Sitting of 18 December 1995

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

    National Lottery
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has to increase the contribution of the national lottery to charities. [4633]
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The national lottery has exceeded expectations with the huge contribution that it has made to charities. I can today announce that it has raised the magnificent sum of more than £1.3 billion for the good causes fund. More than 3,500 lottery awards, totalling more than £825 million, have been made to projects throughout the country. More than 75 per cent. of all awards made so far have been to charitable or voluntary sector bodies. Today there have been a further 128 awards, including 88 to caring charities in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Marshall: While everyone recognises the great success of the national lottery, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a feeling about that the director general of Oflot has been guilty of surprising errors of judgment and that too little of the national lottery money goes to genuine charities by comparison with high-falutin' causes, to which there have been too many awards?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The distribution of resources from the national lottery has nothing whatever to do with the director general of Oflot. That system was, of course, set up by Parliament. The caring charities have now received 1,409 awards, and that is only the beginning. The lottery has exceeded expectations in the amount of money that it has raised and caring charities have undoubtedly benefited—including Barnardos with £600,000, Arthritis Care with £481,000 and, on Friday, the Pre-School Playgroups Association in Wales with £427,000.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Given that the National Lottery etc. Act places on the director general a number of overriding public duties—first, to maximise the net proceeds for distribution from the lottery and, secondly, to secure that the lottery is run with all due propriety—does the Secretary of State think that the director general of Oflot is fulfilling those duties? Is it not time that she laid down a code of practice for the director general and his staff and published it so that anyone can know what
    1206
    is expected of them? Does she recognise that if she allows Mr. Davis to remain in his post many people across Britain will be astonished?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman is correct that the duty of the director general of Oflot is three-fold: to maximise the return for good causes; to ensure that those who play the lottery are protected; and to ensure that the lottery is run with all due propriety. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the National Audit Office report, which commended the process of evaluation of applicants for the licence. On that occasion, it described the work of the director general of Oflot in very high terms as being
    "comprehensive, consistent, logical and properly controlled."
    Subsequent events have been discussed at very great length by the Public Accounts Committee last Monday. The right hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware that my Department received a preliminary report from Mr. Davis on those matters. Officials have discussed the subject with him this morning. I need to consider the issues raised carefully. I do not intend to take precipitate action. It would be inappropriate and unfair to say more about the matter today. I shall, however, report to the House in due course.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the NAO report shows that the director general of Oflot evaluated the applications for the licence to run the national lottery in an exemplary manner? Does she also agree that although he may have been guilty of some misjudgment, that is absolutely no reason to demand his resignation?
    Mrs. Bottomley: It is my understanding that the National Audit Office clearly said that the director general acted throughout the process in accordance with the statutory duties placed upon him. He has been extremely rigorous and thorough, he has kept detailed notes of all events, and he has been entirely open in discussion with the Public Accounts Committee and with my officials.
    Mr. Kaufman: Given the serious potential for corruption that exists as a result of the vast sums of money with which the national lottery is and will continue to be awash, is it not clear that the whole basis of the national lottery as a privatised monopoly is unacceptable? Is it not also clear that when Camelot's licence expires in 2001 the lottery should be operated in the public sector—with the huge profits going to the public and not to private enterprise—and that if elements of the potential for corruption continue, Camelot's licence should be revoked early?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the regulatory structure for the lottery was agreed by Parliament. I cannot share the right hon. Gentleman's belief that matters operated by the public sector are necessarily operated more effectively or more efficiently. I am reminded that in the past we subsidised nationalised industries to the tune of £50 million per week. The taxpayer now benefits from the profits of privatised industries to the tune of £50 million per week.
    So far as I am aware, our lottery is the most effective and efficient anywhere in the world. With the right hon. Gentleman, I want to ensure that it retains the absolute confidence of all those who participate in it.
    Sir Michael Shersby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have just seen a remarkable demonstration of the

    1207
    Labour party's real objection to the whole issue of the lottery—the fact that Camelot makes a profit? Does she further agree that there is not a shred of evidence to show that Mr. Davis acted either corruptly or improperly, and that what we have seen over the past two days has been a disgraceful attempt to impugn the reputation of a distinguished and reputable accountant who has carried out his duties to the full satisfaction of the National Audit Office? Will my right hon. Friend take that into account when she considers the matter?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I will indeed note my hon. Friend's comments carefully. I am aware of no suggestions of dishonesty about Mr. Davis. I have heard only that his reputation on professional matters is consistently and highly regarded.
    Mr. Alan Williams: It is a week since Mr. Davis indicated in answers that he had taken free trips from a company that he is supposed to be monitoring. The Minister will have been aware of that within hours. Why, a week later, is she is still saying that she cannot make up her mind whether he should go or stay? Most considered opinion is that the man should go—not for dishonesty, but for sheer lack of judgment.
    Mrs. Bottomley: It is not my view that a knee-jerk reaction is appropriate in the circumstances. We have an extremely successful and competitive lottery that is highly regarded around the world. I have made it clear that I will report to the House when I have had time to consider the details involved.

    Tourist Spending
    Mr. Robert Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what analysis she has made of the latest figures on spending by tourists. [4634]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Overseas tourists spent almost £9 billion in the UK up to October—a 13 per cent. increase. Tourism is worth about £36 billion a year—5 per cent. of gross domestic product. There are 88,000 new jobs related to tourism in the year to June.
    Mr. Banks: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. Does she agree, however, that the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe face a challenge to regain a higher share of the world tourism market? While proposals by the European Commission to raise the profile of tourism are to be applauded, does my right hon. Friend agree that any amendment to the treaty should be scrutinised with great care to ensure that a ceiling is placed on any new department and that regulatory powers are excluded? Does she further agree that regulations such as the social chapter threaten to price the rest of Europe out of the market?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend speaks strongly, particularly on behalf of his own constituency, on a subject about which he has great knowledge and he is absolutely right that it is an increasingly competitive world market. We are determined to fight for a greater share of that market because of the potential for wealth creation and job creation. I entirely share my hon. Friend's deep concern that spreading Brussels bureaucracy and European control over such an important industry could do it untold damage. The introduction of the social chapter and the minimum wage would destroy jobs and opportunity in that vital industry.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the most popular forms of tourism in my constituency is that promoted by language schools? Many of them are unregulated and take children as young as 10 and 11 during the summer months, who cause great problems in the city of Cambridge. What is the Minister's attitude to that problem, and what does she intend to do about it?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am well aware that the response of the Labour party to every problem is to tie organisations up in regulation, bureaucracy and licences. I am also aware that the hon. Lady's constituency is a tremendous centre of arts and cultural heritage, and thus has great tourist potential. I am also aware of the huge number of lottery awards that her constituency has been given, which has made it an even greater tourist attraction.
    I will look into the issue raised by the hon. Lady in an open-minded way to see whether any sensible approach can properly be taken. I would, however, be extremely reluctant to inhibit the opportunities of language schools, which create a great number of jobs and other opportunities not only in the hon. Lady's constituency but elsewhere.

    Sports Facilities, London
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the provision of playing fields and similar sports facilities in north-west London; and what policy guidance is given by her Department when local authorities seek to sell such areas. [4635]
    The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): The provision of playing fields and sports facilities in north-west London is a matter for the relevant local authorities to consider, seeking expert advice from bodies such as the Sports Council. The Government's planning policy guidance note No. 17 outlines the factors that local authorities should consider before allowing playing fields to be redeveloped.
    Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend the Minister monitors carefully what is happening to playing fields up and down the country, and I thank him for the work that he has done to ensure that quite a few of them remain in public sector hands. Bearing in mind the fact that the Labour party's official policy document advocates, similarly, that the ownership of playing fields should remain in public hands, is it not preposterous that incompetent Camden council, which has a Labour majority and is one of the worst local authorities in Greater London, is now proposing to dispose of at least two out of its three principal playing fields? Will my hon. Friend make sure that that example of double-standard cynicism is withstood and will he monitor closely what happens if the council foolishly tries to raise excess funds from the sale of those playing fields to outside commercial interests instead of keeping them for the local community?
    Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words, and for drawing that matter to my attention in our previous discussions about the important issue of the Prince Edward playing fields. I hope that Camden will continue to allow those playing fields to remain in

    1209
    existence, because it is an important part of our sports policy that as many playing fields as possible remain open to public access.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Is the Minister aware that Camden council, far from being incompetent, is constantly praised by the Department of the Environment, no less, and is constantly receiving charter marks and recommendations for the excellence of its service? May I further point out that Camden has no plans to sell its playing fields. In fact, it is consulting a range of interested parties, including sports associations and local communities, about them. There is little point in any local authority attempting to maintain its sports facilities, however, if the Government consistently underfund any kind of youth provision. Will the Minister therefore speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about whether there can be a positive change in the Government's approach?
    Mr. Sproat: I am glad to hear about Camden council's catalogue of virtues. I hope that they will include making absolutely certain that those playing fields are not sold for development but remain for people to play sport on.

    Museums and Galleries
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information she has received on visitor satisfaction in relation to the national museums and galleries. [4638]
    Mr. Sproat: The statutory responsibility for managing a national museum or gallery rests with its trustees. However, the information submitted to the Department in the corporate plans of national institutions indicates that the vast majority of visitors are very satisfied with their visits.
    Mr. Spring: In assessing quality, will my hon. Friend state how many galleries and museums have been awarded a charter mark? Does my hon. Friend agree that museums and galleries can play a crucial part in highlighting our unique national history? Will he give all encouragement to museums and galleries to publicise our rich history to as wide a circle as possible?
    Mr. Sproat: From memory, I can tell my hon. Friend that three museums and galleries have charter marks—the imperial war museum, the Victoria and Albert museum and the national museum of science and industry in Manchester. I congratulate all three on that. As to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I agree strongly that we would wish to see an increase in the understanding of our national achievements. A review that I am carrying out of museums and galleries will play an important part in increasing that understanding.
    Mr. Gunnell: Following action in the Minister's Department, we now have a national coal mining museum in Yorkshire. While visitor satisfaction is high at that museum, there are concerns about the price of admission. Does the Minister accept that it is a part of the role of his Department to ensure that those museums which are supported are within reach of the public who wish to visit them?
    Mr. Sproat: The short answer is yes, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the part that he has played in the development of the national coal mining museum. It is a wonderful museum, which I know is currently preparing a
    1210
    business plan to see how it can get more funds to expand. My Department will do everything within reason to help in that.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is it not the quality of our national museums and galleries that attracts so many thousands of visitors from overseas?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes—about 60 per cent. of all visitors to the United Kingdom say that visiting museums is one of the key reasons for coming to this country.

    Digital Broadcasting
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the future of digital broadcasting. [4641]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Broadcasting Bill covers digital terrestrial broadcasting. The framework is designed to stimulate the creation of a fair and competitive market. We want access for new entrants. We aim to safeguard public service broadcasting and the interests of viewers and listeners.
    Mr. Hain: The people of Wales will be pleased that there is now an opportunity under the Bill to receive both Channel 4 and S4C. However, the Bill is extremely deficient in at least one other respect: the total failure to address the convergence of telecommunications and broadcasting, especially with digitalisation. Is there not now a very strong, if not unassailable, case for a single regulator for both broadcasting and telecommunications? When I put that point to the Secretary of State's predecessor on 23 May, he said that in principle he was interested in the idea. Seven months later, are not the Government in danger of being overtaken by the rapid growth in this area? For example, NewsCorp has taken a multi-media stake in MCI, 20 per cent. of which is, in turn, owned by British Telecom. Is not this whole area developing very quickly?
    Mrs. Bottomley: It is a very exciting area, and I was pleased by the favourable response to the publication of the Bill from almost all the players in the industry. There are huge opportunities for industry, for jobs and for Britain. I am pleased by the hon. Gentleman's comments about Channel 4 and S4C in Wales, and the opportunities which now exist for them. In my view, it is not appropriate at present for Oftel and the Independent Television Commission to merge, as each has an important job to do. However, it is clearly of great importance that they co-operate and the hon. Gentleman will find that, on a number of issues—not only those in the Bill but other matters on which we are about to consult—there is a close and constructive relationship between the two bodies because, as the hon. Gentleman has said, of the importance of the increasingly converging areas.
    Mr. Gale: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on seeking to ensure through the Bill that the existing terrestrial broadcasters have adequate digital capacity to ensure that they lead the way in the development of new services and new programmes. If my right hon. Friend believes—as she clearly does—that good programming will lead the digital television revolution, is it not time that we freed up Channel 4 from its funding formula and allowed that money to be invested in good new programmes?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I believe that there is good news for Channel 4 in my announcement on Friday in that we intend

    1211
    to ensure that it retains more of the revenue. It must be remembered—I am sure that the House is well aware of this—that the independent television companies pay to the taxpayer about £400 million a year. When thinking about a future funding formula, therefore—which we do not anticipate deciding on before 1997—all the options and the realities of the situation will be reflected on.
    Dr. Moonie: In welcoming the right hon. Lady's commitment to full and fair competition, may I ask her why there is nothing about conditional access in the Bill?
    Mrs. Bottomley: We are shortly to consult on proposals on conditional access and the consultation will be conducted through the European Communities Act 1972. It is not necessary for it to take place through the Bill. This week, the hon. Gentleman will see the further proposals and the details involved.
    Mr. Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the research and development directorate of the BBC at Kingswood Warren and the research department of NTL in Crawley Court, formerly the privatised arm of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, on their pioneering work in digital broadcasting—both digital audio broadcasting and digital terrestrial television? Will she please liaise with her right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to ensure, as we shall be one of the first broadcasters of digital radio and television in the world, that we make use of the opportunity to be the first exporters of digital television converters and digital audio radio sets?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I strongly share my hon. Friend's wish to congratulate all those involved. He mentioned NTL, which bodes well for the privatisation of the BBC transmission services. Incidentally, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) was not here to ask his question on that subject. My hon. Friend is right to say that digital technology provides great opportunities for British industry. The Guardian said in an editorial:
    "If British companies rise to the challenge then it could provide lots of new business not just in Britain, but in the rest of the world, as the ripples of the digital revolution spread …But this time, at least, they can't say the Government didn't try to help."
    Mr. Dafis: I welcome the proposals in the Bill for the funding arrangement for S4C and the commitment to link it to the retail prices index. However, does the Secretary of State recognise the need for the base level funding, from which the RPI link will follow, to be sufficiently high to enable the production of the additional programmes that will come through digitalisation and the arrangements now being made? May we also assume that when further frequencies become available as analogue is switched off, or at the first opportunity, S4C will be granted true parity with other service providers?
    Mrs. Bottomley: It would be rash for me to make further commitments so far ahead. I believe that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that we have listened carefully to the concerns of S4C. We have sought to strike a balance between the interests of all those involved in this important industry. I note the hon. Gentleman's points about the basis on which the funding formula is established.
    Mr. Stephen: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many hon. Members on both sides are concerned that
    1212
    digital broadcasters should observe the highest standards of taste and decency. Can my right hon. Gentleman explain why, if the existing codes of conduct are adequate, in April and again in June this year it was possible to screen a film called "Goodfellas", which included stabbings and shootings? In 146 minutes, it contained no fewer than 212 uses of the f-word and on four occasions the f-word was used in conjunction with the word "mother".
    Mrs. Bottomley: I will come back to my hon. Friend with detailed comments about the programme that he described. He will know that the introduction of the Broadcasting Standards Council, which combines the strengths of its two predecessor bodies, is intended to ensure that with the greater freedoms that come out of the digital revolution there will also be an enhanced sense of responsibility in the interests of audiences and the public. I am determined that the BSC's work will be strengthened. There will be a requirement to keep a note of the steps that programme makers take as a result of complaints that have been upheld.

