, as a result, consistent, statistically valid data on prompt payment performance could not be collected. Data emerging from the new system indicate 85.41 per cent. of all payments made by MAFF in the first quarter of 1995–96 were made by the due date.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food if he will list all qualitative and quantitative research projects and surveys carried out for his Department into aspects of public attitudes and opinions(a) in general and (b) in relation to specific policy proposals in each of the past three years to December 1995, indicating for each project or survey (i) the date on which the research was commissioned, (ii) the amount which his Department spent, (iii) who carried out the research, (iv) the number of people surveyed or taking part, (v) the location and time scale and (vi) which individuals and organisations have been given access to the findings. [5988]

  Mr. Boswell
  A total of 15 projects and surveys, looking into aspects of public attitudes and opinions, have been commissioned by MAFF in the past three years to December 1995. Details of these surveys are shown. It is not possible for commercial reasons to give the cost of each survey individually; however, in total these surveys cost £359,000.
  833
  Of the 15 projects and surveys commissioned, four were in relation to specific policy proposals and 11 of a general nature. For completed projects and surveys, the findings are available on request, subject to any commercial constraints.

  Drift Net Fishing
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 7 December,Official Report, column 372, if he will list the individuals and organisations to whom he has circulated the interim report on drift net fishing from the sea mammals research unit; and when he will place a copy in the Library. [5869]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Ministry has not yet circulated the interim report to other individuals or organisations and will not do so until after it has been placed in the Library. This will be done before the recess once the Ministry has prepared its analysis of the report.

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (1) if he will make it his policy to oppose any further regulations from the European Union which would restrict United Kingdom consumers' access to vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements; and if he will make a statement; [6205]

  (2) what is his policy in respect of ensuring the availability of vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements; and if he will make a statement. [6122]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government's policy is to ensure that consumers have as much choice as possible in their access to vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements, provided that the public health is not compromised. There are no formal proposals from the European Union at present to change the rules on the sale of dietary supplements. If any such proposals were made, the United Kingdom position would reflect this policy. We would be opposed to any unnecessary regulation.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by The Lord Bishop of Birmingham.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Sempill—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his mother.

European Commission: Discipline
Lord Buxton of Alsa Lord Buxton of Alsa asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they would respond to any action by the European Commission to dismiss or diminish the career prospects of any senior official within the Commission who had expressed disagreement with European Commission policies; and what they consider to be the legal position of an official in such circumstances.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the Commission should ensure that its disciplinary procedures are followed fairly. The legal position of an official who breached staff regulations would depend on the terms of his or her contract and the alleged breach.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply, which, of course, would apply in almost any circumstance in any organisation. I should be very grateful to my noble friend and to your Lordships if I were allowed to frame my further question very carefully because it is complicated. I want to cite four cases—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I should like to ask a question covering four cases. Two distinguished employees have been sacked or are about to be sacked. There is the case of a Danish Commissioner, Mrs. Bjerregaard, who published a book which has been pulped, and there is the case of the former Leader of the Opposition, Neil Kinnock, a notable Commissioner who has apparently been silenced. Will my noble friend confirm that the President of the European Commission has the power to sack employees such as Mr. Connolly and Mr. Wilmott but does not have the power to sack commissioners, although I understand that he can take away their portfolio which is the same? Will she kindly tell us the Government's position and say whether she agrees that these manifestations add up to the emergence of a very ugly authoritarian regime?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, under Articles 11, 12 and 17 of Title 2 of staff regulations, the rights and obligations of officials are clearly set out. That covers the case of Mr. Connolly, which is sub judice, to which my noble friend referred. He is right that it is not possible for the President of the Commission to sack commissioners. Only the European
1368
Parliament can do that and the Commission has to be sacked as a whole. So he would be sacking himself plus all the others should he do it. The whole question of staff is a very sensitive one. I would not want to comment either on the case which is sub judice or on the other case at this time. The best thing to do is for me to write to my noble friend; otherwise the House will be delayed in a way which I think is unacceptable at Question Time.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, in relation to the case of Mr. Connolly, on which the Question appears to be primarily pegged, will the noble Baroness be a little sceptical of the phrase "senior official" which was bandied about by The Times in particular as though Mr. Connolly were a permanent secretary? He is in fact an A4, which means he is somewhere between a principal and an assistant secretary in old Whitehall parlance. Secondly, can the noble Baroness tell us what she thinks would have been the promotion prospects of a middle grade Treasury or Foreign Office official in, shall we say, the heyday of Lady Thatcher's power, who had taken time off without permission to write a book totally opposed to the policies of the then government? Having said that, perhaps I may finally add that I would urge my successors in the Commission to appreciate the virtue of tolerance. Martyrs, even if not very saintly ones, are rarely worth making.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that Mr. Connolly, who worked for the European Commission, was a medium ranking official. But please let us not start throwing aspersions on people of principal and assistant secretary level. They are of excellent value in briefing Ministers so I shall not go along with the noble Lord's slightly negative views. As to what he said about people working for governments, of any hue, under any leader, they are, just as officials of the European Commission are, bound by the staff regulations. I shall refrain from reading out Articles 11, 12 and 17, but it is all down there!
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Mr. Bernard Connolly, who is the author of the book The Rotten Heart of Europe, which I commend to your Lordships, yesterday obtained an injunction against the Commission and is quite capable of looking after himself? The court instructed the Commission to take all necessary measures to ensure that no further information on Mr. Connolly's career, personality, opinions, health or reputation reaches the media. Is the Minister aware that people who differ from Mr. Connolly, who is a quite high ranking official, would do far better to reply to his arguments? Is she further aware that so far no refutation has been put forward to any of the contentions he made?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it would be easy in a debate, but not at Question Time, to put forward such a refutation. I have been extremely careful, in view of the injunction issued by the European Court yesterday, not to go into the detail. I have no doubt, having read parts of the book, that Mr. Connolly is perfectly able to look after himself. But I say to the noble Lord that it is important that staff regulations, whether applying to our own national Civil Service or

1369
in the Commission, should be regarded as the rule and those who breach those obligations must expect some retribution.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, although the Commission has the most unfortunate monopoly to propose legislation, can my noble friend tell the House when it was given the power to decide the interests of the Communities, to which I understand it pretends in the case of Mr. Connolly?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not believe that my noble friend is right about that. The Commission is going purely by the rules in Articles 11, 12 and 17.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I find the prospect of a silenced Mr. Kinnock somewhat bizarre? Does she agree that if anyone is capable of looking after himself it is the former leader of my party? Does the Minister also agree that a principal or anyone verging on being an under-secretary of the Treasury who wrote a book saying that its organisation was corrupt, that it was a fraud and that its policies were deeply damaging to the British people would find that his feet hardly touched the ground before he was out of Whitehall?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I should so agree.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of what Mr. Santer said? He said that there can be no room in the Commission for anyone who holds Mr. Connolly's views, and that included two commissioners?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that we are getting a long way from the Question. This is a matter of discipline. I stand by what I said in my earlier answer to my noble friend.

Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
3.11 p.m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the public sector borrowing requirement for 1996–97 and 1997–98.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Budget forecast of the PSBR for 1996–97 was£22.5 billion. That will represent a halving of the PSBR over the previous three years. In 1997–98 it is projected to fall even further, down to a level of£15 billion.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, the Minister overlooked telling the House that there was a £7 billion underestimate for both 1995–96 and 1996–97. I understand that because I am very much aware of what was said in Paragraph 3.58 in the Red Book—that errors and uncertainties and risks in making forecasts can apply. I am sure that the Minister will agree that, at the
1370
same time, these are fairly large errors, especially as the Chancellor has also forecast that by the end of the century he is hoping to have a zero PSBR.
A Noble Lord: Hear, hear!
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am glad to hear somebody opposite saying "Hear, hear!". Can we take what I have said to mean that that is a firm forecast or is it a firm but flexible forecast in order to allow for any other changes that the Chancellor has in mind for November next year?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I explained to the noble Lord the last time we had a Question similar to this one, we hope to move the PSBR towards balance towards the end of the decade. But as the noble Lord knows, the PSBR is actually the difference between two significantly large figures; namely, what the Government spend and what they take in. In fact, the errors as regards those two significantly large figures are not very great when one looks at the mathematics of error. Indeed, over a 10-year period the errors in the PSBR have run out at something like three-quarters of 1 per cent. of GDP, which comes to about£4.5 billion. That is large in comparison to the sort of figure of£22 billion which we are talking about, but it is not large when one considers the two very much larger figures which, when taken together, make up the PSBR.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the good economic figures that were announced yesterday—that is to say, the reduction in the basic rate and in unemployment—augur well for the future? Does he further agree that it augurs well for the future in that the PSBR will go down?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The PSBR is but one of a number of figures that measure the health of our economy. Other figures which do that are the inflation figures, which are showing a continuing downward trend, as my noble friend said, and the interest rate reduction announced yesterday. That will be warmly welcomed by business, commerce, housing and everyone else; except, perhaps, the party opposite.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I believe that we all know the elementary arithmetic. The error in the difference of two large figures is itself very large relative to the difference. That is the correct way of putting it! But the fact remains that the Government ask us to take these figures seriously. The difficulty, particularly having listened to the reply to my noble friend, is this: do the Government want us to take the figures seriously or not? They can either say that the difference is subject to enormous error, so forget about it, or they can say that the PSBR actually matters. I thought they took the view that it did. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that it then follows that if the PSBR turns out to be larger than projected, which it has, one cannot wriggle around and say that that is due to the errors? Does the Minister further agree that it is due either to a serious mis-forecast or a failure of policy?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for so eloquently putting what

1371
I was trying to say at the beginning of his question. He makes the point in answer to his own question, because the PSBR is important. But one can only judge it within the margins of error that operate for those figures. Perhaps I may just remind him of what his noble friend Lord Barnett said in his interesting book, Inside the Treasury. He began Chapter 12, headed "'Fiddling' the Figures", with these words:
"In retrospect it will surely be seen that what baffled and dominated the life of the 1974–79 Labour Government was what I called 'four damned letters'—the PSBR".
Lord Boardman: My Lords, as a major contributor to the PSBR and those two very large figures—public expenditure and gross domestic product; which are now at 42 per cent. this year and will be down to under 40 per cent. in two years time—is it not perhaps somewhat bizarre, if I may use that term, that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, raises this Question because when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury that figure was at an all-time record of 47.5 per cent.?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps that is why the noble Lord wrote the words in his book which I have just quoted. The serious point about the PSBR, which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, recognised as being of importance, is that it is one of the balancing figures between government spending and what they have to take in taxation. We are firmly of the view that we should get the PSBR down as low as possible and to do that one has to control government spending and yet at the same time ensure that the tax burden on people is not insufferable.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister has seen fit to read my book and, I hope, for the second or perhaps the third time. It may be that he will quote other parts of it later. Can he now answer the simple question that I posed as my first point? Is the Chancellor's forecast for the end of the century firm but flexible or firm?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Chancellor's forecast for the end of the century is obviously just that: it is a forecast. Given the margins of error that we have discussed and agreed, and which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has put more elegantly than I did, they have to be looked at within those margins of error. That is the forecast that my right honourable friend has put forward.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Lord indicate whether the PSBR estimate for next year is dependent on a growth in the economy of 3 per cent., as indicated by the Chancellor in his statement, which is generally regarded as being over-optimistic?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it remains to be seen whether or not it is over-optimistic. The forecast is dependent on a number of factors, including the rate of inflation, which, as I have already pointed out, is coming down, and on the level of growth. With the decline in interest rates yesterday—for which
1372
thanks are due to my right honourable friend for his sensible economic policies—we hope that growth will hit that 3 per cent.

British Rail: Privatisation
3.19 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the performance of Mr. Roger Salmon, the franchising director responsible for the privatisation of British Rail.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, yes.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the first contracts for the privatisation of British Rail's services, which the franchising director wants to issue shortly, allow the private companies to cut services? Is it not deplorable that even before the services have been privatised, further cuts in services are already being contemplated by the franchising director?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord should take on board the fact that the passenger service requirement means that for the first time there will be a guaranteed level of service. Of course, operators will be able to offer other services if they see commercial advantage in doing that, but for the very first time the guaranteed minima are laid down.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his so-called "guarantees" are almost certainly a prescription for cuts? How does the noble Viscount explain how the franchising director could have considered as preferred bidders a company called Resurgance Railways when its managing director had been a director of a double-glazing company which had gone into liquidation owing£60,000, and was someone who had no experience at all of railways? How could the Government have considered Stagecoach, one of the biggest bus operating companies in the country, when 24 inquiries had been made by into it by the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and when one of its subsidiaries was described in August as adopting predatory and deplorable actions against the public interest? What are the Secretary of State and the franchising director up to in allowing such companies to emerge as bidders?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am certainly not going to discuss the individual companies which may or may not be bidders for the individual franchises at this stage of a competitive bidding process. To do so would be irresponsible and I shall not follow the noble Lord down that route. The franchising director is following the role that was set out for him by Parliament. He is doing so and is making good progress in taking the franchising programme forward.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I recognise that it will probably be well beyond the ordinary bounds of optimism to expect the franchising director to take much notice of what is said in your Lordships' House, but

1373
could my noble friend arrange for the franchising director to receive a small nudge and to be told that hope springs eternal?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I was trying to work out a clever answer to that, but I am afraid that I fail to understand exactly what my noble friend wants me to do apart from bringing to the attention of the franchising director the proceedings in your Lordships' House, which I certainly undertake to do.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Minister dismissed the idea that people who really have no business entering the franchise stakes should even be considered in this House, but will he perhaps consider how the French state railway could begin to acquire a stake in British Rail's rail freight network when British Rail is not permitted to hold on to it? Is not that absolute nonsense?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite is opposed to the whole policy of rail privatisation. He has stated his reasons on a number of occasions. We take the contrary view. We believe that it will result in better services for passengers and better value for taxpayers. Those must be the essential considerations which take us forward.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the franchising director's powers are those which he may exercise under the relevant Acts of Parliament and the secondary legislation under them, and that in case of dispute the extent of those powers is a proper question to be decided by Her Majesty's judges?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl is referring to a case that is before the courts at the moment and which concerns the franchising director. Beyond recognising that that is the case and that these matters are sub judice, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to comment further.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, would my noble friend agree to draw to the attention of the franchising director the present performance of SNCF in considering any tenders that might be coming with regard to franchises that might be let in the future?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that the franchising director is extremely well aware of the performance of railway companies not only in the UK but overseas also.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Stagecoach, which is, I believe, one of the bidders for the Great Western Railway franchise, does not have any bus operations in Hampshire? What guarantee will the Government give that trains on the Great Western Railway will actually stop in Hampshire in future?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as I explained earlier, the guarantees are provided in the passenger service requirement, which, for the first time, lays down the minima in terms of service provision.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, a recent report from the rail regulator, referred to in the press at the weekend,
1374
referred to contracts between the franchising director and franchisees, making it clear that franchisees could cut their services if ticket demand fell, if the government subsidy dropped and, lastly and most surprisingly, if the franchisee loses more than 10 per cent. of his rolling stock through poor maintenance. Therefore, is it not in the franchisee's interests to let his rolling stock run down, take the subsidy and then run away?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, no, I do not believe that that is the case. It is in the train operator's interests to make sure that he gets the maximum number of passengers on his services and that he provides the best possible service to his customers so that he can then go on to negotiate further service agreements after the expiry of his contract.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is my noble friend—
Noble Lords: Next Question!

Carrying of Knives: Police Powers
3.26 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make it illegal throughout the United Kingdom to carry dangerous knives, as is already the case under Scottish law.?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, it is already an offence in England and Wales to carry a knife, other than a small folding pocket knife, in public without good reason or lawful authority. The Scottish offence is almost identical.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but in the reports of very tragic incidents which we all deeply regret, including the most recent one involving Dr Sharpey-Schafer, I have heard the police comment that in this country the carrying of a knife is not in itself an offence and that the police have to be able to prove intent. I have also heard that when people are arrested for entirely different offences and empty their pockets in a police station, dangerous knives appear regularly among their possessions, yet the police are unable to charge because they would not be able to convict without proving intent. Is that the case?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there are two offences. First, there is the Section 139 offence under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 whereby carrying a knife, other than a small folding penknife, in public without good reason or lawful authority is an offence. Secondly, there is a higher level offence if it can be proved that the weapon was carried with intent to cause injury. That is an even more serious offence. As I understand it, the proposal for change, supported by the police, is that both offences should be arrestable without a warrant and that the sentence for the lower level offence should be increased.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I have heard it said that the Scottish regime has changed in recent years and with very beneficial results. Can my noble friend confirm that, or is it incorrect?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there are two aspects to the Scottish provisions. First, the powers in Scotland are almost identical to those in England, but there is only one sentence covering both offences—up to two years' imprisonment. In England and Wales at the moment there is a lower level offence with a maximum sentence of a £1,000 fine. There is also a more serious offence relating to intent to use the weapon where the sentence is up to two years' imprisonment. The intention is to increase the sentence for the lower level offence. There is very little between them. The other aspect of the Scottish system is that it has been more successfully applied, I understand, than that in England and Wales. I know that there is scope for the police here to apply the law in the way in which the law is applied in Scotland.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we on these Benches share the distress and concern expressed at the recent tragedy in Maida Vale and that if any parliamentary action is required to deal with that concern either in the form of legislation or in terms of sentencing, the Government will have our entire support?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I very much welcome that. This is one of the issues that brings all parties together. I believe that whatever we can do in the form of strengthening the law and strengthening sentences, we should do.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when the Scottish legislation was being considered in Parliament a few years ago, opposition came from civil liberties groups concerned about selective use by the police of their powers of search? Does my noble friend agree that that consideration is clearly outweighed by what has happened in recent serious and tragic incidents?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree absolutely with my noble friend. I would remind him that it was only last year in the Criminal Justice Act that powers of stop and search were strengthened. Consideration of the protection of the public far outweighs the inconvenience of being stopped and searched for what might be a lethal offensive weapon.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not the use of knives one minor component of the vast problem of the growing propensity to resort to violence? Instead of reacting in a knee-jerk way to one incident, however tragic, should we not be considering, by the appointment of a Royal Commission, for example, the general problem of violence in our society and its etiology?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, this is not reacting in a knee-jerk way. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary was already discussing with the police ways of strengthening the law in this regard. The work was already under way when that very tragic murder occurred. The scope for strengthening the lower level sentence is important. We must do as much as we
1376
possibly can to stop the incidence of carrying knives. What is worrying about the evidence we have so far is that younger people are resorting to carrying knives. We want to do what we can to ensure that that does not happen and to give the police the power that they need to stop, to search, and to ensure that they deter people from carrying these weapons.
Lord Elton: My Lords, did I understand my noble friend to say that both the offences of carrying dangerous knives, which she described, are not arrestable without a warrant? If so, can she be assured that many of us think it ludicrous that a policeman would have to obtain a warrant after finding someone carrying such a knife and that we would co-operate in changing the law in that respect?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there are some conditions under which the police can arrest without a warrant, but they have to be certain that they can prove they had good reason to do so. We are relaxing things somewhat to allow the police to make a judgment as to whether they should arrest on sight. As I understand it, that would be one of the proposals in the Bill. I know that the police will find that enormously helpful.

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision about the broadcasting in digital form of television and sound programme services and the broadcasting in that form on television or radio frequencies of other services; to amend the Broadcasting Act 1990; to provide for the establishment and functions of a Broadcasting Standards Commission and for the dissolution of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council; to make provision for the transfer to other persons of property, rights and liabilities of the British Broadcasting Corporation relating to its transmission network; and for connected purposes.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be read a first time.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Community Representation Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the creation in England of parishes in unparished areas and in cities and towns where charter trustees have been constituted.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be read a first time.—(Lord Sandys.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Amendment Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and, pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Consolidation Bills: Joint Committee
3.34 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, pursuant to Standing Order 49, the following Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:

Airedale, L.,

Alexander of Tunis, E.,

Dilhorne, V.,

Gisborough, L.,

Hanworth, V.,

Haskel, L.,

Lloyd of Berwick, L.,

Mallalieu, B.,

Meston, L.,

Steyn, L.,

Strabolgi, L.,

Wigoder, L.

That the Committee have the power to agree with the Committee of the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman; and
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 1995
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recollect that the last time we met to debate the issue of child support, the fundamental principles of the child support scheme, in particular the principle that parents remain responsible for the financial support of their children, received widespread support. However, your Lordships indicated during those debates that there continued to be dissatisfaction with various aspects of the child support scheme and with the operations of the Child Support Agency.
1378
The regulations before the House today, in building on the provisions of the Child Support Act 1995 which noble Lords will recall we passed in the Summer, and in introducing other improvements, address some of those concerns. In particular they provide for clarification of procedures for the recovery of overpaid maintenance; simplifications and improvements to the procedures for the review of a maintenance assessment; the removal or suspension of the reduced benefit directions in certain circumstances; and compensation for reductions in maintenance resulting from changes in child support legislation. Other more technical changes include provisions for handling information, the effective dates of maintenance assessments, and some minor changes to the maintenance assessment formula, including the treatment of housing and travel to work costs.
I start with the recovery of overpaid maintenance. The inadequacy of the existing provisions to allow for the reimbursement of sums of maintenance overpaid by the absent parent has been a cause of some concern. Section 23 of the Child Support Act 1995 introduced powers allowing the Child Support Agency to make payments to reimburse absent parents in circumstances where the overpayment cannot be reasonably recouped by reducing the current maintenance assessment. Regulation 3 specifies the circumstances in which a parent with care may be required to repay such a payment.
Regulation 2 makes provision for all or part of any child support maintenance arrears, including arrears relating to a period before the assessment was made, to be offset against any income-related benefit which may have been paid in place of that maintenance. Previously, adjustments have been made by using general benefit provisions. This amendment places the power to retain the arrears in child support legislation.
I turn to the review of the maintenance assessment. One of the major advantages of the child support scheme over its court-based predecessor is the potential for regular review of the circumstances of the relevant parties and the subsequent adjustment of the amount of maintenance, where appropriate. However, the review process has proved to be more complex and therefore more time consuming than had been originally envisaged. These regulations will help to alleviate this situation. Under the existing provisions, when a change of circumstances is notified the child support officer must carry out a full review of the maintenance assessment. The process is complex and time consuming. Every detail of information has to be re-confirmed and appropriate verification supplied again and again.
The 1995 Act made provision for a limited review to be made in these circumstances. Regulations 24, 25 and 26 introduce provisions which allow the child support officer to deal with the notified change only, plus any other changes of which he is aware.
Regulations 27 to 31 make amendments to the tolerance rules which dictate whether a fresh assessment will be made following a review. A further problem with the completion of the review process has been the failure by parents to comply with requests for information.