    Football
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will bring forward proposals to give football fans more influence in running the game, with special reference to measures to enable more fans to sit on the boards of clubs. [4642]
    Mr. Sproat: The administration of sport is a matter for the relevant governing bodies. Decisions on who sits on the boards of football clubs are for the clubs themselves to make.
    Mrs. Prentice: Has the Minister had the opportunity yet to read Labour's charter for football, in which we recognise the role of the supporters and their concerns? Is it not time that those supporters, who make such a financial contribution to our national game, should have their concerns heard in the boardroom? Does he agree that it is a welcome development that after discussions I had with the consortium that is bidding for Wembley as the national stadium, the consortium has agreed to look at ways of involving fans in discussions about how the sport can be developed?
    Mr. Sproat: I did, alas, have a chance to read the Labour party's charter for football. Having read it, I am not surprised that it has sunk without trace. I have had the pleasure of meeting both supporters' associations, but it remains up to the clubs themselves as to whether they wish to have members of those organisations or, for that matter, any other organisations, on their boards. They are perfectly free to do so if they wish.
    Mr. Hawkins: When considering the concerns of legitimate football fans in looking forward to Euro '96 in this country next year, will my hon. Friend pay special attention to the need for liaison with the police—and especially with the football fans intelligence unit in the national criminal intelligence service—to ensure that the hundreds of thousands of legitimate fans do not have their pleasure, and public order, spoilt by the small minority of mindless hooligans who have besmirched Britain's reputation in the past? While we look forward to a successful Euro '96 tournament, will my hon. Friend join me in wishing the England and Scotland teams success against Holland and Switzerland?
    Mr. Sproat: I certainly join my hon. Friend in wishing the best to Scotland and England. We have taken all the

    1213
    measures that we think fit to keep hooligans out. For instance, if we know of people with records of football trouble arriving at a port, we have the power to ban their entry. If they are caught offending in a British football ground, they will be taken before the courts and they can be released on a bail that will prevent them from attending any other football matches in June next year.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The board of Chelsea football club would have been a rather dangerous place to put anyone on, given the arguments between Ken Bates and Matthew Harding in recent months—a UN peacekeeping force might have been more appropriate—although they have now kissed and made up. Would it not be appropriate to consider a charter for football supporters as they are so often treated as a necessary evil in grounds and many rights have been and are infringed both in and outside grounds? A football charter might be appropriate for the 1996 European championships.
    Mr. Sproat: No, I do not agree. It is true that hooliganism has been falling and attendances at grounds rising, although some problems remain and it is up to the clubs themselves to sort them out. I pay special tribute to what has been done by the Football Association, the Premier division and the Football League in sorting those problems out. A great deal of praise ought to be directed at them.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that forward-looking clubs such as Swindon Town have already established shadow boards and take every opportunity to involve responsible fans to the fullest possible extent? That is no doubt the reason why Swindon Town stands at the top of the second division. Can my hon. Friend think of any other idea advanced recently that is sillier than that proposed by the Opposition?
    Mr. Sproat: Not easily, in the time that it takes me to get from the Bench to the Dispatch Box. I agree with my hon. Friend. Nothing in the football charter that was new was sensible, and nothing that was sensible was new. I am sure that Swindon Town football club is right to involve the fans as much as is proper, which is exactly what the fans want most.
    Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) is right: a host of issues currently concerns football fans, including sharply rising admission charges, inadequate facilities for away supporters and the lack of discount schemes for the young, the unemployed and the disabled. We recognise that no Government should dictate to those who run sport, but will the Minister join all the football authorities—the Football Association, the premiership, the Football League, the players' union and many others—in endorsing the proposals contained in Labour's charter for football, which will ensure that spectators are given proper representation on bodies in which they have an interest? Far from sinking without trace, we must now reprint many more thousands of copies of that document to meet demand.
    Mr. Sproat: I cannot believe that any football ground would welcome being told by a future Labour Government, if such a thing should come to pass, what admission prices it should charge. We all know that football has many difficulties, such as the taking of drugs and bungs, with which the proper authorities—the Inland Revenue and the police—are dealing. The last thing that
    1214
    football wants is a couple of Labour politicians on so-called "task forces" sticking their noses in and telling football what it must do.

    Arts Funding
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the effects of the overall funding provision for national heritage, with special reference to the arts. [4643]
    Mr. Sproat: The areas covered by my Department are being funded on an unprecedented scale. The lottery has increased the amount available for the arts by some £224 million, more than doubling the amount provided previously.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent news. The arts have done extremely well. Not only does the Arts Council provide £186 million but the national lottery provides nearly £200 million. Will my hon. Friend deal with the problem of donations to the arts from the national lottery? The arts can receive money for capital costs but not for revenue costs, so an orchestra can receive resources for a trombone but not funding for the conductor.
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is right. As well as the £186 million which the Arts Council of England will receive—there are other grants for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—local authorities pour millions of pounds into the arts, as does the national lottery. My hon. Friend makes an important point about revenue costs which many people in the arts and sport would like to see resolved. My right hon. Friend and I are looking at how the lottery spends its money to see what can be done.
    Mr. Cohen: May I suggest that the Minister view the annual London lecture given by Jeremy Isaacs of the Royal Opera house and broadcast on Carlton television yesterday? Mr. Isaacs said that, because of a shortage of public funds for the arts in London, standards were beginning to slip. Will the Minister start to put some funds back into the arts in London?
    Mr. Sproat: Of all the people who could complain about arts funding in London, the man who has just received some £55 million for the Royal Opera house is hardly the one to do it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said, we are putting £186 million into the Arts Council, and more than £200 million will go to the arts through the national lottery. We are also putting money into the arts through local councils. So the arts, which receive almost £700 million a year in London and elsewhere, do not have too much cause for complaint.
    Mr. Jessel: Should not the tickets purchased by audiences be regarded as part of overall arts funding? As last month the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced £3 billion extra in purchasing power in people's pockets, why do not the arts bodies set out to attract a substantial part of that increase, which is 600 times as large as the marginal cut in the Arts Council's budget?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend's question is as sensible as his playing the other day at that concert was marvellous. No one who heard him as the soloist in Schumann's piano concerto will forget it. He was wonderful. What he says is right.

    1215
    Perhaps I may take the opportunity to say that it is not only a matter of tickets; sponsorship by business of the arts is about £82 million this year, which is not a bad contribution.

    Millennium Exhibition
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she expects to announce the identities of the operators chosen to run the millennium exhibition. [4644]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: My colleagues on the Millennium Commission and I expect to announce the preferred site and operator combinations for the millennium exhibition in late January 1996.
    Mr. Spearing: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Millennium Commission will choose an operator on the basis of the commissioners' ideas for the content of the exhibition and the continuing heritage benefits to the site or sites on the shortlist? Would it not be better for the commissioners to consider all the options available, choose the best combination of them, obtain a few more ideas from the public or from public organisations and make the final decision on the basis of that mixture? Would that not be a more sensible way of going about obtaining the type of millennium exhibition that we all want, and hope will be a success?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a timetable for planning for that great celebration, and we need to make progress and bring the uncertainty to an end. He will recall that it was Ethelred the Unready who presided over the last millennium. Enormous care has gone into seeking sites, short-listing sites and inviting bids from different operators. The Millennium Commission is aware of the seriousness of that task and of the enormous potential of all the sites under consideration. I will indeed ensure that my fellow millennium commissioners are aware of the anxieties expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Butcher: My right hon. Friend will recall that, in the strict meaning of the Saxon description of Ethelred the Unready, he was the unraed, meaning the ill-advised. I hope that my right hon. Friend feels that she would be ill-advised if London were to dominate the millennium celebrations in the edifices built or events put on. In the midlands, at the national exhibition centre, there is a site with perfect communications, which happens to be only three miles from the monument that marks the centre of middle England.
    I wish our colleagues in Ulster, Scotland and Wales great success with their excellent projects, but, as for England, will my right hon. Friend focus resources and attention on the national exhibition centre site?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend, with his great learning, must be aware that Birmingham has had many lottery awards from the different distributors already. He is correct, however, in saying that the national exhibition centre is a perfect site for a millennium festival, as are the east London meridian site in Stratford, the Greenwich site and, indeed, the Derby site at the heart of the nation.
    The difficulty for the millennium commissioners is that, each time we have visited all four sites, we have been caught up in the enthusiasm of people hoping that they
    1216
    will be able to hold the reception there. We are determined, however, that that will be a festival of tremendous significance, celebrating the achievements, ability and potential of our nation as we move into the new millennium. We all take the choice of site extremely seriously.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Pope: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to make changes in the distribution of funds from the national lottery. [4645]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The national lottery is a great success. I am prepared to consider modifications to build on that success. Specifically, I am keen to ensure that the funds that it produces are used to maximise the range of facilities and the number of opportunities for people throughout the country.
    Mr. Pope: Will the Secretary of State review the operation of the millennium fund? The minimum grant of £100,000 effectively disfranchises many small towns and organisations from bidding for projects. What is the point in having funding for projects of local significance when, in many parts of the country, the effect of the £100,000 threshold is that many smaller organisations cannot bid?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Millennium Commission has a minimum award of £100,000, but many of its projects are umbrella projects which bring together smaller schemes. The groundwork trust projects, the millennium forests and the 2,500 miles of cycle track affect and serve many parts of the country. The other distributing bodies make much smaller grants. That is the view of the Millennium Commission to date, but I shall discuss with my fellow commissioners whether we should modify the rule in the near future.
    Finally, the Millennium Commission is consulting on millennium awards and a way of investing in people as well as in capital. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will ensure that organisations which they think could take up the opportunity respond to the consultation process.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend consider altering the rules to allow lottery funds to support regional opera productions? Lottery funding supports film productions, but not opera productions. It is difficult to see how some regional opera houses— particularly touring opera productionshouses—will benefit from lottery distribution that is only for capital expenditure. Touring opera companies visit many theatres throughout the midlands and the north of England in particular, and sponsoring opera production would assist many regional companies to expand their programmes and their audience appeal.
    Mrs. Bottomley: It is only early days for the national lottery. The rules established for the early phase have been in operation for only 10 months and we did not start making awards until last March. It is quite remarkable that 3,530 awards have been made during that time, including 638 in the arts field.
    I am having discussions with the chairman of the Arts Council and the other distributing bodies on whether we could introduce sensible modifications to make the lottery even more successful. I am mindful of my hon. Friend's comments that funding for the arts is a partnership

    1217
    process. Business and local authority sponsorship, the contribution that people make through the box office, taxpayers' contributions and the lottery awards must make sense as a coherent whole.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Court of Appeal
    Mr. Mudie: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average notice given for Court of Appeal hearings. [4663]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Jonathan Evans): Cases in the Court of Appeal are dealt with individually and the period of notice depends upon the circumstances and the urgency of the case. The convenience of the parties is taken into account as far as is practicable.
    Mr. Mudie: The Minister will be aware that fewer than five days' notice is given for many cases that are heard in the criminal division of the Court of Appeal. He will also be aware that, as a result of that short notice, too many people facing imprisonment have their cases heard without sufficient time to obtain any professional legal representation. Does the Minister agree that that is a totally unacceptable way of dispensing justice? Will he inform the House what steps he will take to ensure that individuals facing an appeal or possible imprisonment have sufficient time to arrange their representation?
    Mr. Evans: I am rather surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman complain about the speed of justice in the criminal division of the Appeal Court, as it is more usual to hear complaints about delays in justice in the civil division of that court. I know that the Master of the Rolls pays great attention to that problem and the Government have sought to resolve it by providing more judges.
    In the context of appearances before the criminal division, the Government generally believe that justice should proceed speedily, but I am happy to examine any circumstances in which it is claimed that it has been dispensed so speedily that justice has been denied. However, I am very surprised to hear a complaint that appeal hearings are occurring too quickly; I usually hear complaints to the contrary.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: In welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new ministerial appointment, I ask him to consider allowing further hearings of the Court of Appeal criminal division to take place in the regions. He knows that the court has sat in Cardiff in the past. I suspecthouses—I urge this view on himhouses—that the process could be more speedy if hearings were to take place in places such as Cardiff and Manchester.
    Mr. Evans: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his welcome, which he delivered with characteristic sincerity and generosity. I am very much aware of the experience of the criminal division of the Court of Appeal sitting in Cardiff. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, I was in practice in that city at the time and I was concerned with one of the cases that came before the court. Since taking up my present appointment, I have considered that possibility. The advice I have received so far is that it is not likely to lead to speedier justice, and may even create a delay. However, I shall continue to
    1218
    keep the matter under review. If the particular difficulties that have been highlighted can be overcome, we should work towards the Court of Appeal sitting in other parts of the country from time to time.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I welcome the speed of cases reaching the Court of Appeal, but is not one of the major reasons why cases are not reaching the civil division of the Court of Appeal that too many judges are now preoccupied with judicial review? Is that not causing a problem with the judiciary that will shortly become a problem for anyone running a Department that is challenged at every turn by a number of judicial reviews? Is it not time that close attention was paid not to abolishing judicial reviews, which fulfil a necessary and important function, but to curbing some of the enthusiasm that is grinding into the ground the operation of Government and the courts?
    Mr. Evans: I have noted my hon. and learned Friend's views on the operation of the judicial review, but it is primarily the work load in the civil courts that has led to such a substantial increase. I have discerned an increase of some 61 per cent. in the work load of the civil division of the Court of Appeal since 1991. Furthermore, more judges have been appointed. Since 1993, we have had five additional Appeal Court judges, but that has not made a significant contribution towards reducing the backlog, which is increasing.
    The Government have taken additional steps. My hon. and learned Friend probably knows that fixed time limits have been introduced in respect of oral arguments in the civil division of the court. I am sure that hon. and learned Members will be delighted to learn that lawyers have been taken on to ensure that appeals that reach the civil division are ready. It is totally unacceptable for a case to come before the civil division of the Court of Appeal with some requisite paperwork missing so that the hearing has to be aborted.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received in respect of the reform of legal aid. [4665]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: More than 180 responses to the Lord Chancellor's Green Paper have been received from a wide range of interested parties, including the legal profession and consumer bodies. Their comments and suggestions are being analysed and a series of meetings with some of the major respondents has been taking place.
    Mr. O'Brien: When considering any reforms of the legal aid service, will the Minister have regard to balancing claims for civil action and claims for criminal action? Money is being spent on defending people who have offended against society rather than on those who have been offended against by society. In my constituency, many people wish to apply for legal aid to defend themselves against actions by quangos such as the health service and those employed by those quangos, or by private companies, but they are denied that opportunity because of the lack of resources.
    Will the Minister ensure that any reforms undertaken help to balance the position and help people who have been offended against by society? Will he also consider

    1219
    allowing specialist views to be obtained by people who have a housing or health grievance or who are victims of crime? There should be more balance to help innocent people who wish to pursue a claim through the courts.
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman should note that the Green Paper that is the source of the consultation exercise is entitled "Legal Aidhouses—Targeting Need". That is primarily the focus of the exercise. We are seeking to ensure access to legal services within an affordable legal aid budget.
    May I take issue with one remark by the hon. Gentleman? He suggested that there was a lack of resources. Surely he is aware that the legal aid budget has more than quadrupled in the past 10 years. Expenditure on legal aid is 14 times higher than when the Labour party was last in office. In those circumstances, there is no question of there being a lack of resources; it is a matter of ensuring that resources are targeted correctly, and that is what the consultation exercise is all about.
    Sir Anthony Grant: In considering any reform of the legal system, will my hon. Friend bear in mind, first, that there is far too much litigation? We do not want to become like the United States, which is rapidly turning into a lawyers' paradise. Secondly, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the increasing injustice being done to people who are just above the limit for legal aid but not necessarily well off, who can be blackmailed by those receiving legal aid?
    Mr. Evans: Let me deal with my hon. Friend's second point first. He is absolutely right, and, as he will know, that very point is highlighted in the Lord Chancellor's consultation document. It has been the subject of public concern, and has also been raised by many hon. Members. We must examine ways of dealing with the difficulty.
    As for my hon. Friend's substantive point, it is also important for us to find alternative ways of resolving disputes. My hon. Friend will be delighted to learn that the Lord Chancellor's Department hopes to publish, early in the new year, a document outlining the alternative forms of dispute resolution. We hope to devote considerable attention to that document. Although we shall always need the courts, and a structure allowing disputes to be resolved in that final venue, anything that we can do in the meantime to end disputes on the basis of keeping legal costs to a minimum and enabling the issues to be distilled into just a small number of issues must be worth while.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: If the Minister wishes to keep legal aid costs down, will he undertake a detailed examination of the number of cases in which, after a legal aid certificate has been granted, no actionhouses—or very little actionhouses—is taken by the legal firm concerned for at least 12 months? Will he consider the effect of that on the overall costs of legal aidhouses—quite apart from the fact that it does not deliver an adequate system of justice to those of our constituents who need it most?
    Mr. Evans: I am sure that the hon. Lady will be aware that all legal practitioners have a professional duty to ensure that they deal with cases with due diligence. As one who was in practice, however, I recognise that in a number of cases practitioners may fall short of fulfilling that duty. If the hon. Lady knows of such instances, they
    1220
    should be drawn to the attention of the professional bodies concerned.