1379
The 1995 Act introduced sanctions against parents who fail to comply with a review of their maintenance assessment. Absent parents face the imposition of an interim maintenance assessment at a higher punitive rate (Regulation 17) and the parent with care risks having her assessment withdrawn unless she is in receipt of benefit (Regulation 35).
Regulations 7 to 10 and 35 provide both that parents will be warned of the consequences of failing to provide this information, and for a number of technical changes to the requirement to furnish information.
There have been some minor difficulties with cross-referencing in the drafting of these regulations. We had hoped to put them right with a correction slip. However, we have now been advised that since the amendments, though minor, are slightly more than just typographical errors the correction slip can have no effect on the regulations. We are therefore currently putting together a very small package of negative regulations to achieve these amendments. They will come into force at the same time as the regulations to which they refer. Therefore, the problem of some of the numbers being out of kilter will cause no difficulty when the regulations come into effect.
Section 46 of the 1991 Act provides for the child support officer to impose a reduced benefit direction. The deduction is made where a parent with care who is in receipt of benefit refuses to co-operate in the pursuit of maintenance and does not have good cause for her failure to do so. In taking this step, such parents are passing the burden of maintenance for their children on to the taxpayers. The Government still believe that it is right to impose a sanction on parents who make this choice.
During debates on the 1995 Act, concern was expressed in your Lordships' House regarding these provisions and the difficulties caused by them to parents with care living on already restricted levels of income. We do accept that the imposition of the reduction could cause particular hardship in certain cases and exemptions for certain parents with care are introduced by these regulations. Regulation 37 allows a parent with care who is disabled or has a disabled person living with her to be exempt from a reduced benefit direction. Where a parent with care is having deductions made from her Income Support to recover arrears of housing costs, fuel or water charges allowed under Regulation 38, that regulation will allow for the suspension of the benefit penalty.
In Section 24 of the Child Support Act 1995 the Government provided for regulations to be made to enable payment of compensation to people receiving family credit or disability working allowance who would otherwise lose money as a direct result of specified child support legislation changes which reduced their maintenance.
During the passage of the Bill the Government spelt out that provision of compensation would be "broad brush" and would provide for compensation at the rate of 50 per cent. of the reduction of maintenance assessments arising from the April 1996 regulation changes. In all cases, this would result in beneficiaries
1380
receiving more than 50 per cent. of their maintenance reduction. As this is the earliest legislative opportunity to introduce these regulations payments have, in the interim, been made by way of ex gratia payments. Almost 5,000 payments have been made. These regulations provide a statutory framework for any future provision that might be necessary.
We have always said that we would keep the child support scheme under close scrutiny to ensure that it is fair to all; fair to children, parents with care, absent parents, second families and taxpayers. These changes, plus other reforms which we have recently introduced, will ensure that we achieve that goal. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as these regulations are within the framework of the Act, it would not be appropriate today to use them as an opportunity to open up a wider debate on the Child Support Agency. Instead, I wish to press the Minister a little on some of the points that he made. First, as regards the review process, it is administratively sensible to review the changes that have taken place rather than to start the assessment all over again. That is wise and sensible, particularly as we know that the working and effectiveness of the CSA has been subverted by, among other things, the complexity of its formula. It has accounted for the fact that approximately three-quarters of all CSA assessments have been wrong or have been incorrectly arrived at. We hope that the regulation will reduce the number. Although the Government may make much of fraud, it is worth reminding your Lordships that government administrative error, caused largely by complexity, accounts for higher overspending than any problems of fraud within the system.
The second issue that the Minister raised was overpayment on the one hand and arrears on the other; they are Regulations 2 and 3. As regards Regulation 3, the Minister referred to a clawback of overpayment when overpayment had been made to the parent with care. The assumption was that that overpayment was made by an error within the agency during the assessment. The parent with care had, in good faith, assumed that that was the appropriate sum, had adjusted her financial circumstances accordingly and had spent the money. Will the Minister assure the House that where the error has been the fault of the CSA, the CSA will not expect to chase that money on the ground that it would be unreasonable to risk the parent with care being exposed to financial hardship through no fault of her own?
The Minister is seeking to claw back arrears of maintenance. The point is that where arrears of maintenance have finally been paid, and would have been paid, to a parent with care on benefit the Treasury and not the parent with care will retain that sum. None of the money that the Treasury seeks to recover through

1381
the arrears procedure will go to the benefit of children. All of this is about saving the Treasury money and not lifting children out of poverty. Can we hope that if not now at least in the near future the Minister will revisit a point of common agreement on the Opposition Benches; that this Act would have had consent from more absent parents and parents with care if some element of the maintenance, however modest, was retained by the parent with care for the children, even if that parent were on benefit?
The Minister raised the issue of family credit. It is sensible to regularise the situation as regards ex gratia payments which the Minister was honourably and properly obliged to make following changes to the Act. However, perhaps we may take the opportunity to review the situation in which the six-month rule damages the parent with care? A parent's family credit may be fixed assuming maintenance of, say, £40 per week. Let us suppose that for whatever reason the former partner, the absent parent, has become unemployed, or has lost his overtime or has failed to pay maintenance. However, because the family credit was fixed at a particular figure based on a certain level of maintenance, which has fallen, and because of the six-month rule the family maintenance cannot float up to compensate.
Throughout our debates on the child support regulations and subsequent amendments, the Minister insisted that the six-month rule remained. It is a broad-brush rule; there are winners and losers, swings and roundabouts, and all is well. However, when it suits the Government to depart from a tough formula, they do so. They did so when they were the authors of the changes to the regulations and more recently when we debated the earnings top-up for childless couples who when they have a child can then swing from the six-month rule, analogous to family credit, to family credit itself. Therefore, on two recent occasions the Government have departed from the rough justice of the six-month formula. May we hope that they will do so again?
The Minister spoke of the reduced benefit sanction for parents with care who failed to co-operate with the agency in revealing details of the absent father. One of the worries that Members on the Opposition Benches had throughout the debates—and our fears have not been entirely alleviated—was that parents with care who feared domestic violence might feel pressured by financial circumstances to give information that it was unwise for them and their children to give to the agency. Will the Minister tell the House how many benefit sanctions there have been? How many have been appealed against on grounds of domestic violence and how many appeals have been accepted and the benefit restored? That information would be useful to us.
It is worth emphasising that none of the changes in the regulations makes the parent with care and her children any better off. Most are regulations either to follow changes to the Child Support Act made last summer, to help the absent parent, or they are changes to help the Treasury. There are three adult parties in the CSA social contract. These regulations benefit the party
1382
who has shouted the most—usually, the absent father—and the party which is powerful enough; namely, the Treasury. However, the parent with care, simply because she does not abdicate her responsibilities and does not desert and walk away from her children, receives nothing at all. Her children remain in poverty. One child in three in Britain is in poverty. These regulations will do absolutely nothing to help those children.
3.50 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, these regulations give effect to a number of changes that arise from the 1995 Bill. I am sure that the Minister and the noble Baroness have memories, as I do, of many exhausting hours in Committee in this Chamber. I am glad to see that they were to some effect.
Some of the changes are minor and some are even quite good. They do not give rise to any particularly profound concerns although I was rather surprised that Mr. Mitchell, when he introduced these regulations in another place, referred to a sharp diminution of complaints about the Act. With regard to my own postbag, would that were so. I am sure that my honourable friends in another place will say the same. It may be that the proportion of complaints which is coming to my party is slightly higher than it was, but I am certainly quite unaware of any diminution.
I noted what the Minister said about a new package of negative regulations. He might perhaps agree with the remark of John Locke when he saw the proofs of his second treatise:
"Printers have ways all their own, not united by the general fairness which cements mankind".
It would be helpful if the Minister would send me a copy of the regulations when they are ready. I should be very surprised if I found anything to which I should pay further attention.
The principle of the regulations on family credit and disability working allowance is welcome and I have welcomed it before. In passing, I should thank the Child Poverty Action Group which first drew attention to the problem which the regulations are meant to rectify. However, I agree with what the noble Baroness said. Since there have been one or two breaches in the six-month rule, can that be regarded as a little less sacrosanct when people suffer from its operation?
As regards the other regulations, I should be grateful if the Minister would explain further Regulation 43(5). I am not quite sure exactly what that regulation does.
I warmly welcome Regulations 37 and 38. Those laid down that there shall be no reduced benefit direction depriving the mother of 20 per cent. of her benefit for disabled parents with care or for parents with care who are already suffering substantial deductions. That is a welcome change although, of course, it is no substitute for the abolition of the reduced benefit direction.
Those result from amendments tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. That is another area in which the Opposition parties are in full agreement. I thank the Minister and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for drawing the matter to the Minister's attention.