    Family Law Bill
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has had with respect to the Family Law Bill. [4666]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: I have received a number of representations, including representations from my hon. Friend, in relation to the proposals contained in the Family Law Bill. I am also aware that my hon. Friend has been to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, and I trust that she was reassured by what he had to say.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but I was not reassured by what the Lord Chancellor had to say to me. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is grave disquiet throughout the country about the Family Law Bill, which will hasten the break-up of marriages? The victims of such break-ups are undoubtedly the children: children of broken marriages are more likely to turn to crime and subsequently to carry knives. Surely my hon. Friend agrees that we must do all that we can to enhance marriage.
    Mr. Evans: I am disappointed to learn that my hon. Friend has not been reassured to date. I look forward to ensuring that she is reassured during the months ahead. Let me also tell her that it is not the existence of legislation to deal with instances of marital breakdown that causes such breakdowns; sadly, marital breakdown is a fact of life in our society. I entirely agree with her about the effect on children. She will know that that has been one of my main interests since I have been in the House and before. It is very important that we recognise that perpetuating a system that is based on conflict does nothing in the circumstance to help the position of children.
    Mr. Boateng: The Minister is welcome to his place. He has been bloodied by his friend the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). Let us hope that he is unbowed, at least on this issue. Will he give the House an assurance that the Family Law Bill has been properly costed and that there are funds available for a comprehensive mediation service? If such a service is not in place, we shall not be able to give families the support that they deserve and would have another example of the Government wishing the end without willing the means.
    Mr. Evans: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome and I welcome him to the Dispatch Box.
    The Family Law Bill rightly places an important emphasis on mediation, but it also does something that I hoped would be welcomed by the Opposition: it showsthat the Government have not set out the precise framework in which that mediation is to be offered. We are prepared to take that forward on a pilot basis. I reiterate that assurance to the House today.
    Madam Speaker: Thank you. We have made very poor progress in the past hour. I hope that, after Christmas, questions will be much brisker and exchanges much swifter across the Floor of the House. Progress today has not been very good at all.

Madrid Summit
3.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the meeting of the European Council at Madrid, which I attended with my right hon. and learned Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have placed the conclusions of the Council in the Library.
I shall deal first with economic and monetary union and then with enlargementhouses—the two most important matters discussed over the weekend.
The decisions that the European Union must take on those two issues over the next few years could be the most crucial steps for Europe since the European Community was founded. They will have a profound effect on the political and economic stability of our continent over the next generation.
On economic and monetary union, the Madrid Council decided on a name for the single European currency. "Euro" was not a name that attracted universal enthusiasm around the Council table; it will not ease the task of those seeking to market the idea of a single currency, but one or more of the member states had rooted objections to each of the other names suggested.
A more fundamental decision was to study the implications of seeking to introduce a single currency in 1999. As the House knows, I have for a long time argued that the introduction of a single currency by a small minority of states would raise very serious questions about its economic consequences and about the way in which Europe functions. At the informal meeting in Majorca in September, there was general agreement that those questions needed to be examined carefully. At Madrid, a study was formally commissioned.
The Maastricht treaty lays down strict criteria for entry to a single currency. It is now certain that, on a proper interpretation of the criteria, only a small number of member states will meet them if a single currency is introduced in January 1999. Before taking such a step, the European Union needs to consider what it would mean in practice. It must consider its effect on the states outside the single currency area, as well as those inside it. It must consider how decisions would be taken. It must ask whether the result would be divergence rather than convergence of European economies. It must consider the potential effects on employment and the demand for resource transfers. The risk of monetary instability is one of the questions to be examined.
Some have argued for rigid linkages between those inside and those outside a single currency, by reverting to an old-style exchange rate mechanism. That is a course that has been tried and has failed. I have made it clear to our partners that I would not recommend that sterling should return to such a system.
Europe needs coherent answers to those and other questions, and I am glad that the Madrid Council decided to examine them. The opt-out that I negotiated at Maastricht protects the United Kingdom from being forced into an unworkable system, but it is vital to our interests and to the interests of Europe as a whole that a single currency does not begin and then fail, thus causing economic turmoil right across the European continent.
1222
I now refer to enlargement. Ahead even of prosperity, the European Union exists to provide security and stability for the peoples of Europe. For that reason, I believe that enlargement is the most important task facing the European Union. Having demolished the iron curtain, we must never again have a dividing line running through the middle of Europe.
Ten or more countries are hoping to negotiate entry to the European Union in the coming years. This is an historic opportunity to entrench stability through a union of democracies right across the continent, and one that I passionately believe we must take. The Madrid Council gave further impetus to enlargement. The European Commission has been asked to produce opinions on all eastern and central European applicants as soon as possible after the end of the intergovernmental conference. That is a necessary step towards full accession negotiations, which are likely to begin with at least the most advanced of the new applicants, as well as with Malta and Cyprus, in about two years' time.
The Madrid Council considered reports from the Commission on the implications of enlargement for the European Union's policies, and those are profound. To be affordable and to be consistent with the EU's obligations under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, the common agricultural policy will have to be reformed when the Union enlarges, and so will the structural and the cohesion funds. At my insistence, it was agreed that future meetings of the Council would examine the implications. The Madrid Council has therefore taken an important step towards combining policy reform with enlargement, both of which are essential to the European Union's future.
I shall deal briefly with some of the other subjects that were discussed at Madrid. It was agreed that the intergovernmental conference would start at Turin on 29 March. The conference will be conducted by meetings of Foreign Ministers supported by a working party made up of a representative of each Minister and of the President of the European Commission. No decisions were taken at Madrid on the substance of the intergovernmental conference. Work on the agenda will be carried out under the Italian presidency by Foreign Ministers.
The drive to promote subsidiarity was again strongly in evidence at Madrid and was vigorously supported in informal discussion. The Commission has been instructed to examine the continued need for existing Community legislation and for proposals that are now on the table. It is now widely recognised that the United Kingdom was right to reverse the trend towards greater intrusiveness by the Commission. There was also support for our approach to job creation, flexible pay relating to performance, the curtailing of non-wage labour costs and the reform of social protection systems. Increasing emphasis is being given to small and medium-sized enterprises and to the need to cut the burden of red tape and over-regulation.
The campaign against fraud and for better financial management, which I launched at the Essen Council a year ago, gained further weight at Madrid. The House will welcome the higher priority that is being given to intergovernmental co-operation against drug trafficking. At Madrid I presented, with President Chirac, an initiative to help Caribbean states to crack down on the trans-shipment to Europe and elsewhere of huge quantities of drugs that are produced in Latin America. That initiative was agreed by the Council and is now part of the European Union's policy.

1223
On external affairs, the Council underlined the importance of successful implementation of the Bosnian peace agreement and gave support to Mr. Carl Bildt, who will be there leading the international civilian effort. It also discussed the European Union's relations with Russia, Ukraine and Turkey and welcomed the agreement at the recent European Union/United States summit to strengthen the relationship with the United States.
At the Council, the key decisions for the future were identified rather than taken. The programme of work for the next five years, the "Political Agenda for Europe", is set out in the Madrid conclusions. It is a formidable programme. In that period Europe must review the treaty at the intergovernmental conference; review the Union's policies, including the common agricultural policy and the structural funds; take decisions on a single currency; carry out enlargement negotiations; determine the Community's future financing; contribute to new European security arrangements; and develop its relations with neighbouring countries, especially Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and other Mediterranean countries. The decisions that we take in that period will determine the shape of Europe well into the next century. They will vitally affect the United Kingdom's interests and our future security and prosperity. That is why, at successive meetings of Heads of Government, I have argued for cautious and careful consideration before decisions are finalised.
The European Union must carefully weigh the practical consequences of all those issues. Its decisions must be securely grounded in reality. We need, above all, a Europe that works. In that respect, important steps were taken at Madrid, as they were at Majorca a few months ago. They would not have been taken if we had not been prepared to raise the difficult questions and to demand practical answers to real problems. In the interests of the United Kingdom, it is essential to continue taking a hard-headed approach at the centre of European policy making, and I intend to go on doing so.
Mr. Tony Blair: May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement? There are several areas with which we can obviously agree.
On enlargement, I warmly welcome the European Council's commitment to begin negotiations at an early date. Will the Prime Minister clarify whether those negotiations will indeed begin at the same time as negotiations with Cyprus and Malta? Will he also tell us how the European Union intends to differentiate between countries that will enter more rapidly, such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland, and the others that will take more time? I agree totally with what he says on the common agricultural policy, but instead of using the need to reform the CAP as an excuse to delay the entry of those countries into the European Union, should not we rather be using enlargement as the lever for changing the CAP?
I welcome the agreement at the Council to open the intergovernmental conference in March next year. I also welcome the agreement on the importance of the European Union tackling unemployment as
"its principal social, economic and political objective",
as well as the strongly expressed support in the President's conclusions for social partnership and job creation measures. However, how is such support for
1224
job creation measures and for help for the unemployed consistent with the savage cuts in the training in work programmes for the unemployed in this country today?
I accept and agree with the Council's decision to take more effective action on racismhouses—the Ministers all committed themselves to taking further action on that issue. Will the Prime Minister perhaps tell us what further action he believes we should take here? I also welcome the progress towards implementing the principle of subsidiarity in European law making at the Council, but how can he agree so much with the principle of subsidiarity in Europe and deny it so completely here at home in the United Kingdom?
May I come to the heart of the matter, which is monetary union? Can we be clear on that which has now been agreed unanimously by the European Council: that the Maastricht timetable stands, that the third and final stage of monetary union should begin on 1 January 1999, that all the criteria for convergence, for the setting up of the European central bank and for the fixing of currency conversion rates have been reaffirmed; and that the Prime Minister has agreed to it all in Madrid, despite his objections?
Why then has the Prime Minister been so utterly powerless in this situation? Whatever happened to those great new alliances that we kept reading he built with the French, his triumphal visit to Italy, and his constant claims that the rest of Europe was coming round to his way of thinking? Why was he driven to concealing his impotence with the fig leaf of some study into the effect of the single currency, which was so threadbare as to be an embarrassment to behold? May I tell him why? It is because no one knows what his position on monetary union is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Conservative Members criticise us for our positionhouses—[Interruption.] They cannot have it both ways. They spend half the time criticising us for having a position on the single currency and the other half criticising us for not having one.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he still believes in monetary union, as he used to say he did? Does he want to delay it or does he in fact want to abandon it? Are his hesitations about a single currency those of economic practicality or are they those of constitutional principles?
We do not know what the Government's position is. We do not know because one half of his party believes, as we do, that it depends on Britain's nationalhouses—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Labour party?"] I am saying what our position is. Our position is, like that of some members of the Prime Minister's party, such as the Chancellor, that it depends on national economic interests. The other part of his party, however, believes that there is an insuperable constitutional objection to monetary union. But what is the Prime Minister's position? We have made our position clear: what is his position?
Is not it the case that the divisions between those Conservative Members who believe one thing and those who believe another are so deep that they consign the Prime Minister perpetually to weakness and indecision on the very issue that matters? Is the Chancellor right, for example, in saying that it is 60:40 likely that there will be currency union? Does he agree with that or not? Is the Chancellor right in saying that we may have to decide by March 1998 whether we shall aim at joining?
Is the Prime Minister seriously going to go into an election not telling us where he stands on the issue of constitutional principle? Is he going to tell us or not? Is he

1225
going to be driven to a referendum despite his earlier rejection of it and despite the fact that his Chancellor described it as madhouses—not as a way of letting the British people decide, but as a way of letting the Conservatives avoid deciding the issue of principle? If that is what he is going for, as the papers have been briefed, is it credible that the Cabinethouses—with one half siding with the Chancellor and the other half with the Defence Secretaryhouses—could ever put a united proposition on joining the single currency to the British people? [Interruption.] Some Conservative Members are shouting out that we are the poodles of Europe, and others are saying that we have not made up our minds. The fact is that we have a position set out and the Prime Minister does not. Until he is prepared to say personally what his position is, they cannot resolve the impasse.
For too long, is not it the case that Government policy has proceeded on the fantasy that the rest of Europe was not actually going to proceed with monetary union? Of course it may still not happen, but we can no longer assume that it is not going to happen. Indeed, after Madrid, we should surely assume the opposite. I put it to the Prime Minister that it is simply no longer tolerable that, because of the divisions in the Conservative party, a proper national debate on the single currency is postponed, the Cabinet muzzled and the Chancellor sworn to silence on an issue that profoundly affects the future of this country.
Is not it time for a serious and well-informed national debate to begin? The Government's European policy after Madrid is still in tatters and uncertain. Rebuilding that policy is essential for Britain's credibility. To rebuild it, we must have the debate on this issue that has been suppressed for too long, and time is running out.
The Prime Minister: I shall first touch on the points on which I am in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. I, too, as he acknowledged, am in favour of enlargement. On the timing of enlargement, as I said in the statement, a small number of stateshouses—and in answer to his particular question, that will depend on the Commission's opinion, which will largely be based on economic criteria, so it is an unknown numberhouses—will begin negotiations at the same time as Cyprus and Malta. The matter of which ones they are will depend on the detailed examination of their economies, which will take place immediately.
On the common agricultural policy, I am of course doing precisely what the right hon. Gentleman asked me to do over using enlargement as a lever for changehouses—which we have long argued is necessaryhouses—and reform, to which a number of Labour Members are late converts.
Of course unemployment is important. Much of the debate on unemployment was concerned with the need for deregulatory moves and for cutting down the costs that have led to so much unemployment across Europe. What was signally missing from the right hon. Gentleman's tirade was an acknowledgment that it is here, in this country, that unemployment is falling, and that it is in the socialist countries of Europe that unemployment is in some cases well over 20 per cent., and in other cases 12 or 13 per cent., where non-socialist Governments have inherited the effect of socialist Governments.
There was no substantive discussion among Heads of Government on racism. There had been discussion at an earlier stage. There is general agreement that where there are loopholes in legislation across Europe, individual
1226
countries will seek to deal with them. The loophole that arises with the United Kingdom is over the fact that it is possible to print racist material here. It cannot be distributed here, but it could conceivably be printed here for distribution abroad. Clearly, that is a loophole that we would wish to block and I have indicated that we will certainly block that. There are some minor technical issues still being worked out, but I do not envisage that they will cause any great difficulties. They will be examined.
The points about subsidiarity are familiar. We have debated them on many occasions in the past. We are a single nation state. The point about subsidiarity is taking authority from nation states to a central body, not the distribution of authority within a nation state.
On economic and monetary union, the right hon. Gentleman is certainly correct to say that we reiterated the treaty timetable. The treaty timetable was originally in the Maastricht treaty. For those who are able to meet ithouses—that is an unknown and probably small numberhouses—it has again been reiterated.
The right hon. Gentleman had something to say about divisions. He was not of course as clear as he might have been about his own position. Does he agree with the deputy leader of the Labour party, who again was in Europe making mischief on other matters over the weekend? Does he agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who said of a single currency,
"Yes we are against a single currency"?
Or does he agree with the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who said that he was
"Personally…in favour of a single currency"?
Does he agree with his Members of the European Parliament, who are in favour of a single currency within the time limits and timetable, or with the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who said some time ago that setting such a timetable would be "irresponsible"?
It is good to see that there is such clear-cut agreement and leadership in the Labour party on that vital issue. If the right hon. Gentleman had observed the faces behind him, I do not think that he would have said much about agreement in the Labour party. I seem to recall reading recently that one third of the Labour party is in favour of a single currency, one third is against, and one third of them have not yet made up their minds or do not know. That is the right hon. Gentleman's idea of agreement on that extremely difficult and complex position.
I have made it perfectly clear on a number of occasions that there are questions about a single currency that are vital to this country's interests, which are not yet known. It is the answers to those questions that I have demanded are examined in the European Union. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to make up his mind on the most important single economic issue that we have faced this century without the facts, let him take that position in this great national debatehouses—although if he is entering into a great national debate, he might make up his own mind what his own position is before he tries to debate with anybody else. Those are issues of immense importance. We will demand that they are properly discussed so that a proper decision can be taken in the interests of this country, when the facts are known and not before.
The right hon. Gentleman contradicted himself. He said that I had said that a single currency could not proceed, and that it would not happen. Then he said that, of course,

1227
it may not—in successive sentences. What I have said consistently is that the small minority may proceed. It is dangerous if a small minority proceeds and is not ready, and it is potentially damaging if a small minority proceeds without knowing the implications for the majority of countries that do not proceed.
Even on the most favourable interpretation and the most optimistic scenario, fewer than half the citizens in the European Union would be part of a single currency union at the outset. That is quite apart from the position of the 10 or more countries that may enter the European Union over the next few years, but which will not be remotely ready for European currency union for very many years in most cases.
For as far ahead as we can see, whether a minority goes ahead—there is certainly a chance that a minority will—it is undeniable that a majority will not be in a single currency in 1999, and a majority will not be in a single currency for very many years.
Mr. Douglas Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend, in contrast to the Leader of the Opposition today, keep his mind open to the idea of a referendum on a single currency, should the Government at any stage decide that it is in Britain's interests to join?
The Prime Minister: I recall discussing that matter with my right hon. Friend as long as two years ago. I know that he has thought long and hard about the implications for Europe and for this country of a single currency. I agree with him that we need to be clear about the circumstances and the conditions. The study that we commissioned in Madrid will help in that.
I can certainly reassure my right hon. Friend that, for a decision of such magnitude, we shall keep in mind the possibility of a referendum, if the Cabinet were to recommend British entry. That has been in my mind, as my right hon. Friend knows, for a long time and it remains there. I think that it is right to keep that before us for consideration.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Watch that space. Is not it the case that what the Prime Minister has today described as a formidable programme is what he told us a year ago had about as much relevance as a rain dance? Some rain dance.
Does the Prime Minister understand that the whole nation has now spotted and understands his formula for ducking difficult decisions on Europe? It consists of obstructionism abroad, and appeasement at home; of playing the Euro-realist in the conference chamber, and the Euro-sceptic in the columns of The Daily Telegraph. Does the Prime Minister believe that that is the kind of leadership this country needs on an issue of such importance, and that we should be asked to hide from our future to cover the divisions in the Conservative party?
Does not the Prime Minister understand that trying to face both ways at once in Europe means that he cannot see what is right in front of him? What is now in front of us in Europe is rising nationalism within our borders, deepening chaos outside, and—I regret—the strong probability of isolationism growing in the United States of America. Chancellor Kohl can see that; President
1228
Chirac can see that; and every other leader in Europe can see that. But the Prime Minister is so mesmerised by the divisions in his party that he is blind to it.
The Chancellor said only two days ago that he believed that there was a 60:40 chance of monetary union occurring before the end of the century, and that the economies that would join it would be the strong ones. Does the Prime Minister agree?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman started off by completely misquoting what I wrote in The Economist two years ago. The answer to his first question, therefore, is no. He was talking complete unadulterated rubbish, and continued to do so for some time. What I actually wrote in The Daily Telegraph was what I said in the conference chamber to my fellow Heads of Government. The right hon. Gentleman can therefore be in no doubt that the message I deliver here in this Chamber is—
Mr. Ashdown indicated dissent.
The Prime Minister: Oh, the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He was there, was he? It was he who brought in the tea, coffee and the biscuits. What I said in that conference chamber is what I said here, what I wrote down and what I will take to the country.
The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the issue. He has a slogan. He believes that whatever happens in Europe, he and his colleagues should rattle along behind it whether it is right or wrong, whether it is considered or not and whether it is in this country's interests or not. He does not know enough about the subject to consider the implications.
What the right hon. Gentleman said was copper-plated nonsense. He does not know, for example, what would be the effect of a partial EMU among some countries on Community decision taking. Can he tell me the answer to that question? Of course, he cannot. He does not even understand the question, let alone the answer. I shall spare the House the long list of the other questions that he does not understand.
Sir Terence Higgins: Is not it high time that we stopped talking about a single currency, as what is now envisaged is clearly a core currency? That is the expression that we should use. Is not it equally apparent that it is inconceivable that the members of an enlarged Community would be able to move towards a single currency in the foreseeable future?
On a referendum, is not this a highly complex issue? My right hon. Friend has rightly pointed out that the leader of the Liberal party does not understand it. The public do not even know the difference between a single and a common currency. Will my right hon. Friend therefore bear the complexity of the issues in mind?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right to draw the distinction between a single and a core currency, because, as I said to the House a moment ago, at the outset only a minority would be members. In the couple of decades ahead, with the growth of the European Union, there is no prospect that there would be one single currency right across the enlarged European Union. Of course, it may cover some countries—that has certainly always been possible—but it will not cover them all. My right hon. Friend is right about that.

1229
On the complexities of a referendum, I understand entirely my right hon. Friend's point, and that is why we are considering the matter carefully.
Mr. Peter Shore: The Prime Minister is clearly moving in the right direction—[Interruption.] Will he confirm what he has previously said: that the United Kingdom will not join, or rejoin the exchange rate mechanism during this Parliament? If that is so, as I believe it is, will he confirm that the United Kingdom will not join a single currency on 1 January 1999 for the simple reason that whatever may be the wishes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we shall not conform with the necessary qualifying rule of rejoining the ERM two years before the actual decision about the single currency is made in March 1998?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that when he said that he would not recommend that Britain should join or rejoin the ERM after some countries have gone ahead and joined the single currency, that means in effect that we shall never join the single currency because one cannot join it unless one first rejoins the ERM?
The Prime Minister: Let me try to clarify matters for the right hon. Gentleman. I was interested when he said that I was moving in the right direction, because the look of pain upon the faces of those on the Opposition Front Bench was a joy to behold. That was one of those occasions when I am so pleased that we have television in the Chamber.
I certainly reiterate to the right hon. Gentleman that I made it perfectly clear that we would not go back into the ERM in this Parliament. As I said in my statement, I do not propose that I would take sterling back into a changed ERM in the next Parliament either. The right hon. Gentleman concluded from that that we shall not meet the Maastricht criteria, but that is no longer the case, because the ERM that existed at the time of our membership no longer exists. If one were to apply those strict criteria, the reality would be that nobody would be able to enter a single currency. The other Maastricht criteria, of course, fully apply, while the ERM criteria for all of Europe disappear because, the right hon. Gentleman may recall, they were effectively to be a part of the inner band of the ERM, which no longer exists.
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: As the number of difficult and technical issues connected with the move to a single currency mount, does not the wisdom of my right hon. Friend in negotiating a double option for Britain become more and more apparent? Will he give the country an assurance that he does not intend to throw away either of those options in the near future?
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, while criticising the opt-out that my right hon. Friend negotiated, clutches it to his own bosom? As the Leader of the Opposition says that there are no constitutional issues attached to a move to a single currency, is not the logic of his position that, if Britain were to be convergent, we would automatically enter a single currency?
The Prime Minister: That is certainly the logic of the Leader of the Opposition's position, and we look forward to his early confirmation of that, so that no one can be in any doubt when he begins the great national debate that he has called for. With regard to my right hon. Friend's
1230
earlier remarks, both the opt-outs are the envy of many of our European partners, which wish that they had negotiated them. I intend to exercise to the full the opportunities given to this country by that negotiation.
Mr. Giles Radice: May I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on publicly resisting the demand of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and other Euro-sceptics that the Government rule out the option of Britain joining a single currency within the next Parliament?
The Prime Minister: I indicated, first in my reply to the Leader of the Opposition 10 days ago and again over the weekend, that I was not prepared to rule out the option of joining a single currency in the next Parliament. Nobody should draw any conclusions either way about that, and I will reiterate to the hon. Gentleman why that is the case.
It is very important that this country's voice—raising questions that would not have been examined but for this country—is heard in the negotiations right up to the time when a decision is taken as to who should join and who should not. Whether we exercise the right to opt in or to opt out, this country—and every other country in the European Union—will, in one form or another, be affected by the decision to proceed to a single currency, even if only a minority of countries proceed. Upon that basis, I do not believe that this country's voice—one of the most powerful in Europe—should be excluded from that debate.
Mr. William Cash: I very much hope that my right hon. Friend succeeds in his opposition to federalism in Europe, but does he accept that monetary union is tied up with political union? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we sold the pass at Madrid, because we did not disagree with the determination of the other member states—buttressed by the determination of Germany and by a capitulating France—to go ahead with political union? Does he agree that we must ensure soon—in a White Paper or by some other means—that we no longer go down the route of political union? Should we not utterly repudiate the use of British taxpayers' money on a propaganda exercise by the European Commission to promote the very political union that my right hon. Friend has expressed himself to be so against?
The Prime Minister: I do not believe that the pass was sold in our discussions in Madrid. We agreed to discuss questions which must be discussed but which have not yet been discussed. It would be folly to proceed without having detailed and proper answers to those questions. Many aspects of political union will come up in different parts of the intergovernmental conference. We are considering carefully our precise response to all the important points that will come up there.
On the expenditure on publicity, I am bound to say that the Commission's public relations campaign was not, as reported, put to Heads of Government at Madrid and received no specific endorsement from Heads of Government at Madrid. The reason is that the Commission has authority to determine the proportion of its budget to be spent on information work and has chosen to exercise it in that fashion. It was emphatically not a matter that was put to Heads of Government at Madrid and endorsed by them.
Mr. James Molyneaux: The Prime Minister will have noted that on page 8 of the communiqué, there appear the words:
"kept on a sound track".
Assuming that those words refer not to some method of amplification but to sound money within Europe, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has rightly said that the decision is one of the most important this country has taken for, perhaps, 200 years, will he consider the establishment of a super, high-powered Select Committee, with representatives of all parties in the House thereon, to examine and come up with hard facts as opposed to opinions? Such a Committee would have the extra benefit of enabling certain parties to concentrate their own minds.
The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that the words "sound track" relate to sound money and sound economic policies. The guiding lights of those were first put in the Maastricht treaty, at British insistence. They remain there for any move forward to EMU and have the strong support of a number of other nation states. I shall reflect on what the right hon. Gentleman said. Within Government, we shall conduct our own examination of whether those matters are being followed, quite apart from an examination of the outcome of the Maastricht criteria.
Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his excellent questions at Madrid about the ill-named "Euro", its huge potential cost for the European budget, its divisive potential and its threat to employment in Europe were penetrating and timely? It is a great pity that we have not heard similar intelligent questions from Opposition Front-Bench Members.
Looking ahead, does my right hon. Friend accept that if we get to the transitional period, when a hard "Euro" will circulate along with the national currencies, the system will have some resemblance to his own plan for the hard ecu, which he put forward five years ago? Will my right hon. Friend suggest a more intelligent and modified version, if we get to the transitional period, to make it a permanent period on the ground that nothing lasts like the provisional?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is correct to say that in the proposed transitional period of 1999–2002, the new currency will effectively co-exist as a parallel currency with national currencies rather than as a core currency, to use the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins). That is similar to the hard ecu proposal which I first put forward in 1990, except that it would not proceed, as the hard ecu would have proceeded under my proposal, by a market-driven route to become a single currency, but would move, under the present proposals, arbitrarily on a fixed state to become a single currency.
It may be that as we approach that period, the prospect of reviving the sound economics of the hard ecu proposal will return. At the moment, enthusiasm for proceeding under the Maastricht treaty route remains and I am not optimistic about the hard ecu reappearing. In economic terms, I do not believe by any stretch of the imagination that I am the only Head of Government sitting round the table who now regrets that we did not take that route.
Madam Speaker: Mr. Andrew Faulds.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Was there any discussion in Madrid that
1232
because of the plasticity of European purpose, or perhaps lack of policy, America had to step in to sort out the Bosnian imbroglio and bring just the possibility of peace?
The Prime Minister: There was some discussion of future policy in Bosnia. There was no look back on how the present position came about. There was considerable discussion about the peace implementation force and about the activities of Carl Bildt in ensuring that the civilian aspects of the Bosnian peace are carried forward. We spent some time discussing that and no one is in any doubt about the huge matters that still have to be dealt with.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any core currency is bound to contain both France and Germany? France's attitude towards the core currency will be vitally influenced by whether Britain is there as a balancing power against Germany. Are we not going to create great resentment if we do not tell France and Germany as soon as possible what our attitude in principle is?
The Prime Minister: Our attitude is one of practice. We shall make our decision when we know precisely what the circumstances may be that would impact upon our country. Whatever interest we may have in helping France or other countries to make up their mind, and I appreciate that they may welcome a view of where Britain might be at some stage, the first obligation that we have is to make the right decision for this country. I do not believe that we can make the right decision for this country until we know the answer to questions as yet unanswered and know the economic circumstances that have not, as yet, unfolded.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Does the Prime Minister exclude UK participation in any exchange rate arrangements if EMU does go ahead?
The Prime Minister: I certainly do not exclude UK agreement to matters such as inflation targets in order to ensure a market-driven route towards largely convergent economic policies and secure exchange rates. I do not believe that going back into the artificiality of an exchange rate mechanism, which, on this occasion, would be outside the core currencies, is a negotiable proposition among the Heads of Government and it is not one that I would wish sterling to join, as I said earlier.
Sir Giles Shaw: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which he is handling these issues? I remind him that a policy which is both careful and cautious is a policy of prudence and that, bearing in mind the complexity and the scale of the ultimate decisions on the matter, he is absolutely right to occupy the crease and bat for Britain as long as it takes?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a long and distinguished interest in European matters. I assure him that I shall continue to do that. When I indicated to the House earlier that the decisions taken upon monetary matters and enlargement were crucial not just to the future of this country but to the future of all Europe, I did not regard that as a casual throwaway line, but I meant it to be taken absolutely as I stated it. It is fundamentally true. For that reason, I believe that we have an obligation to be cautious. The burden of proof must rest upon those who wish us to make the change rather than those who wish us not to do so. I think that we are right to be cautious and I will remain cautious.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not the truth of the matter that the Madrid decisions, with which the