1383
I was a little unhappy about the wording of Regulation 10 which requires the production of information subject to penalty within 14 days. One does not now have to be rich to be occasionally on holiday for more than 14 days. During this winter's 'flu epidemic, I have known a good many people who have been in bed ill for more than 14 days. Unless that 14-day limit is applied sensitively, it may cause quite substantial injustice.
Regulation 6, which allows the use of one's national insurance number for identification, may help to avoid some of those unfortunate cases where people were accused of fathering a child born while they were still small boys. I should be glad if that could be diminished.
But the main operative matter is the extension of interim maintenance assessments if information is not provided. In principle, I have no objection at all to that. But it depends on the CSA being able to open its post. Mr. Mitchell knows, because I have had occasion to write to him 10 times in the past six weeks, that it is very often a matter of dispute whether or not the maintenance inquiry form has been returned. Since Miss Chant will not yet have received my letter, I thank her very warmly for clearing up the last case of that kind which I referred to her.
The Government might be well advised to make it a condition for people returning information to the CSA that it be sent by recorded delivery and that a copy should be retained. As Mr. Mitchell said, it is very difficult to resolve those cases where one party says, "I did", and the other party says, "I did not", and you do not know whether the form was ever posted or whether it has gone astray. That is one major proviso that I would make as regards being happy with that regulation.
The other proviso is that the CSA could do more than it has to make its requests intelligible. The Minister will remember having a good deal of fun at the expense of NACSA during our arguments in Committee on the Bill. But the laugh can occasionally go the other way. It has recently carried out a survey of its own members as regards the issuing of interim maintenance assessments. The Minister will understand that its members are not the GSA's strongest champion but they have received interim assessments with only half the frequency of people dealing with the CSA as a whole. That seems to me to suggest that the advantage that those members have is that they understand the procedure rather better. Therefore the Government may consider, when they are facing non-co-operation, whether the problem is not an adamant determination to wreck the Act, as they are sometimes tempted to think, but a real difficulty in understanding its operations, which I frequently share.
Having said that, I welcome the main body of the regulations. I am sure that the Minister is an old enough hand not to mistake a Christmas truce for termination of the war. I still believe that within 10 years, whoever is in office, this Act will be repealed.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Earl for the welcome that they gave to parts of the regulations.
1384
I noted with interest that the noble Earl has told me that I should not take today's welcome as in any way a diminution of his campaign against the Child Support Agency and his view that it should be abandoned and abolished.
I hope that I shall be able to answer a number of the points raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Earl. If I fail to cover any particular point, I shall write afterwards.
I start by turning to the general questions raised by both noble Lords; that is the question about family credit and the six-month rule. We had a lot of debate about that and I do not wish to go over it again. I believe that there are very good reasons for keeping family credit as sacrosanct as possible as regards the six-month rule. After all, the ruling does not always act to the disadvantage of the party. On a swings and roundabouts principle, I imagine that it sometimes acts to the advantage of the party. But its main advantage is that it gives the parent with care some security over what her income is likely to be from family credit over the six-month period.
We felt that it was right to soften that in relation to changes that we have made to the legislation. But I cannot hold out any hope to the noble Baroness that we should be prepared to go further in considering freeing up the six-month rule because the more we free it up, the less it will become a six-month rule and the more family credit will become a monthly, fortnightly and weekly benefit. I do not believe that that would be in the best interests of the people involved. It would certainly create a far greater administrative burden than the current situation.
Therefore, while I know that my answer will be a little disappointing to the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, I hope that they appreciate—and I believe that they do—that there are strengths in having a six-month rule. That, I suspect, is why they occasionally ask me to shift it at the margins. However, it is difficult to keep on shifting it at more and more margins. I hope that my response answers the point about the six-month rule.
As we are talking about time limits, I shall answer the noble Earl's point about the provision of information within 14 days. I can reassure the noble Earl that, while that is the rule, it will be applied sensibly. Quite clearly if a client has difficulty in supplying the information within that time, then sensible weakening, so to speak, of the extra time will be allowed; in other words, he will be given extra time in order to return the form. However, that will only apply in certain, special circumstances. I hope that that helps to reassure the noble Earl that we are not going to be absolutely rigorous on the 14-day time limit.
The noble Earl also raised a point on interim maintenance assessments. I am happy to tell the noble Earl that interim maintenance assessments which were introduced in large numbers at the beginning have been reducing very considerably. For example, this year the proportion has reduced to 15 per cent. Indeed, last month it was down to 11 per cent. which is quite a considerable reduction. I hope that that will be of some help to the noble Earl and that it will show that the