1233
Prime Minister acquiesced, represent another two or three small steps towards economic and monetary union? Why did not the Prime Minister vote against some of the issues that were presented to him? Why did not the Government decide to oppose that barmy name "Euro" for the currency? Is not the fact of the matter that the Prime Minister has come here today to represent a lot of camouflage about the Madrid summit to try to appease his Back Benchers, when the truth is that he sold out at Madrid and that the people out there will understand that?
The Prime Minister: If camouflage was needed, I would have thought that it was between the Labour Front Bench and below the Gangway on that side of the House. If there is going to be a debate, I suggest that it starts on Labour Benches, and Labour Members can try and work out precisely what their position is. We now see just how split, despite all they have said, they really are on European matters, and have been right from the start. [HON: MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, in every respect, is no.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: While it is correct, as my right hon. Friend has said, that if the wrong decisions are taken on monetary union, the result will be turmoil and chaos, could I possibly dig out of him an admission, however tentative, that if the right decisions are taken, to create a currency union among 150 million of the world's richest citizens could be highly beneficial to all the nations concerned?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend puts precisely the question to which an answer needs to be found. We cannot be certain of an answer to that question without answers to the questions that I asked in Madrid, which is precisely why I asked those questions. We need to know the answers before making a judgment, which is the view of a number of people in Europe. Equally passionate views are held in the opposite direction. Until we know the details and answers to those questions, it is not possible to take a rational view of the implications of a single currency. That is what I seek to provide.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: My question is on a different but increasingly important issue, in view of events in Russia: the Community's relations with the Ukraine. What exactly are we doing to help those people? In his talks with President Kuchma last week, what did the Prime Minister respond to the President, who is also the former technical director of Baikenor, on technical co-operation, not least in relation to the Ukraine's valuable resources in space, which are left over from the Soviet Union, and the skills that could benefit us all?
The Prime Minister: I raised a number of matters when I spoke to President Kuchma a week or so ago. As the hon. Gentleman and the House would have expected, we discussed Chernobyl and spent some time discussing the package of support that the international community has now provided for closing Chernobyl at the turn of the century. We also looked at a variety of ways in which we could increase the trading and investment relationship between the United Kingdom and the Ukraine. There is huge scope, particularly in the energy sector, for the mutual benefit of British investment and for British technology to go into the Ukraine, where it would be warmly welcomed by the Ukrainians. I also stressed to
1234
President Kuchma that one of the inhibitions to ensuring that that investment can proceed are the present financial and legal restraints in parts of the Ukraine.
That was the substance of our discussion. It was an extremely worthwhile visit, which will be followed up by further ministerial visits to the Ukraine. I hope that some of those will take with them high-powered delegations of business men, so that we can examine the business relationship between the United Kingdom and the Ukraine and build on it, because the Ukraine will be an important part of the European business scene in future.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Despite the usual trading of insults between the party leaders today on this momentous matter, which is of great importance to this country, and the regrettable lack of listening to the sensible suggestions made by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, would not it be a good idea for the party leaders to get together? As a large majority of Members of this House are in favour of EMU, they could, on a free-vote basis, present the positive factors in favour of monetary union to the British public.
The Prime Minister: I always believe in the politics of rationality. My hon. Friend pitches a question that would demand a high price for the Leader of the Opposition in terms of discussing the reality of what lies immediately ahead. I saw no great sign of it from the leader of the Liberal Democrats this afternoon. If we can determine the answer to the questions that I have put, they will be material to framing the opinions of people in this House and beyond about the desirability or otherwise of the course that was set out some time ago. I reiterate the same point because it is undeniable: without that information, credible decisions cannot be taken. I am trying to provide it. I shall then willingly make it available to the Leader of the Opposition in a tutorial or in any other way that he wishes.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As a decision must ultimately be taken, will a time limit be placed on the study? What will happen once the study becomes available? Will it be widely available and how will we move into decision mechanisms?
The Prime Minister: It is not quite clear how long the study will take. I saw it reported that it will take two or three years. That is clearly nonsense—it will take nothing like that. I would expect a report when we get to Florence in the summer, but I am not sure whether it will be the definitive report, and neither is anybody else. Once the report has been produced, I am sure that it will be discussed by ECOFIN and the European Council. It may be placed on the European Council's agenda, but that has not yet been decided.
Sir Teddy Taylor: In view of the substantial misery and unemployment created already by European fixed exchange rates, is the Prime Minister aware that people with all kinds of views of EMU will enthusiastically welcome his statement that, in the event of the "Euro" being established by a small number of countries, there is no way that sterling will have a fixed relationship with it? Am I correct in my interpretation and, if so, does the Prime Minister accept that that will be very widely welcomed, not only in the Conservative party?
The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend sets out the position entirely accurately. It is as he says.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I say to the Prime Minister that, personally; I very much welcome the concept of a single currency, although certain safeguards are necessary, including making unemployment levels part of the convergence criteria?
On a more practical matter, was the story in the Sunday newspapers—that the Queen's head is too large for the "Euro" coin—true? If that is so, does the Prime Minister intend to negotiate the size of the coin, or does he have more drastic measures in mind?
The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentleman's first argument about unemployment levels, I simply have to say to him that, if he were to make unemployment levels part of the convergence criteria, there would be no single currency in his political lifetime, however long that is likely to be.
Ms Clare Short: It depends what the banding is.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady says, "It depends what it is." She probably believes that the 13 per cent. of France is a good convergence level. I am not sure that that is what her hon. Friend had in mind. Perhaps that is another difference between Labour Front and Back-Bench Members; I cannot imagine. We seem to be uncovering so many differences today that it is difficult to determine. Let us hope that we can go on and find some more.
Sir Peter Hordern: As very few countries will be able to qualify for the single currency, will my right hon. Friend say what the position of those countries will be when they find that their economies are subject to intense competition from the countries that do not form part of the single currency? Will he give the House an assurance that, in that event, there can be no suggestion of any reprisals being taken by members of the single currency against countries outside it?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend puts his finger on precisely one of the matters that I have been raising with our colleagues at the European Council. It is precisely for that reason that some of the countries that anticipate that they will be in a single currency have asked for an exchange rate mechanism outside the single currency, to prevent the flexibility with which countries usually deal with economic difficulties. The danger of that, apart from the inherent difficulties that have been demonstrated several times in the past six or seven years, is that it would lead to very high structural levels of unemployment in some of the weaker-performing countries in the southern part of Europe.
That is precisely the matter that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) brought to the forefront of my mind a moment or so ago, when he suggested that unemployment levels should be convergent. If that were the case, many of the southern countries of Europe would never, on that basis, be likely to meet the criteria for gaining admission to a single currency. That might mean that a European Union—although I believe that it will become more variable in the application of its policies to different members, and I believe that that is desirable—would for the first time find a fundamental variation in policy on one of the very basics of the whole basis of the European Union, that is, the currency question.
1236
Those are questions of immense importance. There is, as yet, no credible answer to the question that my right hon. Friend asks. I am asking for one.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: As economic and monetary union surely requires the convergence of the total economies of the member states, why is it that only certain indices in the public sector are included? Why not also include comparable indices in the balancing private sector?
Surely economic and monetary union also requires the establishment of a centralised, absolute monarchy of bankers, who are separate from national Governments and from the institutions of the Community. However, surely one of the principles of European Union is to defend the western view of democracy, which is voting into power assemblies that, in turn, control government? Is not that an anomaly, and will the Prime Minister tell us whether the European Council has explained that anomaly? If it has not, will he do so now?
The Prime Minister: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments about convergence, although he is plainly wrong when he refers to convergence as only affecting matters in the public sector. One of the most important convergents is a high degree of price stability. Price stability, which has clear implications for what is happening elsewhere in the economy, not only is a matter for the public sector, but goes right across the economy as a whole. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on that point and I think that his subsequent points were addressed and determined many years ago.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his description of the other member states, which he said were rushing like lemmings over a cliff towards currency union? While 150 million people may be inside the currency union, is it not a fact that 5.5 billion people remain outside it? Is it not a perfectly viable option for this country to choose to opt out of monetary union and model ourselves on the thousands of economies round the world—large and small—which have independent currencies?
The Prime Minister: That is certainly an option. From the moment when I negotiated the opt-out at Maastricht, it has always been possible that this country might decide to take the decision, in its own interests, not to be a part of a larger currency union. There is no doubt that we could continue without entering into a currency union. We would have to decide whether the balance of advantage for the Government, the City, the economy and our future trading relationships rested with our being in or being out. That is precisely the substantive point. Of course we could be out and there is no doubt that we could stay out. We shall have to weigh the balance of advantage when the time comes.
My hon. Friend is correct in his earlier point: more citizens of Europe will be outside the single currency at the outset, and for some years afterwards, than inside it.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the Prime Minister confirm that it was the common understanding of our partners at Madrid that no substantive decisions would be made on the IGC until after the conclusion of the election in this country? Does that not mean that,

1237
increasingly, this Administration will be seen by our partners as a lame duck Administration, which is bad for Britain?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman builds his question upon a false premise, as there was no such agreement at Majorca or at Madrid. When we begin the intergovernmental conference, which will be launched in Turin on 29 March, I hope that we shall begin to take decisions as we move through the year. Decisions will not all be held to the end of the year. We may complete the intergovernmental conference within a year, or it may take longer. If we complete it within a year, the whole matter may be determined within the lifetime of this Parliament. That is the decision that I have reached and, unless the hon. Gentleman was serving biscuits somewhere, he is in no position to shake his head.
Sir Archibald Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of the drive in Europe has come from Germany, which has a lot to do with the fact that Chancellor Kohl is ashamed of Germany's past and frightened for its future? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the democratic institutions in Europe are woefully inadequate? If we drive towards political union without proper democratic representation at the centre, it will lead to the emergence of fascist and ultra-nationalist parties, which will want to withdraw from Europe and break up the European Union. That would deny Chancellor Kohl the goal that he is seeking and, for many hon. Members, would lead to a very unsatisfactory outcome.
The Prime Minister: The democratic institutions of Europe are bound to be considered at the intergovernmental conference. That is true of both the present powers and nature of the European Commission and the other institutional questions, which will be considered expressly during the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. We must examine those issues for another reason, apart from those set out by my right hon. Friend. As the European Union enlarges—as I profoundly hope that it will——I believe that it will provide an historic opportunity for this generation of politicians to change the face of Europe in a thoroughly beneficial way. In those circumstances, many of the present institutions of the European Union will prove inadequate to deal with the enlarged number.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Thank you, Prime Minister. We must now move on to the second statement. I regret that so many hon. Members are disappointed, but I have kept the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box for more than an hour.

Rail Franchising
4.33 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the franchising of passenger rail services.
The House will be aware that, on Friday, the Court of Appeal, considering an application for judicial review by Save Our Railways, found against the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising on whether the passenger service requirements for some of the first seven franchises had been developed in accordance with the instructions and guidance that had been issued to him by the Secretary of State.
The court ruled that the franchising director could proceed with the award of the first three franchises—Great Western, South West Trains and London Tilbury and Southend Rail—although it ruled that the PSR for LTS Rail was not consistent with the instructions. The court also ruled that the PSRs for the next four franchises were similarly inconsistent. In doing so, the court was overruling an earlier judgment of the High Court that had dismissed the judicial review.
The court's ruling comes after the franchising director made excellent progress in preparing the first franchises for award to the private sector. Indeed, the first three franchises are ready to be awarded soon.
We have, of course, given careful consideration to the implications of the court's judgment. I confirm that, as planned, the franchising director hopes to announce the award of the first three franchises later this week, and I welcome the court's agreement that he should go ahead with them.
The court has been concerned with the consistency between the franchising director's instructions and guidance and the PSRs. It is, in the court's words, a "limited legal problem". The court has not questioned the Government's policy. Indeed, the judgment describes the franchising director's approach to developing PSRs as
"intelligible and in no way irrational".
The franchising director has prepared his PSRs in a manner which my predecessors and I have consistently approved. We believed them to be consistent with the formal instructions and guidance that were given to him. The Court of Appeal has now examined the meaning of the existing instructions and guidance and concluded that the existing PSRs are not consistent with them.
I have decided, therefore, to clarify the instructions and guidance to the franchising director to ensure that they reflect beyond doubt the policy that we have always followed. Franchisees should have flexibility to adjust commercial services, but the franchise agreement should ensure that a core service level is protected so that service levels operated by franchisees are broadly similar to those operated immediately prior to franchising. My intention is to ensure that the work done in developing the PSRs so far can be relied on in the continuing franchising process.
I am pleased to tell the House that, while clarifying the franchising director's instructions, I intend to go beyond the requirements of the Court of Appeal judgment. I shall instruct him, when considering the award of future franchises, to take account of bidders' contractual

1239
commitments to, and future plans for, providing services over and above the PSR. In practice, bidders for the first franchises are offering significant commitments in addition to the minima required by the invitations to tender, and they have been taken into account by the franchising director when evaluating bids, but I have judged it right to require him formally to do so for the future to ensure the continuation of that policy.
In view of the uncertainty generated by the court's judgment, I hope that the House will welcome this statement of the Government's intentions. Our concern is to ensure that passengers should be allowed to enjoy as soon as possible the benefits that franchising will bring. The Government's policy has been clear and consistent and I assure the House that there will be no change as a result of last Friday's judgment.
Ms Clare Short: Will the Secretary of State confirm that his statement amounts to an admission that the early franchises prepared by the franchise director, who is a creature of the Secretary of State, did not guarantee services as good as those currently provided by British Rail? Does he further agree that the courts found that five of the seven early franchises were in breach of his guidelines and undertakings to Parliament?
Will the Secretary of State clarify his statement in plain language? Is he admitting that, because the early franchises were not in line with his own guidance, he now plans to rewrite the guidance and reduce the minimum standards required to "a core service level"—which is a new concept—and to take into account non-contractual promises? Will his revised guidelines permit the four franchises that were ruled illegal by the Court of Appeal to go ahead without revision?
Does the Secretary of State agree that the first three franchises should now be withdrawn? First, the franchise for the London-Tilbury-Southend line was held to be illegal by the Court of Appeal, although for technical legal reasons it was not stopped; in honour, it should be stopped. Secondly, it would be wrong to let early franchises on the basis of guidelines that are different from those that will apply to later franchises. Indeed, I think that it would lead to litigation.
Finally, does the Secretary of State accept that even those who initially supported rail privatisation now believe that the method chosen by the Government is a disaster and will produce less investment and worse services in return for more public subsidy? Will the right hon. Gentleman now agree to halt the privatisation process and review progress? Surely he will agree that it is wrong for him to proceed on the basis of party dogma. His duty is to protect the national interest—and that requires him to halt the process of rail privatisation.
Sir George Young: I was pleased to see on Ceefax that the hon. Lady is reported to have welcomed Railtrack's current 10-year investment strategy. That strategy is possible at the higher level envisaged only because we are privatising Railtrack. At no point has the hon. Lady or the Labour party made a commitment to provide more resources for Railtrack, but more resources will be available as a result of privatisation.
The court specifically ruled that the franchising director should be allowed to go ahead with all three of the first franchises, as it would be detrimental to good
1240
administration if he were prevented from doing so. I hope that he will proceed; I think that when he does, and when the franchise bids are in the public domain, people will realise that much of the concern that has been expressed is unfounded.
I hope that the hon. Lady noted from my statement that, to deal with some of the concern that has been expressed, I am giving guarantees over and above those that were necessary to comply with the court's judgment. It is important to understand that the minimum PSRs are not the same as the timetable. I genuinely believe that, as we make progress with franchising, and as people see the quality of the bids and the range of services provided by the private sector, much of the concern of the past few weeks will be shown to have been unfounded.
Sir Alan Haselhurst: Do not the Government's critics seriously underestimate the level of service that will be provided under the franchises? Will not the timetables prove less of a mirage than some of those published by British Rail? At present, services can be removed with relative impunity—as, for example, on the London to Cambridge line, which goes through my constituency. No guarantees whatever are given.
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the structure that we are introducing, passengers will be given guarantees that were not available to them before. First, key fares will be guaranteed and linked to the retail prices index or lower. Secondly, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, services specified in the contract will have to be provided for a minimum of seven years. That guarantee has never existed under a regime operated by British Rail.
I also agree with my hon. Friend's view that, now that we can make progress with the awarding of franchises, people will realise that a better service can be provided. We want to hear from the Opposition at some point whether they will confiscate franchises from the private sector even when they provide passengers with a better service at less cost to the taxpayer.
Mr. David Chidgey: The Secretary of State will know that, in our previous debate on this matter, it was made clear that the PSRs were based on the existing British Rail timetable. It appears from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that they will be based on something broadly similar to existing services. By what criteria will he be guided in future in ensuring that the PSRs are legal?
It seems that the right hon. Gentleman intends to proceed with the first tranche of three franchises with the current PSRs rather than with what would be preferred. If that is so, does he recognise that inconsistencies will be built in across the region between two levels of service? What action does he propose to overcome that inevitable disparity?
Sir George Young: I said in my statement that I planned to change the guidance and instructions, and explained the general lines on which that would be done. I shall, of course, place the new guidance and instructions in the Library so that hon. Members may inspect them.
I genuinely believe that the franchising director is approaching the matter in the right way. The country has been divided into 25 regions. The franchising director is inviting people to bid for services; he will then choose the best bid. I believe that, when we make progress with the

1241
policy, the hon. Gentleman will see that it is possible to run a railway that is better than that of the past 30 or 40 years, which has consistently declined. Our policy will unlock access to fresh investment that will not be constrained by being in the public sector, and will invite people outside British Rail to operate services. I think that it is possible to provide a better range of services, to market those services more efficiently, to introduce more creative fare structures and to reverse the historic decline in railway use—and I believe that our policy will do that.
Mr. Paul Channon: The guidance that my right hon. Friend has announced will be widely welcomed both in the House and outside. It would be disastrous if the first three franchises were not awarded. Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents, who have lived with an inadequate British Rail service for half a century, are now looking forward to a better service, and look to him to ensure that the process goes ahead?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support. I can confirm that the franchising director has said that there have been good quality bids in response to the invitations to tender. I hope that, in the near future, it will be possible to proceed with the franchise for LTS Rail; my right hon. Friend's constituents will then be able to see the quality of the service being offered, and the debate will move from the theoretical to the actual. People will be able to see for themselves exactly what services are being provided, and I am happy for our policy to be judged on that basis.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is it not demeaning for a Secretary of State to have to rewrite the rules to bring the bids into line? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us precisely how much each taxpayer will have to pay if the Government write off billions of pounds of debt, throw away the assets of the railway system and, on top of that, make taxpayers provide a larger subsidy than they provide now?
Sir George Young: The hon. Lady will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with the thrust of her questions. All our experience has shown that, at the end of the day, the taxpayer does better when nationalised industries are privatised. We are familiar with the £50 million a week that the nationalised industries were costing us, and the £50 million a week that the privatised industries now bring in. I see no reason why our privatisation policy should not bring benefits not only to taxpayers but to passengers.
Sir Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Opposition were truly interested in the travelling public and the railway industry, they would oppose any further delays and uncertainty? If we are to secure much-needed investment, the faster we get on with the franchising process the better. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the next batch of franchises will be let very rapidly, particularly the franchise for the South Eastern Train Company?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I hope that, now that we have clarified the legal position, the franchising director will be able to make good progress with the next round of franchises.
What we must hear from the Opposition at some point is where the extra investment is to come from if it is not to come from the private sector. Is it to be
1242
secured by means of higher taxation or higher fares, or would Labour cut the level of service provided by British Rail?
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I welcome the good news—for those who have a railway in their area—that fares will be pegged. Will the Secretary of State confirm, however, that the secret of the process is the question of core services? "Core services" means scarcer services. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be doing to our rail services what Beeching did some years ago: he pulled down a three-storey mansion and replaced it with a cottage. Now that the cottage is to go, what will be left, particularly in the north-west?
Sir George Young: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has looked at the details of what is proposed by the franchising director. Every station and every line is guaranteed, and we have opened or reopened some 229 stations since we came to power in 1979. The Beeching decimation was a feature of a previous Labour Administration. I am determined to reverse that and to secure a prosperous railway that is built on the private sector, that is more customer-oriented and that is not wholly dependent on taxpayers' funds. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will be better served by the railway that I have just described.
Sir David Madel: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the franchising director will look in particular for a commitment to improve industrial relations when franchise companies run the lines?
Sir George Young: The franchising director is responsible for deciding who shall pre-qualify for the bids, and I know that he will take into account the factor that my hon. Friend has outlined.
During the past few years, British Rail has been disrupted by industrial action. I hope that the more regional approach that we have promoted—whereby local employees deal directly with one of the 25 operating companies—will reduce the likelihood of national strikes. I believe that smaller units of management and a better relationship between staff and local management is a better way in which to promote good industrial relations.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: If the Secretary of State were to respect the Appeal Court's decision, would he be required to give new instructions to the franchising director? Will he put rail privatisation to the test and allow a vote in the House—or is he too worried about the reactions of his Back Benchers?
Sir George Young: No vote is required in the House to change the instructions. I would welcome such a debate and a vote and would hope that the Opposition would come clean on their policy for British Rail. Do they believe in a publicly owned BR? If so, how would they pay for it?
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is the inevitable complexity of some of the arrangements that causes uncertainty and concern among my constituents, and that he would go a long way towards reassuring my rail-travelling constituents, of whom I have a large number, if he were to give us some idea how the new policies would address the problems that are caused by the unreliability of services, the problems of signalling failures, which are

1243
all too frequent, and the fact that overcrowding is now a characteristic of all too many services on the Carshalton line?
Sir George Young: Overcrowding will be dealt with specifically in the franchising director's requirements.
The new regime introduces tough penalties for Railtrack if it fails to provide a path, and for the train operator if it fails to use a path that is made available to it. The new financial regime will provide a strong incentive for punctuality.
I think that everybody who looks at this matter objectively agrees that we are more likely to get the investment that we need if the railways do not operate within the constraints of the public sector, competing against hospitals and schools for investment. The best answer that I can give my hon. Friend is not to tell people, rather to show them by making progress with the policy so that they can judge for themselves the quality of service that can be provided.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: How many adequately remunerated lawyers are available to the franchising director and the Department? How in heaven's name did they manage to get it so wrong?
Sir George Young: The franchising director was successful on judicial review; Justice Macpherson dismissed the challenge, awarded him costs and refused leave to appeal. Last Friday, the Court of Appeal overturned that decision on what it described twice as a limited legal problem. It also identified at the end of the judgment a possible solution—that the Secretary of State could change the instructions. That is the solution that I have adopted.
Mr. Bob Dunn: As, for the first time, passengers will now have guarantees on services and fares, can my right hon. Friend tell the House how those guarantees will be monitored? Will he continue to drive on in the way he announced, because Conservative Members want to put the passenger first, whereas the Opposition wish to leave left-wing trade unions in control of a nationalised industry?
Sir George Young: The House will be refreshed by my hon. Friend's robust common sense.
The franchising director has all the powers that he needs to ensure the guarantees on services and fares. The operator will not be able to increase fares beyond a level approved by the franchising director, and there will be a clear contract outlining the services that the franchise operator has to provide. That will be part of the contract with the franchising director.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Secretary of State admit that one of the key reasons why the exercise of privatisation is taking place is, among other things, to reduce the number of trade union jobs on the railways? Now that he has come up with a new proposal to rewrite the timetables—I presume that there will be fewer trains—how many fewer jobs will there be?
Sir George Young: The object of the policy is to get more people to travel on the railways and to improve the quality of service that they receive. I very much hope that
1244
the railways of the future will provide good, well-remunerated employment for those who work on them.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I am a regular traveller on the very unsatisfactory London-Tilbury-Southend line, which has problems, including those of this morning. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great danger that, after privatisation, every time a train is late or a light bulb is not working, privatisation will be blamed? Will he tell the whole story—I am sure that it will be a good one—and publish every three months details of what has happened, such as whether there are more passengers and whether the trains are more punctual? Will he tell the public and the House the whole story about the first lines to be franchised so that the public can see precisely what has happened and whether things are getting better, as I believe they will, or worse?
Sir George Young: I recall travelling on that very train service with my hon. Friend three or four years ago, when he took the opportunity to communicate to me some of his views on the Common Market.
I think that there will be intense public interest in the first franchised services when they become operational next spring. I welcome that publicity and am confident that those who win the franchises will respond to it, because they will have the same interest as the Government in showing that the new regime is a better way to meet the needs of the passengers. I welcome all publicity about the progress that will be made as our policy develops.
Ms Glenda Jackson: What confidence can the House and the country have in the Secretary of State's statement that he intends to issue new guidance and instruction, as the previous guidance and instruction was found not to be legal? Surely the door has been opened for an individual to take a passenger service requirement to court. As the Secretary of State knows, the taxpayer is paying £23,000 per day in legal fees alone associated with rail privatisation. Will he tell the House how much last week's legal adventure cost the taxpayer and how much he expects the taxpayer to have to find in the future?
Sir George Young: If the hon. Lady tables a detailed question, we will give her the information. I am confident that the action that I have outlined today—a potential solution outlined by the Court of Appeal—is the right way forward, and I believe that it will give a better deal to her constituents who travel by rail. I hope that, at some point, the hon. Lady and her party will come clean on how they would provide the level of investment now envisaged by Railtrack which is over and above that which would have been provided by British Rail.
Mr. Barry Field: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when the privatisation of British Rail was first announced, the Isle of Wight was at the top of the queue? Unfortunately, for reasons that nobody has been able to discern, it is now at the bottom. When my right hon. Friend sends the franchising director instructions, will he tell him where the Isle of Wight is, and remind him that it is the most simple of all privatisations? Can we please get on with it? Everyone on the Isle of Wight is extremely anxious to get the train out of the station and on to the track so as to give a better and more comprehensive service?
Sir George Young: I am delighted to hear of the appetite for privatisation among my hon. Friend's constituents. I shall ensure that the franchising director is aware of my hon. Friend's enthusiasm that that particular franchise should be brought forward.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: When the Railways Bill was before the House, Ministers repeatedly assured the House that franchised services would be based on the BR timetable. The Secretary of State has now amended that to "broadly similar to". Will he tell the House whether that amendment would increase or reduce the minimum requirement for franchisees?
With specific reference to the east coast service between London and York, will he confirm that the passenger service requirement will allow franchisees to drop the number of weekday trains from 26 to 17 a day? Will his new formulation allow such a large drop? Will he say what will be the minimum number of daily weekday trains between London and York under his new formulation?
Sir George Young: It is worth reminding the House that the Select Committee on Transport endorsed the broad approach that the franchising director has adopted in identifying minimum PSRs. The Select Committee stated:
"We also have no objection in principle to the omission of profitable services form PSRs since it would be in franchisees' interests to provide them."
The hon. Gentleman will find some reassurance in my statement because, when awarding future contracts, the franchising director will have regard not just to minimum PSRs but to the totality of services that are offered by those who are bidding for the franchises. It is important for people to understand that minimum PSRs are not the same as timetables. I hope that my statement goes some way towards removing concern.
Dr. Robert Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the franchising director's announcement later this week for the London-Tilbury-Southend line will enable the successful bidder to state the level of service that is intended? I suspect that it will be far in excess of the minimum PSR. Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the successful bidder will announce the future investment programme which, I suspect, will also be welcome news for my constituents—although Opposition Members who represent the vested interests of the trade unions may not be so happy?
Sir George Young: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Now that we have resolved the uncertainty, it is important to make progress and to put in the public domain the level of services that are being offered. When that happens, my hon. Friend's constituents will see exactly what is offered by those who have bid for the franchise. I hope that the franchising director will soon award the LTS Rail contract.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Does the Secretary of State agree that Doncaster is a major station on the east coast main line? At the moment, 33 northbound and 32 southbound trains stop at Doncaster, but there is increasing speculation that in April 1996 that number will be significantly reduced. In the light of last week's Appeal Court judgment, will the Secretary of State guarantee that those services will not be reduced?
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman is making the mistake, to which I referred a few moments ago, of
1246
assuming that the minimum PSR equals the timetable. The Select Committee has made it quite clear that it is legitimate to specify the loss-making services. The franchise operator has an incentive to provide the profitable services. There is no advantage in ossifying the timetable by specifying it in advance and giving a franchise operator no freedom or flexibility to grow the market and respond to it. If the hon. Gentleman is patient he will see that his fears about dramatically reduced services are unfounded.
Mr. Peter Luff: Does my right hon. Friend understand that his best Christmas present to the people of Worcestershire would be to put all the pressure that he can on the franchising director to ensure that the franchise for the Great Western main line service is announced this week? Does he understand my enthusiasm for winning for my constituents the improved services that franchising will bring and for the first ever guarantees of express trains between Worcester, Evesham and London since the Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton railway began services in, I think, 1853?
Sir George Young: I welcome my hon. Friend's enthusiasm and I share his hope that we may be able to make progress with the Great Western railway in the near future. I think that we shall see franchisees offering services above the PSRs and, of course, they will have incentives to attract more passengers to their trains. We want to reverse the historic decline in the use of the railways. The structure that we are promoting is the right one to do that.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: If the Isle of Wight is at the bottom of the list, will the Secretary of State put Lancashire and the north-west there instead, because that would certainly be welcome? Despite what the right hon. Gentleman says about PSRs, people believe that they will lead to a reduction in service provision. Will he guarantee that those who win the franchises will not be able to come back at a later date and ask for a reduction and a renegotiation of their seven-year contracts?
Sir George Young: They will have seven-year contracts with the franchising director. I invite the hon. Gentleman to wait. I hope that, within a few days, he will see for himself whether those who win the franchises offer services above the PSR—as I believe will be the case. The hon. Gentleman will also see whether they offer better services than British Rail. When that information is in the public domain, people will be able to judge for themselves whether our rhetoric or that of the Opposition is correct.
Mr. John Gunnell: Does the Secretary of State recall that, the last time a group of his hon. Friends rebelled on these issues, the Secretary of State gave commitments, one of which has been mentioned today, on the retention of timetables and the stability of fares, and about British Rail being allowed to bid for franchises? Is not it true that all the proposals have been watered down, that the Secretary of State is not honouring any of the commitments and that, overall, he will create a weaker service in the long run?
Sir George Young: I am not aware of having broken any undertakings given by any of my predecessors. I have developed a policy that was worked on by a number of Secretaries of State and I have taken it forward. I hope to have the good fortune to be Secretary of State while the benefits of the policy come into the public domain.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Does the Secretary of State accept that, on the first three franchises, he got off

1247
on a technicality? As he has announced that the PSRs for the franchises that he is holding back will be "broadly similar" to the current timetable, has not he now established a two-tier franchise, with the first three franchisees being penalised far more than the others? In relation to the Great Western PSR, there is a 100 per cent. cut to the existing timetable, and the line between Swansea and Paddington has had, on average, a 20 per cent. cut. Are those timetables "broadly similar"?
Sir George Young: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Appeal Court judgment he will find a response to his question about GWR.
Mr. Ainger: It is a technicality.
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman speaks about a technicality, but the Court of Appeal spoke about a "limited legal problem". It stated:
"We confine our attention to the much more limited legal problem defined above. In approaching that limited legal problem the court must steer very well clear of any involvement in making or evaluating substantive decisions."
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that, if these matters reach the public domain, he will see for himself whether GWR plans to provide the basic minimum or whether it plans to provide much more than that. If we can make progress, the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question will shortly be in the public domain.
Mr. Nick Harvey: The Secretary of State drew great comfort from the court's finding one aspect or another of his policy not to be irrational. Does he see that it would be wholly irrational for the rest of the country to be served by franchise holders who guaranteed to provide services that were equivalent to the old BR timetable while those who served the south-west were at liberty to reduce them considerably? If the much-derided British Rail is capable of providing 14 services a day form Taunton to London, why should the new franchise holder be asked to guarantee to provide only eight? Will the Secretary of State make it a matter of policy to put the south-west on the same footing as the rest of the country regardless of whether there is a technical hitch with that part of the court case?
Sir George Young: If the hon. Gentleman waits he will see whether South West Trains or Great Western Railways are putting in only the minimum PSR. If, as I expect, they put in more than that, the hon. Gentleman's question falls.
Mr. Brian Wilson: The Secretary of State's quite extraordinary inability to answer
1248
the questions asked by my hon. Friends the Members for York (Mr. Bayley), for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) and by the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) reveals the fraudulence of his statement. Does he not understand that the courts have told him that it is unlawful to propose passenger service requirements that are 20, 30, 50 or 100 per cent. below the existing timetable? He cannot tell the House that the import of his new guidelines is that it will be impossible to present passenger service requirements at the same unsatisfactory levels. Will he answer my hon. Friends' question about whether the door is still open for the kind of passenger service requirement that the courts were concerned with? Will he recognise that this will be remembered as the day that the passenger service requirement was redefined as a "core service level"—three weasel words that will be understood throughout the country even if they are not understood by the right hon. Gentleman's Back Benchers.
The Secretary of State also evaded the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Will he say clearly whether, when the ballyhoo about the franchises has died down, it will be open to franchisees to come back and demand either a reduction in service or more money from the franchising director as long at the Tories are in office?
Sir George Young: I invite the hon. Gentleman to read my statement again. I made it clear that I was going beyond the steps necessary to meet the Court of Appeal's decision. I hope that I gave him some reassurance that the timetable was not the same as the PSR.
The approach that the franchising director has adopted was described by the Court of Appeal as
"an intelligible and in no way irrational approach."
It is a broad approach that was supported by the Select Committee. The Court of Appeal pointed out that it was open to the Secretary of State to amend the instruction. I have told the House that that is what I propose to do.
The important thing is to move this debate on from the theoretical to the practical to enable the franchising director to award franchises and to enable people to see the quality and frequency of service that is being offered. People will judge for themselves. I suspect that, in 18 months' time, or whenever the election is, Opposition Members will fight shy of saying, "We are going to cancel all this and give it back to British Rail." When we hit an election, when the services are up and running, people will find that they are popular and better, and the Labour party, as it has done before, will do a U-turn.

Orders of the Day

  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  5.11 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I explained at Second Reading that the Bill was an enabling measure that will allow the Government to offer a package of benefits to certain overseas Hong Kong officers. In particular, we propose to put in place schemes, by Order in Council, to pay officers compensation for loss of their career prospects, and to provide Hong Kong overseas pensioners with a measure of protection for the sterling value of their pensions. Officers would be allowed to retire prematurely before 30 June 1997 and be entitled to resettlement help.
  I am grateful to hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee that examined the Bill. All hon. Members who spoke recognised the contribution that Hong Kong overseas officers have made to Hong Kong's success, and that they should receive benefits similar to those provided to their predecessors in 42 former British dependent territories. It is gratifying that no hon. Member questioned the Bill's object and I am especially grateful for the serious and responsible speeches made by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), and for the detailed study of the matter by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who kindly notified us that he was monitoring elections elsewhere, but that he had no questions to raise.
  The Bill passed through Committee unamended and I do not have any Government amendments to propose. I did, however, give a ministerial undertaking in Committee to provide the House with two reports, which would set out the sort of resettlement provided to officers who decided to retire prematurely and the expenditure on the various schemes. They would also provide an assessment of the impact of early retirements on the Hong Kong civil service. The first report will be presented to the House before 1 January 1997, and a second before 30 June 1997.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.13 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: Throughout the deliberations on this proposed legislation, the Labour party has backed the Government's position and its reasons have always been clear. First, the Bill ends the uncertainty faced by members of the overseas civil service. There has been a protracted negotiation period and I think that all the civil servants are delighted that that process has been completed and that the Bill is before us. Secondly, the Minister rightly says that the scheme is in line with 42 other schemes, which is why we also support the proposal, although conditions and circumstances in Hong Kong differ from those in the other 42 cases. Clearly, it is correct that the treatment of overseas civil servants in Hong Kong should be similar to that of civil servants in all the other cases. Thirdly, the Bill gave us an opportunity to give our thanks to the