1385
system is actually beginning to work much better than, perhaps, it did at the beginning. I believe that there are considerable points of progress in that respect.
I should tell the noble Earl that, so far as concerns the postbag of my department, there has been a considerable decline in the number of complaints that we receive from Members of Parliament since the changes that were made earlier in the year. Indeed, the situation is very much better. Dare I say to the noble Earl that it does not surprise me when he says that he receives quite a number of complaints. The reason is that he and his party have quite a close relationship with NACSA which is an organisation designed to complain about the Child Support Agency. Therefore, if I wanted to see where complaints come from, I might easily look to that kind of combination. The fact is that, for the wider Members of the other place, the number of complaints is quite considerably down. Indeed, the progress that the agency is making in its processing and accuracy work would suggest that the complaints ought to keep reducing. Of course I do not believe that they will ever reduce to zero because there will always be some men out there who, bluntly, do not want to pay anything to the parent with care. I believe that we should live in the real world in that respect. I give way to the noble Earl.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister concede that not all complaints come from men?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, my Lords; I will concede that. However, as I am sure the noble Earl is well aware, a great majority of them do come from men.
The noble Earl asked me about Regulation 43(5). I should say that the first amendment is intended to secure the policy intention that payments under a mortgage protection policy are to be ignored to the extent that they exceed the allowance for the mortgage interest in an absent parent's protected income. The second provision is for the calculation of protected income to take account of any payment of child maintenance which an absent parent or his partner is liable to make under a foreign court order. That is the background to those two provisions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked me if the regulations will reduce the number of errors. I believe that I have answered that point, but I can tell the noble Baroness that the CSA is continuing to improve. Indeed, its recent performance has been very encouraging — around 70 per cent. of maintenance arrears now checked prove to be correct. The significant simplification in the review process that we are looking at today will, I believe, make the information that we need to collect easier to obtain. It will also mean that the processing of the review will be very much quicker and easier. That ought to help absolutely everyone: parents with care and absent parents.
I turn now to Regulation 3 and overpayments resulting from agency error; in other words, official error overpayments. Those are technically left to the discretion of the Secretary of State, but my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the other place, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, made it very clear during the final stages of the Child Support Act 1995 that
1386
consideration will be given to the circumstances of overpayment. If it were wholly due to official error, it would be very unlikely that repayment would be required. So there is a discretion. I hope that that assurance will help the noble Baroness who, I believe, asked me that question.
I believe that I have answered all the questions of detail that were raised. The noble Baroness and the noble Earl indicated one or two fields in which we still do not agree; indeed, I mentioned the one about family credit. Another one is that, if the arrears come in, the parent with care may not actually benefit because, of course, she has already had her income support payments which included the theoretical amount which ought to have come in if the absent parent was paying.
I hope that the child maintenance bonus which is to be introduced from April 1997 will allow parents with care to gain up to£5 per week from maintenance in a lump sum to be paid to them when they leave income support for full-time work. I hope that that is at least a step in the direction of helping the parent with care back into work and also letting the parent with care see that some of the money coming from her absent husband or former husband does in fact benefit her when it comes to that change-over into work. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to intervene. I give way.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. As it looks as though the noble Lord is about to wind up his response, I should like to ask him one further question. It relates to an area of concern which has already been debated and explored in the House and for which I should like the up-to-date figures. Can the noble Lord say how many reduced benefit sanctions there have been on parents with care because of refusal to co-operate with the agency? How many of those cases have been appealed on the grounds of fear of domestic violence and how many of those appeals have been granted? That was one of the major areas of concern. We hope that our fears will be allayed, but perhaps the Minister can help us in that respect.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I did not mention that matter in my response. The fact is I do not have the relevant numbers to hand, and I did not want to try to speculate. However, I shall write to the noble Baroness with those figures when they become available. Having said that, I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support (Compensation for Recipients of Family Credit and Disability Working Allowance) Regulations 1995
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bristol Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1995
4.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the order is required in order to wind up the Bristol Development Corporation. It revokes the 1988 order which designated the urban development area and which established the development corporation. The order will take effect in two stages. First, that part of the 1988 order, which is designated the urban development area, is to be revoked on 1st January 1996. Secondly, that part of the order which established the corporation is to be revoked on 1st April 1996.
The reason for having two stages is that on 1st January the corporation will cease to exercise any operational functions. It is, therefore, quite proper that the urban development area status should be removed on that date. The corporation will then have three months in which to produce its annual report and accounts and to wind up its affairs. On 1st April next year, therefore, the corporation will finally be dissolved.
All development corporations were intended from the outset to be limited-life bodies. They were set up in order to deal with the physical and economic regeneration of various inner-city areas. The Bristol Development Corporation has largely done what it set out to do, and that is why we are able to wind it up.
The area which the Bristol Development Corporation inherited lies to the east of the city centre. For a variety of reasons it had declined for over 40 years. The city council's own figures showed a five-fold increase in the amount of land which had been designated as derelict or underused during the period from 1965 to 1988.
The main project which the corporation had to undertake was to build a new two kilometre spine road linking the M32 and the A4. In the process of doing this, various pieces of land were "unlocked" which had been previously inaccessible and they have attracted over£200 million of private investment in the process. The road carried 22,000 vehicles a day which before had either used small, residential streets as a short cut or had crawled through the congested city centre. The road was built in record time and under budget. It caused minimal disturbance to business and none to residential properties.
Among the new developments which have been made possible by the new road is a highly successful leisure and retail complex at Avon Meads, which has brought a new lease of life to the area. A recent survey showed that 92 per cent. of visitors thought that the development was something of which Bristol could be justly proud. In the Avon Valley, the corporation has established an urban village of nearly 700 houses—many for first time buyers—with shops and a doctors' surgery. Another 400 houses are planned and are under construction.
1388
This riverside setting has been transformed from a derelict eyesore into the largest residential development in Bristol.
Several new business parks have been developed which have provided much needed employment. These are now places to move into, and not out of. The corporation has also laid the foundation for the future regeneration of the important Quay Point site, which is next to Temple Meads station. It has now sold the site to English Partnerships who will try to secure a development scheme which will revitalise this part of the city. By the end of this year the corporation will have reclaimed 64 hectares of previously derelict land and it will have provided 6.4 kilometres of road. It will have provided 116,000 square metres of new commercial floorspace which will have been developed. Nearly 700 houses will have been built and 4,600 jobs will have been created. For every£1 of public money which will have been invested, the private sector will have invested £3.
I think that that is a record of which the corporation can be quite rightly proud, and I congratulate its board and officials for their achievements over the past seven years.
Having created the framework for the continuing resurgence of east Bristol, it is right to wind up the corporation. It is now for others to carry on the work and to build upon the achievements which have been made by the corporation. The order is necessary in order to wind up the corporation, and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved.[1st Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for introducing this order. It is a very rare occasion on which I find myself able to support Government legislation, let alone Government subordinate legislation, but in this case we welcome the order. I do not go along wholly with the noble Earl in his description of the triumphs of the Bristol Development Corporation because, as he will be aware from debates which have taken place in another place, there are two points of view on its achievements. Nevertheless, it is right at the present time for the activities of the development corporation to be transferred partly, as I understand it—perhaps the noble Earl can answer this rather small point—to English Partnerships, but mainly to the local authorities in question. If the noble Earl can say what will be the role of English Partnerships in the future I shall be most grateful and we need not worry your Lordships any longer on this particular order.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I had the privilege and pleasure of chairing the committee which originally considered the order which established the scheme. When I saw the Motion on the Order Paper I felt some alarm because I did not know whether the order was