  1251
  overseas civil servants who have worked in Hong Kong over many years, and who have helped to make a substantial contribution.
  Like the Minister, I welcome the way in which the Committee dealt with the issues. As the Minister said, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) is not able to be with us today. He is monitoring elections in a much warmer climate and I am sure that he is doing that job with his usual commitment to detail. It was because of him that we had much more detailed information about how the pension scheme would work and the sterling guarantee. On behalf of all Committee members, I thank him for that.
  I thank the Minister for his concession, if I may use that word, to us in Committee and for his promise this evening to make two reports available in the run-up to 1997. That will be welcomed by all hon. Members because it will give us the opportunity to continue to monitor the scheme and how it works.
  I put on record the fact that we had a good debate in Committee about the nature of the sterling guarantee. I think that all of us recognised that there were anxieties about that. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham voted for an amendment that tried to change the nature of the sterling guarantee, but I was much more minded—I think this is the Labour party's official view—by the argument that these discussions had been going on for some time, that there had been a negotiation process and that the people directly involved in those negotiations were happy with the proposals that had been made. They did not view them necessarily as ideal, but negotiations are always of that description and Ian Strachan, on behalf of the overseas civil servants, has made it clear that that was the best offer in town and that it was one that they were prepared to accept.
  It is important to stress again that the guarantee is based on a pessimistic scenario, that it is in all our interests—not only all the political parties represented in the House but the people living and working in Hong Kong—that that scenario is never realised in practice and that we need to take a much more optimistic view of the way in which the system works.
  I join the Minister in the words that he uttered at the end of his short speech: I put on record again our thanks to the people who have worked in the overseas civil service and to those who have worked for the Hong Kong Government. The success of Hong Kong, economically and politically, has depended greatly on the integrity and competence of those who have worked for the Hong Kong civil service. It is not without surprise that one hears time and again the comment that the rule of law, economic success and the civil service go hand in glove in Hong Kong. The Bill has given all hon. Members an opportunity to put on record our gratitude and our thanks, and the fact that we have a civilised rule of law that has operated so effectively in Hong Kong. One hopes that it will continue to operate so effectively after 1997.
  We wish all those overseas civil servants well. There is an expression in terms of Hong Kong about the through train. I notice the anxiety on the Government ministerial Bench that the through train may not be working as effectively at the moment in terms of parliamentary
  1252
  business, but I will come to a stop as we have moved from rail privatisation to the next issue. I am sure that other hon. Members will have an opportunity to speak before the franchisee passes on the baton to whatever Minister will reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon). It would be a tremendous success for my hon. Friend if, in his maiden Front-Bench speech, he could not even persuade any Minister to have the courage to come to argue against him. I congratulate him on that.
  We have supported this measure throughout. We gave a promise that we would not delay it. We have not done so and we welcome its implementation.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Front-Bench spokesmen for not being present when the debate commenced. I was at another meeting from which I found it difficult to tear myself away.
  As the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), who spoke on behalf of the official Opposition, said, we had a most interesting and illuminating debate in Standing Committee, which was characterised by a genuine desire on the part of all the hon. Members who took part to arrive at the best possible decisions, in the interests of the people in whose interests the Bill has been conceived.
  The stability and the dignity of the handover, which is to take place on 1 July 1997, will undoubtedly be enhanced by the quality of the civil servants and of the civil service which has characterised the administration of Hong Kong for such a long time. It is therefore right that those who have played such a prominent part in that administration should, so far as is possible, have their interests protected and preserved.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and I were not able to persuade the Minister or any other member of the Committee of the virtues of the amendment that he moved and I supported. During the debate on that amendment, however, all Committee members recognised the need to ensure that the interests of those for whom the Bill has been conceived will be properly preserved, not only for now but in the future.
  There is no doubt that these are complicated times in Hong Kong—if I may put it that way—as the date of the handover approaches, but there is little doubt that the Bill is a proper recognition of the contribution that so many people have made to the stability of the colony.
  I am happy that the Bill should proceed unopposed and that it should receive Royal Assent as soon as practicably possible.
  5.20 pm
  Mr. Hanley: With the leave of the House. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) for his remarks and for pointing out that we had a vote in Committee. I know, however, that, the vote having been taken, the issue is now regarded as having been satisfactorily dealt with by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and, I believe, by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East. It is good that the House should hear that. I am also grateful to the hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) for the way in which the Bill passed its Committee stage.

  1253
  As the Member for Leeds, Central said, the Bill has been examined in very fine detail. It now goes to the other place and, as the hon. Gentleman said, I hope that it will come back to this House unscathed and as quickly as possible, because the people for whom we are providing are the people whose contributions to Hong Kong have helped to make it such a flourishing place.
  Hong Kong will continue to flourish, and it will be a great success story, up to transition and beyond. The Chinese believe that, we believe it, the world believes it, and Hong Kong also believes it—Hong Kong believes in itself. With the Bill we can reward those who have helped to make Hong Kong such a special place.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Copyright
  5.22 pm
  The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): I beg to move,
  That the draft Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.
  The regulations amend the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 in order to implement all the main provisions of Council directive 93/98, which harmonises the term of protection of copyright and related rights to the European Union.
  The directive became due for implementation on 1 July this year, and we very much regret that the complexities of the regulations have meant that we have been unable to complete the preparation in time to meet that date. Indeed, work still remains to be done on legislation to implement article 4 of the directive, which requires the introduction of a new form of protection for unpublished works in which copyright has expired. That article is therefore not covered by the present regulations. We intend, however, to deal with that remaining aspect as soon as possible.
  The 1988 Act already complies with one of the main requirements of the directive, which is a 50-year period of protection for copyright in sound recordings and broadcasts and for the rights of performing artists. The directive should be of significant benefit in bringing the duration of those rights in the rest of the European Union to the same level as those in the UK, particularly in relation to the UK sound recording industry. That is an area of considerable economic importance to the UK and, up to now, the terms of protection have been much shorter in several other member states, including Germany.
  The directive means, however, that the 1988 Act has to be amended to increase the basic term of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. It will increase from the present life of the author plus 50 years after his death to life plus 70 years. Although that term previously applied only in one member state—Germany—two other member states also had terms longer than those in the United Kingdom: in Spain the term was life plus 60 years and in France it was life plus 70 years in the case of musical works.
  Harmonisation at life plus 50 years would therefore have been difficult because it would have meant protection reductions in three member states. The directive was, moreover, subject to qualified majority voting, and it became clear that most other member states were willing to accept harmonisation at life plus 70 years.
  In those circumstances, the UK agreed, albeit reluctantly, to accept the increased term, although I know that there has been quite a lot of debate and controversy about that. It follows, however, that there will also be an increase in most other member states, and the United Kingdom's authors, composers and artists should benefit at least as much as those from other EU countries.
  The directive also means that the duration of copyright in films, which is currently 50 years from the making or release of a film, is changed by the regulations and put on a similar footing to the terms for literary and like works. Copyright in films will now last for 70 years from the death of the last to die of the principal director, the authors of the screenplay and dialogue and the composer of any music made specifically for the film.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: As I have an interest in this matter, I hope to say a few words if I have the privilege to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a differentiation between moving photographs and still photographs. If the Government are prepared to allow the special extension for films, why do they not extend it to still photographs? What is the difference between the two?
  Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but the categorisation of "film" in the sense of video film was accepted as the basic definition for this purpose. If photography as such were to be considered an art form, that might bring it under aspects of copyright other than the particular element of video or visual presentations, which are generically called "films". I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said in case there is a distinction that may have eluded me.
  Copyright in films will now last for 70 years from the death of the last to die of the group of people consisting of the principal director, the authors of the screenplay and dialogue and the composer of any music made specifically for the film. The underlying reason for the change in approach is that several other member states already protect films on a life-plus basis rather than for a fixed period.
  I should also like to explain that the directive requires that the increased copyright terms that it sets will apply not only to future works but to existing ones. That means that the copyright of works currently in protection in the United Kingdom will be extended. Revival of copyright will also occur in the case of works which, although in the public domain in the United Kingdom, are still protected elsewhere in the European Union. However, the terms set by the directive apply essentially only to works from the EU. Those from outside the EU will receive the term granted in the country of origin which, in most cases, will be less than the European Union term.
  A number of the regulations relate to transitional provisions in relation to extended and revived copyrights. The Government are well aware of the difficulties that revival could cause, but without this approach there would be no effective harmonisation for a considerable time and UK sound recordings and performances would suffer from remaining out of protection in several other member states.
  Moreover, we have tried to do as much possible to ensure that there are adequate safeguards to protect users who would otherwise be adversely affected by revival of copyright. Clearly, it would be wrong if anything done before the regulations came into force and copyrights revived were retrospectively to constitute an infringement of revived rights. That will not be the case, but, necessarily, the safeguards go much further. For example, where arrangements for exploitation of a work in which copyright will revive have been made before 1 January 1995, nothing done in pursuance of those arrangements after the regulations come into force will infringe the revived rights. That means, for example, that if a publisher has entered into commitments to produce an edition of an affected work before the date that I have announced, he will be able to fulfil his commitments without incurring any liability to copyright owners.
  We have also had to establish who is to own extended or revived rights. That is not dealt with by the directive but has to be resolved, since otherwise it would be unclear
  1256
  who is entitled to authorise particular works or to benefit from them, with the result that future use of works could be inhibited. On that aspect, we have tried to take an approach which is both fair and produces the greatest legal certainty. In essence, we have concluded that those objectives are best met by providing that the current owner of copyright will own the rights extended by the regulations and that the last owner of the original copyright will own revived rights.
  The House will realise from this introduction that the directive raises difficult questions of balance between competing interests, which have to be addressed in the regulations. We have consulted widely on the legislation—first, through a consultation paper on the issues of ownership of rights and safeguards for users and, secondly, through a consultative draft of the regulations. In all, more than 200 different representative bodies, firms and individuals were consulted. I have also had many representations from colleagues who have taken a particular interest in the matter, and I am grateful to them for the cases that they have made—personally and on behalf of the organisations that they have introduced to me.
  We are grateful for the detailed and helpful responses. Frankly, this is not an easy matter. Ultimately, it requires that a balance be struck. We have carefully considered all the points raised. I am confident that we have arrived at conclusions which are both fair and workable.
  There is one further matter on which I should comment—the date on which the regulations are due to come into force: 1 January 1996. I am aware that there is concern among interested parties about whether that means that copyrights due to expire on 31 December are extended, as opposed to being revived. I assure the House that the effect of the regulations is that those copyrights will continue in force and be extended. The concept of time being continuous is very relevant. I assure the House that I have taken the most detailed instructions from my officials, whom I have cross-questioned on the matter, and they have satisfied me that the law—and the text—says exactly what it should say. I present the regulations for the attention of the House.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: I thank the Minister for his presence—and for his brevity, something that has sadly characterised too much of the Government's public contribution to this debate. As the Minister said, the regulations concern a complex and difficult area of law. Too often, the law relating to copyright is seen as a specialist subject of concern and significance to a particular and—possibly—rather narrow group of legal practitioners. Perhaps that feeling is reflected by the modest attendance in the House. Yet its importance underlies the entire provision of information and entertainment in this country. Without effective copyright laws, here and across the world, it is impossible to imagine how books could be commercially published, how music could be distributed and how films could be shown in cinemas.
  Moreover, as the revolution in information technology gathers pace, copyright will become still more significant. As we move from mass media to the availability of films and music on-line and transmitted digitally into the home, effective copyright law around the world will be crucial. Copyright law will therefore be at the centre of a series

  1257
  of commercial relationships, vital to the country's trading and financial interests, and vital to those who create, develop and distribute new ideas and information.
  Although the Labour party will not be voting against the implementation of the draft regulations, Labour Members believe that there are significant problems with their content and, perhaps more significantly, with the timetable that has been followed. We have a series of concerns about the extent to which the draft regulations reflect the European directive on which they are supposed to be based and the fact that they are part of a comprehensive redefinition of the law of copyright in this country and at European level, to which I hope that the Minister will be able to respond.
  I shall first deal with the timetable for the legislation. The draft regulations implement the European Union's duration directive, harmonising the term of copyright, which, if approved today, will come into force in this country on 1 January 1996, as the Minister said. The regulations are, as the Minister conceded, already six months late. Since the regulations are not amendable at this stage, we are left with the uncomfortable position of having to accept their general thrust—which we do—while not being able to make the necessary detailed amendments. In the interests of the greater good served by the regulations, we are at this stage prepared to accept them.
  Having said that, it is important to place on record our reservations. In particular, why has it taken the Minister so long to lay the draft regulations before the House? He referred repeatedly to complexity, but a careful study of the timetable would be useful to Members. The regulations are based on a directive that was published on 29 October 1993. It took more than a year—13 months—for the Department of Trade and Industry to produce a consultation paper. That was produced on 5 December 1994. It was not the most sophisticated of documents, although I recognise that it was necessary to address certain questions.
  The consultation paper, which as I said took 13 months to produce, simply asked a series of questions. It did not provide the answers—although it provided some guidance—yet it asked questions of those who were consulted. The consultation period went on for a further 12 months. The regulations were published on 6 December 1995. In my experience, draft regulations normally contain the precise date of publication. It is curious that in this case—Members will observe it if they look at the regulations—the regulations are somewhat coy about when they were published. It says that they were published in 1995. They were in fact published on 6 December 1995. I suspect that the reason why the precise date is absent is that the Government are embarrassed about taking so long to produce the regulations.
  What that means to the House is that although the Department had some 13 months to issue its consultation paper—a series of questions without any particular answers—and then took a further 12 months to produce thè regulations, it has given the House eight working days to consider what the Minister has described as a complex series of proposals. Indeed, before the proposals come into law on 1 January 1996, the House has precisely 10 days in which to consider their complexity, debate them and reach a conclusion.
  I would be perfectly willing to give way to the Minister if he wished to explain whether the reason for that was simply Government incompetence or a deliberate and
  1258
  calculated snub to the House. That is a serious question, given that we have to consider these matters, complex as the Minister acknowledges, in eight working days, and have not been given the opportunity that his own Department was given to consider them over years. I shall gladly give way.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that no snub was intended, nor was there incompetence. There was, as I saw for myself, a whole series of very complex attempts at drafting the regulations, since their concept is not easy to express in succinct form in legislation. That is therefore what has taken so long—as well as my insistence that there was the widest possible consultation.
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the Minister for his observations. I am sure that the House appreciates the difficulty that he has had with the complexity of this matter. However, individual Members also have to wrestle with that complexity in reaching their views, which cannot be done satisfactorily in a short time.
  I invite the Minister's comment on another subject. He mentioned the consultation repeatedly. That consultation has gone on for 12 months. The Minister told us that some 200 responses were received by the Department. Of course, none of those responses is available to Members. They are available only to the Minister, and therefore no one else knows what balance of representation was contained in those responses.
  Would it not have helped the Minister's case enormously if, when he was explaining the rather short time that Members have to consider the regulations, the results of the consultation had been made available in the Library? Then, we could have seen how the argument had developed in the same way that he and his colleagues could. That would have meant that we would have had some idea how the different arguments developed in the preparation of the regulations.
  The Minister candidly conceded that certain aspects of the directive were not covered by the regulations. Practitioners and others in this area are concerned that, notwithstanding that the terms of the directive have been available for more than two years, we still do not have a comprehensive enactment of those terms. Can the Minister say clearly when the entire directive will be implemented, including article 4, and when the other aspects of the directive not mentioned in the regulations will be laid before the House?
  I hope that the Minister will answer that question because, as he has repeatedly reminded the House, the point of the legislation is the need for European harmonisation. As one of the Ministers most enthusiastic about Europe, he knows that the purpose of harmonisation is to ensure that we do not have different levels of protection in the legal systems of different member states. That was the reason for enacting the duration directive, yet the Government, after more than two years, are able to enact only part of that directive. I hope that the Minister will clarify the timetable for other aspects of the directive.
  The Minister properly made reference to some criticisms that have been made of the implementation date. A number of organisations concerned about copyright, notably the British Copyright Council, have expressed their anxieties about the date on which the regulations will come into force. The Minister failed to explain why 1 January 1996 had been chosen.