1389
being revoked because the scheme had successfully served its purpose or whether the scheme was terminally ill. I was delighted to hear that the scheme has succeeded, as I am certain will be all the other Members of your Lordships' House who served on that committee.
Your Lordships cannot imagine the devastation which this area of Bristol presented when we first saw it on a bleak October day in 1988. There were abandoned factory sites and land so fouled by tar products that it could not safely be built upon. There was a railway line snaking over empty fields on which reposed abandoned railway trucks through which the bindweed grew profusely. There was a totally inadequate infrastructure to support any redevelopment. In the previous century Bristol was the second city in England after London. If this scheme has revived the fortunes of Bristol I for my part think that the greatest credit is due to the development corporation, to the local authority, to businesses which have migrated there and to all others concerned.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for saying that he supports the Government. He said that was a rare event but even rare events are greatly appreciated when they occur. Perhaps it will be the start of many. The noble Lord said that that did not represent a change of heart because he had various concerns about the measure. I knew that he would say something like that because it was incumbent upon him to do so as some members of his party are concerned about the Bristol Development Corporation. However, I consider that that body has done a wonderful job of work and has achieved all that I tried to explain to your Lordships. When it is wound up, the property which has been left—most of that is on the Quay Point project—will go to English Partnerships. The Bristol City Council will take on the planning matters on 18th December and the Secretary of State will assume responsibility for any remaining assets or liabilities on 19th December.
I was concerned that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, should have been worried when he saw the order on the Order Paper. I am quite delighted that I was able to remove his worries. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the Bristol Development Corporation has achieved a great deal. That has not been easy for the corporation. It has turned a large area of derelict land into successful usable land. As I said, it has attracted private investment to the order of£3 for every£1 of government money. The result is that areas which were formerly derelict are now thriving and have modern houses and businesses. That has been a great success. The corporation's task has been completed and it falls to others to continue that task. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his approval of this measure and for what the Bristol Development Corporation has done. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his encouragement.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 1995
4.18 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee] .
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 1995 be approved.
These regulations limit the increases, after inflation has been taken into account, of the rates which will be payable in 1996–97 by businesses whose rateable values increased substantially as a result of the 1995 revaluation of domestic property. The regulations amend the principal regulations which were introduced last December, and in which we provided for transitional arrangements in order to phase in the effects of the 1995 revaluation.
Although these may appear complicated regulations, I do not need to detain your Lordships too long, for the regulations are really quite straightforward. Last year's regulations limited the annual rates increases on property which had a rateable value of £10,000 or more—or£15,000 if the property was situated in Greater London—to 10 per cent. after allowing for inflation. For small businesses the increases were limited to 7.5 per cent. and for small properties consisting of both business and living accommodation the limit was 5 per cent. The changes, which were announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent Budget Statement, result in those limits being reduced by 2.5 percentage points in 1996–97.
That is all that the regulations do. And, as it is a decrease in the business rates which will have to be paid, I am sure that that will meet with the wholehearted approval of your Lordships. The extra cost of limiting the rise in business rates in this way will be £268 million over three years. The cost will be borne entirely by the Exchequer. There will be no reduction in the payments into the non-domestic rating pool, and there will be no reduction in the amount of money which will be paid out of the non-domestic rating pool distributed to local authorities.
The lower limits which are provided for in these regulations will benefit over 1 million businesses throughout the country by reducing the bills which they would otherwise have had to pay. I am sure that this will be widely welcomed by them, as I hope it will be by your Lordships. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will again be grateful to the noble Earl for introducing an order with which, again, we can agree. It seems like the

1391
pre-Christmas season, but I hope that after the new year we may see other legislation on which there will be proper debate on party political issues.
The only issue in relation to the uniform business rate is whether it should be nationalised or should revert to local authorities. That is a matter of principle which has nothing to do with this order, if I may criticise myself.
In so far as the order does what the noble Earl said it does, although it is complicated and technical, we shall not oppose it. Indeed, we welcome it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. He said that there must be a touch of the Christmas spirit in this. Perhaps there is. I am glad that that makes him happy. However, I am a little disturbed that he looks forward to more controversial legislation after Christmas on which he can sharpen his intellectual knives.
I thought that the noble Lord would agree with the order, because it introduces a reduction in rates. I could not see how he could possibly disagree with it. I am glad that I was right in my premise and that the noble Lord welcomed the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Uncertificated Securities Regulations 1995
4.23 p.m.
Lord Chesham Lord Chesham rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Uncertificated Securities Regulations 1995 be approved. These regulations are necessary to allow computerised security settlement systems like CREST to operate.
The City of London is one of the three main financial centres of the world. It makes a substantial contribution to the UK economy and to exports. The equity market is an important part of the City, and the efficiency of the settlement system is an important part of the equity market.
The present paper-based system needs to be replaced to improve efficiency and reduce risk. The Stock Exchange sought to introduce a replacement system called Taurus which, as some noble Lords may remember, was abandoned in March 1993. The Bank of England then co-ordinated the responses of key City players in the setting up of the Securities Settlement Task Force, which decided on a new system called CREST. The CREST team has since been developing the system, and it is due to start testing in January and to start operating in July.
CREST will change the way in which title is transferred from one holder of securities to another. It will replace share certificates and stock transfer forms with authentic electronic instructions. However, CREST is a voluntary system. Only those who wish to use it need to give up their certificates. Detailed descriptions have been published by the CREST project team.
Both the central system itself and the networks which will carry the electronic instructions between participants and CREST will be very secure.
I turn next to the question of why the legislation needs to be altered. At present, under the Companies Act 1985 companies are obliged to issue share certificates to shareholders. They can only register the transfer of shares on receipt of a stock transfer form. It is therefore necessary to change the law to allow an electronic transfer system to work. Parliament foresaw that possibility when it passed Section 207 of the Companies Act 1989, which is an enabling provision. It allows such legislative changes to be introduced by regulations, which can thus take cognisance of advances in technology. That is the purpose of the regulations before us today.
Noble Lords will search in vain for a mention of the word CREST in the draft regulations. CREST is a good snappy name for the system under development. However, the Government believe that the legal structure must leave open the possibility of a competitor in the future. That is why the regulations use the rather dry formula of
"the Operator of a relevant system".
The operator must apply for approval under the regulations against the criteria set out under Schedule 1. It is fair to say that there is little likelihood at present of another system seeking the same approval under the regulations.
The Government intend to delegate to the Securities and Investments Board the task of considering whether CREST meets these approval criteria. SIB has already had a role in recognising CREST as a recognised clearing house under the FSA. In addition, the SIB's role is to approve CREST under the regulations.
Perhaps I may say a word about costs. In accordance with the Government's commitment to private finance, CREST will be paid for by those who use it. Sixty-eight city firms have committed capital to the project. Some noble Lords may have received complaints about the cost of CREST and in particular the costs imposed by those firms providing network links, Swift and Syntegra. The Government have explored those concerns with those who have expressed them and with the network providers themselves. As a result of those discussions the Government expect CREST, the networks and the industry between them to achieve an acceptable balance of costs between large and small users.
Another concern has been the position of the retail investor. Many of those with small shareholdings trade infrequently, if at all. For them it will probably be appropriate to remain with certificated holdings. That will remain a viable option. There will also be the possibility of sponsored membership—a CREST special— which will allow investors to keep their names on company registers and still benefit from the efficiencies of electronic settlement. I am pleased to tell the House that CREST borrowed the concept of sponsored membership from the Australian computerised system called CHESS, which I understand has been very successful.
It is now clear that CREST is expected to be introduced on time and to budget. That is a major achievement. The system will contribute to improving London's efficiency. The draft Uncertificated Securities Regulations make the minimum changes necessary to company law to allow electronic settlement. They have been the subject of extensive consultation, with positive and helpful results. All those busy with their own CREST preparations, including listed companies, will want to see what the final legislative framework looks like as soon as possible. The regulations have been the subject of an affirmative resolution in another place. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Chesham.)
4.30 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me just to say a word. I am a member of the Securities and Investments Board. In that capacity I welcome the regulations. There has been close co-operation on the part of the parties involved in this process, including the Securities and Investments Board and my noble friend's department. I very much welcome the fact that the regulations are now before this House. I hope that they will be approved without difficulty.
I should like, however, to raise just one point with my noble friend. He referred to the role of the Securities and Investments Board, which has to approve CREST under the regulations, and continue to approve it. In public discussion of these issues it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between the responsibilities of the Government in the form of the Treasury, the Securities and Investments Board, and other regulatory bodies. I should find it helpful if the Minister could confirm that the Government's published public policy objectives remain the responsibility of the Government and not of the Securities and Investments Board. The Government have spelt out those public policy objectives as being the role of the retail investor; investor protection; competition; company and shareholder relationships; and London's standing as a financial centre.
I make only one other point, and in a personal capacity, not, as it were, wearing a SIB hat. There has been some anxiety expressed as to whether the CREST system will turn out to be a great blessing for the big institutions but cause problems for private and personal shareholders. I hope very much that, to the extent that it is able to do so, the Treasury will join in trying to persuade those who finalise the arrangements for costs that smaller shareholders and personal shareholders are not put at a cost disadvantage against the larger users.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise in the absence of my noble friend Lord Chandos, who is due to be here. I shall continue until he arrives, but I shall not take more than four to five minutes because I am conscious of a major social event that hangs upon the speedy conclusion of today's business in this Chamber.
1394
I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks. This is one of those areas in which one needs to be a practitioner in the business of managing money and securities in order to understand the intricacies. The noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, is well conscious of matters of state, not least because of his present declared involvement as a member of the Securities and Investments Board, and also as a result of his eminent position in the other place and in the Government over many years. However, even he is able to raise one or two points of unease and uncertainty.
On this side of the House we always subscribe to the strengthening of what we call consumer protection, consumers in this context being not merely little men or little women but big men and big women—in other words, the industry. We are very conscious that anything that can be done to strengthen the integrity and reputation for probity of London as a financial centre should be done. I note that the Minister says that London is one of the top three in the world. I am surprised that we are not first. Certainly, we in this country look upon the City of London as a major, if not the major, financial centre.
It all sounds necessary. It all sounds as though it has been well thought out. However, the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, referred to the Securities and Investments Board. I recall the Financial Services Bill and the creation of, among other bodies, the SIB. Frankly, there was a time when questions were raised as to whether Parliament had got matters right. The noble Lord is not the only Member of this House to have served on securities and investments boards.
Will the Minister assist the House by saying more about the steps that he and his colleagues believe they have in place, not necessarily to police the industry and not necessarily to interfere or intervene? I am quite certain that the best advice available has been given. But at the end of the day I believe the Minister will be frank and acknowledge that he, like myself, while we try to do our duty, is nowhere near competent to deal with people who may very well be sharp. One hears about fraud; one hears about mistakes; one hears about major catastrophes. I do not want the Minister to detail instances. But clearly what we are involved in here is putting in place the best possible improvement in technique and technology. That can be good, not only for this industry and this business, but for the reputation of this country.
I hope that one of these days when we think of CREST, we do not think that we are CREST-fallen! To be crestfallen in this respect may very well be dicing, not just with the money of "big people". I am well aware that most of the funds that are managed, invested and re-invested by big operators come ultimately or originally from the money put into pension funds and other small savings.
I am satisfied. The Minister sounded very confident that the Government had got it right. When we talk about the balance of costs between the big and the small investor, what the general public want is reassurance that to the very best of its ability Parliament is protecting their interests. We are not practitioners, but we have

1395
access to those who know the market, who can feel the situation and have a nose for it, who can smell it. We want the Minister, undoubtedly acting on advice, to reassure the House and the country in general to the best of his ability ("his" meaning the Government's) that this minimum change is good. He described it as such and I accept that it is, although I shall not go through the regulations to find out where there is reference to "minimum change". If it is a minimum change, that is to the good. If it will provide the maximum consumer protection, that is also to the good. I know that this is the beginning, if not of a new regime, then of a new system. There will be lots of people, not just in this country but throughout the world, who wish it well. To the extent that the Government have brought forward these changes, they certainly have the approval of this side of the House. I look forward to the Minister's replies to one or two queries that I have raised.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for generally approving the legislation. I shall try to deal with questions raised. I stated that the role of the SIB is to approve CREST under the regulations. The Government's public policy objectives remain the Government's responsibility. The Government are satisfied that the objectives for investor protection, competition, company-shareholder relationships and London's standing as a financial centre are met.
Turning to the role of the retail investor, discussions are still taking place to ensure that in particular small registrars and stockbrokers are not unfairly disadvantaged by network costs. Thus, retail shareholders who use small registrars and stockbrokers will not be unfairly disadvantaged.
In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on transaction charges, I understand that the network now plans that the differential between large and small users should be no greater than 2:1. In talking about costs for small investors, we are talking about pence rather than pounds.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, also asked for some comfort with regard to the protection of shareholders. The Stock Exchange is responsible for ensuring that dealings on its markets are conducted in an orderly manner, affording proper protection to investors. That has not changed. The technology that is being used for CREST is the latest technology so far available. Considerable discussion has taken place with regard to experience overseas where it has been operating for some considerable period. I am delighted to say that Australia is one of the countries involved. I am confident that the Exchange will continue to take that responsibility very seriously. The Department of Trade and Industry has always had the responsibility for investigating and, if appropriate, prosecuting cases of alleged insider dealing. I hope that I have answered the noble Lord's question.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, let me say that he has reassured me that, to the best of their ability, the Government are satisfied that they have consulted as widely as they need. The noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, from the standpoint
1396
of his experience and position, saw the need to ask the perfectly appropriate question of whether signals—as one might call them—have been given about the areas of danger that need to be watched. The ordinary man who invests his money trusts people to know what they are doing. To what extent have the Government, after taking advice, flagged up possibly difficult areas? Although the Minister says that the latest techniques have been used and advice taken, he knows that there are people in the world who, as soon as a new procedure appears, look to see how it can be sidestepped or obviated. Sadly, there are crooks in the City of London, as in other places.
I am grateful to the Minister for his patience. I wish to raise just one final point. I do not want him to reveal the areas of worry—perhaps I may think of worry with a capitalW—but to satisfy me that the Government are not so complacent as to believe that they have a perfect system. There is no such thing as a perfect system where money and people are concerned.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I shall do my best to amplify my remarks. The point made by my noble friend was not about the security angle; it was much more about whether the public policy objectives had been totally met. I believe that I answered him when I said that discussions are still taking place regarding small shareholders—not regarding the security of small shareholders. The question was about that rather than about security.
No system will ever be perfect. But I do not believe that this system will stand still. This is the start of a system which will greatly assist matters. Enormous concern about the possibility of computer hacking and so on has been taken into account. I believe that those questions have now been answered. It will be an ongoing process. It is not standing still. As the noble Lord knows, with computers one has to keep going. One cannot just stop at any point and say, "This is fine." One has to keep going. The process will be continued.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Company and Business Names (Amendment) Regulations 1995
4.44 p.m.
Lord Chesham Lord Chesham rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Company and Business Names Regulations 1981 set out a list of words and expressions which a company or unincorporated business may use in its name only with the approval of the Secretary of State. These new regulations make some minor amendments to that list.
The main amendment is the addition of "Chamber of Commerce, Training and Enterprise". "Chamber of Commerce" is already listed, but mergers between chambers of commerce and training and enterprise councils (TECs) mean that we must extend the protection.
We are also taking the opportunity to make some minor deletions. We propose to delete the words "Breed", "Breeder" and "Breeding". In addition, we propose to delete the term "Nursing Home".
The amendments make some small but desirable changes. They will come into force on 1st January 1996. I commend the regulations to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter before five o' clock.

  Prisoners: Requests for Transfer to Northern Ireland
  Prisoners: Requests for Transfer to Northern Ireland
  Prisoners: Requests for Transfer to Irish Republic
  Prisoners: Requests for Transfer to Irish Republic
  Recruitment and Assessment Services: Privatisation
  Recruitment and Assessment Services: Privatisation
  Mobility Component: Restrictions on Entitlement
  Mobility Component: Restrictions on Entitlement
  Bosnian Government Forces: Training
  Bosnian Government Forces: Training
  Former Yugoslavia: Lifting of Arms Embargo
  Former Yugoslavia: Lifting of Arms Embargo
  Natural Resources Institute
  Natural Resources Institute
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Entry Clearance Decisions: Independent Monitor's Report
  Entry Clearance Decisions: Independent Monitor's Report
  Human Rights: UK Adherence to European Convention
  Human Rights: UK Adherence to European Convention
  Leasehold Enfranchisement
  Leasehold Enfranchisement
  Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Reduction
  Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Reduction
  Cable Network: Access
  Cable Network: Access
  Project Work Programme Non-attendance Sanction
  Project Work Programme Non-attendance Sanction