  1259
  The criticism made was that 31 December 1995 would have been preferable. That date would have allowed a new, longer period of copyright to apply to the United Kingdom works whose copyright protection will expire under the present law on 31 December 1995. Although such works will clearly be governed by the regulations, there is concern that they will be subject to the regime governing revived copyright. Had the directive been implemented by the due date of 1 July 1995, they would have enjoyed the additional protection conferred by extended copyright.
  I am sure that all the organisations concerned will be pleased by the Minister's assertion that the change of date will not change the legal position. However, I should be grateful if he could explain precisely why 1 January was chosen rather than 31 December. In giving that explanation, the Minister would be able to reassure those affected by the regulations that his and his advisers' understanding of the position is correct.
  There has been some concern that certain United Kingdom works—previously in the public domain, but now returning to copyright protection under the regulations—will qualify under United States legislation for the restoration of copyright protection, in the USA, to certain foreign works that had lost it for largely technical reasons. One of the principal, qualifying factors affecting that restoration is that the work in question must be in copyright in its home state on 1 January 1996. I hope that the Minister can reassure the British Copyright Council and all those whom it represents on that point.
  On the essential question of duration, the importance of harmonising the laws across the European Union is clear. The Minister has made the case very well. However, it is equally important that that issue is considered in the context not simply of European law, but across the world. Now that we have achieved a degree of standardisation in the European Union, can the Minister explain what efforts the European Union will make to ensure that its new, longer period of duration is consistent with the law of copyright elsewhere in the world? Clearly, it is not sufficient simply to ensure that there is standardisation in the European Union when countries such as the United States may be heading in a different direction on duration.
  Article 6 establishes that the duration of copyright in a sound recording remains unchanged at 50 years. I am worried that some difficulties may arise—from the difference between 50 and 70 years—that will affect sound recordings used in films. Copyright in films is an especially difficult subject, and the Minister touched upon it. Although many people talk rather glibly about film being a director's medium, directors are given only what are described as moral rights in a film under UK law, because of the way in which UK law has historically viewed rights in films.
  The approach in this country is to grant copyright to the person undertaking arrangements for the making of the film. In practice, that has meant the producer or his production company. He makes a series of contractual relationships with writers, composers, directors and performers, with the result that the producer owns the film in a legal sense. Therefore, the common law solution to a series of distinct copyright problems in the complex business of making a film has been based on contractual
  1260
  arrangements agreed between the different parties. However, the person who bears the financial risk—the producer—is placed in receipt of the ultimate financial reward, and therefore the copyright protection.
  That approach, as the Minister knows, is in stark contrast to the continental approach, because other legal systems subscribe to a different philosophical view. Those systems consider the rights of authors as central to the definition of who bears the risk and receives the benefit in the creation of a film. Copyright in a film, therefore, is held jointly by the artistic elements in the film, and copyright law recognises the artistic contribution of a number of collaborators.
  Most importantly, the directors benefit from that approach in continental law in negotiations with producers over contracts, for example in the assignment of rights and the length of time for which they are hired to make the film. The directors are in a much stronger position, and that inevitably means that those rights are reflected in the price paid for their services.
  The European directive on duration provides that the principal director of a cinematographic or audio-visual work shall be considered as its author or one of its authors. Member states shall be free to designate other co-authors. As I understand it, it would be necessary to amend section 9 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to implement that proposal in the United Kingdom. Unless I missed it, the regulations do not appear to do that, so notwithstanding the idea that the directive seeks to harmonise European law, it will simply create the considerable legal discrepancy that I have described. That is a significant problem with the regulations.
  Under the directive, member states are free to designate further co-authors of films. Can the Minister tell us whether the United Kingdom intends to do that as well? It seems likely that other countries will designate as co-authors others such as writers, so surely that will multiply the differences in copyright law between different member states. The draft regulations touch upon that problem in the provision on the death of an author, which refers to the period of time after the death of named individuals who participate in the making of a film. If we are to establish a consistent principle across the European Union, it is important that we should act consistently on the rights of authors.
  It is important to consider the implications of revived copyright. The change in the duration of copyright means that copyright will be revived for a number of different works currently in the public domain, and thus are no longer subject to copyright. I have seen various lists of the copyright holders who will benefit from that change—for example, those who hold the copyright on the work of James Joyce, John Buchan, Thomas Hardy and Rudyard Kipling. The list also includes Sir Edward Elgar and D. H. Lawrence, who once lived in what is now my constituency. All of the rights holders to those people's work will enjoy a benefit as a result of the implementation of the draft regulations. On a more serious note, the House should be aware that Adolf Hitler died on 30 April 1945, so any rights on "Mein Kampf' will be revived by the regulations.
  Copyright protection will be restored to authors who died between 1925 and 1945. As the Minister said, the issue is who should benefit from the restoration of those

  1261
  rights. The Writers Guild of Great Britain has consistently argued, perhaps not surprisingly in the circumstances, that revived copyright should vest in the author's estate rather than with the last copyright owner where there has been an assignment.
  In a sense, revived copyright is a windfall—perhaps unlooked for when negotiations on assignment were conducted. It might be possible that revived copyright was anticipated when an assignment contract was made, but it is difficult to accept that argument. It is therefore at least arguable that the beneficiary of the windfall should be an author's descendants, because it could not have been imagined at the time of assignment that an extra 20 years of rights would subsequently become available. The Department of Trade and Industry has obviously considered that issue, and I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us in more detail than he spelt out in his opening speech why it decided that the benefit should go to those to whom the rights had been assigned rather than the beneficiaries under any will.
  The revival of copyright has important implications for British heritage. It has been stressed to me that, in particular, the copyright on many works by British composers who died between 1925 and 1945 will be revived. The list includes not only Elgar, but Delius and Holst. In most cases, their estates are charitable trusts whose royalty income is spent on stimulating musical activity and the continuing development of British cultural life. With the anticipated rise in disputes and references to the Copyright Tribunal, as set out in the regulations, such income is likely to be depleted. That might also mean that proportionate income is not available to support and encourage today's composers and performers. The use of revived copyright works or arrangements could, however, pay for any loss suffered by those charitable trusts as a result of such legal disputes and legal costs. The extra income made available by revived copyright could therefore benefit the United Kingdom's cultural community, but that would not be possible by simply transferring rights to assignees.
  At this stage, it might not be appropriate to study in great detail the detailed provisions governing rights in respect of revived copyright. The Minister must bear in mind, however, that the particular timetable he has chosen, which does not allow the House the time that it might normally expect to consider such regulations, means that we have not had an opportunity to table amendments—assuming the regulations to be substantive legislation—or to encourage the Minister to think again about certain aspects of the draft regulations.
  The statutory licence regime has been subject to as much criticism as any of the other proposals contained in the regulations. That regime will reduce copyright in the circumstances anticipated to the right to remuneration as set by the tribunal, if not agreed upon. That is the cause of some concern because that regime appears to place the United Kingdom in a different position from Germany, for example, which offers a guaranteed right for the full 70-year period. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide us with more detail about the statutory licence regime, because the regulations revive a system that previous copyright legislation had abolished.
  As I understand it, the regulations originally included a proposal that would have preserved the ability of composers and performers to object to recordings of their work and to prevent their performance. The Government
  1262
  had given a formal undertaking that that right to object would be retained, but it does not appear in the regulations. The compulsory copyright licence system means that as long as a royalty is paid, the composer or performer of the original work will no longer be able to object to its further use. That is a matter of concern and it is unfortunate that the Government appear to have changed their mind in that respect. I am grateful that the Minister said that, in time, article 4 will be considered, and I hope that he will be able to tell us when that will happen.
  We can expect to consider a number of items of legislation concerning the implementation of the European Union directive on copyright. It was always assumed that the directive would be implemented along with the rental and related rights directive. If the Minister and his Department have experienced difficulties with the relatively modest copyright directive, I anticipate that they will have still more difficulties with the rental and related rights directive. Can the Minister explain why those directives have been separated, and when we can expect the introduction of the rights and rental directive? Can he tell us whether, on that occasion, the House will have more time to consider its implications rather than the eight working days that we have been given to look at the copyright directive?
  I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks, and I hope that the House accepts that, while a series of detailed criticisms can be made of the draft regulations, in general the proposal to extend the period of copyright to 70 years from the 50 years that have been standard in this country for many years, is appropriate. On that basis, Labour will not vote against the draft regulations.
  5.59 pm
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: I declare a financial interest in the subject. Indeed, I am glad to say, it is a very substantial financial interest, as I have an income from writing, broadcasting and audio tapes. I should also put on record my thanks to the Minister for the fairness and courtesy with which he has dealt with this fiendishly complicated issue and the regulations which stem from it. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he met a delegation from the Writers Guild and others, which I organised on 18 July. All concerned were grateful to him, because he listened carefully to what they had to say.
  Everyone I have spoken to on this matter is pleased to see the regulations, and nobody wants to delay them. I am glad to see that they are in print, and I have been asked to express appreciation to the Minister for his efforts. The matter has taken a little longer than we would have liked. Nevertheless, no one wants to delay it any longer.
  Copyright is too often seen as an unreasonable cost or as a restraint on trade—in much the same way as product licensing and patents in, for example, the pharmaceutical industry and elsewhere. Legislation is frequently written from the producers' point of view, and that tends to be particularly true in the EU. In this case, the producer would be the publishers, and the publishing houses also have their views on the matter.
  If there were no copyright, or if it were to be seriously damaged, it would be the creators who would be disadvantaged—the writers, photographers and scriptwriters. It is our duty to protect these people and their interests, and not necessarily always those with the

  1263
  hefty contracts, such as one or two Members of this House and of the other place. We must protect the small earners who earn their living by doing such work. It is important that this House endeavours to protect those people.
  A large number of points were made by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), but I wish to mention three main points. Some matters have been raised by the British Copyright Council, and I have passed those to the Minister. These are supported by the Writers Guild, and also by A. P. Watt, the oldest literary agents in the world, who happen to be my agents as well.
  The three issues are: the date of implementation; what is meant by "arrangement"; and the missing six months from 1 July to 31 December 1995. On the first issue, the question of the date is very important. I heard what the Minister said, and I appreciate his assurances. Nevertheless, there is no good reason why 31 December should not have been chosen.
  If the date were 31 December, rather than 1 January 1996, there would be two benefits. First, any author who died in 1945t—he hon. Member for Ashfield mentioned several such authors—would have the benefit of extended rather than revived copyright. Another reason—which is probably more important to living writers—is that the United States is restoring copyright in certain works which have fallen into the public domain in America under what is called "Restoration of Certain Berne and WTO works". This applies as from 1 January 1996 to works which are in copyright in the country of origin at that date, and some doubts have been raised as to whether there would be continuous copyright for works in which copyright has been revived on that very date.
  I can well understand that the Department of Trade and Industry thinks that there will be no problems, but the fact is that certain lawyers who are active in this area and certain literary agents disagree strongly. The point has been made by my agent—why take the risk? Why chose a date which causes problems and concerns? If it is possible to get the date changed, that would be worth doing. I hope that when future directives and regulations on this issue are considered, we will get the date right. I dread to think what the costs could be for the Department of Trade and Industry if it gets the date wrong. Authors who lose a lot of money in the United States might decide to hold the Minister responsible.
  The second issue concerns arrangements versus agreement. Under regulation 23, it will be permissible to continue to make use of works which are no longer in the public domain provided the
  "arrangements for the exploitation of the work in question"
  were made before 1 January 1995. The previous draft of this statutory instrument referred specifically to the need for the existence of "an agreement" in those circumstances.
  The point is strongly made on this matter again by A. P. Watt. Linda Shaughnessy, the rights director of the agency, says:
  "It would be wonderful if somehow 'arrangements' can be clarified, especially for Clause 23(3) which relates to derivative works (someone making a film, for example, or quoting from a revived work in a biography of an author)."
  That happens very frequently.
  "At the moment they are only defined as 'arrangements for the exploitation of the work', which is open to wide interpretation. A plan to do something with a work but where no money (or an
  1264
  insubstantial amount) has been expended should not count as an arrangement. Nor should a speculative venture where for example someone has spent time producing a screenplay without any commission."
  This sometimes happens without any permission, either.
  "However, if a signed contract was in place by 1 July 1995—to write a screenplay, for example, or to write a biography—then to produce the film or quote from the work of the revived author in the biography should not be an infringement. If a substantial amount of money had been expended—perhaps expressed as a substantial amount of the total monies for that project—that might also count as an arrangement. Anyone claiming arrangements to have been made should be prepared fully to disclose documentation proving this."
  The opportunities for litigation in such cases are legion, and it is important that this matter should be cleared up. The previous wording seemed to be acceptable to all concerned, while the current wording seems to raise doubts.
  The third issue is the question of the lost six months, which is regarded as an omission in the statutory instrument. Copies of a revived work which were printed before 1 July 1995 are not considered an infringement, but copies printed after the commencement date may be published as part of the statutory licence. What happens to works printed on or after 1 July 1995 but before the commencement date?
  A sensible interpretation would be to say that copies sold before the commencement date would not be an infringement, but copies sold after would be considered as licensed by right and subject to the reasonable royalty, provided notice has been given to the copyright owner of the revived material. This, however, is probably something that the Association of Authors' Agents and the Publishers Association could decide amicably themselves. It may well be that the Minister wants to express his view on this matter, and he should certainly be aware that the lost six months could cause difficulties.
  That is all that I want to say, except to reiterate my gratitude to the Minister for the careful and delicate way in which he has stepped through this extraordinary minefield.
  I wish him well for all of the material which has yet to come on the issue.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I do not claim the literary skills of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire, (Mrs. Currie), nor the legal skills of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon). Therefore, for both those reasons, I can be briefer than usual. I wish to raise a few points that have been put to me by the British Copyright Council, as advised by lawyers, and the British Photographers Liaison Committee.
  I have no interest to declare, except that I am an enthusiastic amateur photographer who, with more pictures in the House of Commons photographic club exhibition than the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), can claim greater expertise in this area. The implications of what the Minister said about the day that the regulations are to come into force were not clear. The problem is that the date affects works whose copyright protection expires under the present law on 31 December 1995. What exactly is the Minister telling us? The copyright of such works will presumably be extended, rather than revived. Am I correct in saying that?
  Mr. Ian Taylor indicated assent.
  Mr. Mitchell: The Minister nods.
  Mr. Taylor: As several colleagues have raised the point, I shall read out exactly what my legal brief says. I do not apologise for reading a legal brief because, ultimately, it is the lawyers who will have a field day with the regulations. The brief says:
  "The increased copyright terms set by the Regulations will apply on 1 January 1996, that is on commencement to 'existing copyright works', that is to works in which copyright subsisted immediately before that date. Time is a continuum, and therefore there is no break between the point immediately before commencement and commencement itself. Consequently, I am able to reassure the House that the Regulations will maintain in existence, on and after 1 January 1996, those copyrights which subsisted on 31 December 1995 but would otherwise have expired at the end of that day. These copyrights will be thereby extended, and revival is not relevant to them."
  Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful for that intervention although the Minister baffled me as much as Einstein's theory of relativity, on which he seemed to touch at times. The point is important because the rights of revived copyright owners are much weaker than those of extended copyright owners. The provision affects only a comparatively small number of people. Let us consider the author of a work or a photographer whose work was written or whose photographs were taken in 1945 and who died in 1945. My point is important for such cases.
  If the United Kingdom had, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield pointed out, complied with its obligation to implement the provisions by 1 July 1995, which we should have done, the problem would not have arisen. The people whom I mentioned would have been protected and the copyright would have been extended rather than revived. That point is important to a small number of people.
  A further point is that the owner of a revived copyright will normally be the person who owned the copyright before it expired. In the case of photographers, the owner of the copyright could be a company. As defined under the Copyright Act 1911, the owner was the person who owned the photographs at the time the photograph was taken—in other words, the person who effectively employed the photographer. If the owner was a company that has ceased to exist, the problem is who owns the revived copyright.
  That problem does not arise with film because the regulations give the revived copyright in those circumstances to the principal director or his personal representative. Why could the copyright for photographs not be given to the photographer and his or her personal representatives? All that would be required would be an amendment to paragraph 10 of schedule 1 to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to make the question of who was the author of a photograph determinable for copyright purposes. There is a difference between the treatment of photographers and the treatment of the directors of films. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether there is protection for photographers who were employed when they took the photograph by a company that has ceased to exist. Provisions of the directive remain to be implemented. The directive requires the principal director of a film to be named as the author or co-author. Why has that provision not been implemented for photographers? What will happen to that provision?
  Although providing for the copyright period for films to be calculated in accordance with the directive, the regulations are silent on the relationship between that and
  1266
  the current law, which provides for the copyright of a film to belong to the producer. The producer is not mentioned in the list of persons in regulation 6. Again, that point is relevant to photographers.
  The directive requires the introduction of a 25-year term of protection for previously unpublished works that were first communicated to the public after the expiry of copyright. Clearly, that will be a source of controversy, as it was in the consultation period. Why has nothing been done about that?
  The British Copyright Council has made the point, which I must put to the Minister, that the rental and lending directive and the cable and satellite directive have not yet been implemented. As those directives are relevant to the regulations, it would be useful to know what the Government's timetable is for those regulations, which are now 18 months overdue.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to put those points, which are made in a spirit of questioning so that the Minister can give further explanation about the regulations, rather than in a spirit of hostility. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield said that he supported the regulations. I always defer to what my Front-Bench colleagues say in all matters and especially when there is a speaker who is as articulate as my hon. Friend. I support the regulations, but I believe that my questions need to be answered.
  6.15 pm
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I immediately acknowledge that, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, I am chairman of the all-party photographic group. I am also a member of the council of the Royal Photographic Society of Great Britain and I submit a number of my photographs to an agency in the hope that one day, somebody will buy one. I am remunerated for none of those interests, so they are not declared, but I feel that these days, I should mention them before proceeding.
  Both my foxes have been shot. My hon. Friend the Minister made a clear declaration that the difference between revived and extended copyright would not be affected by the date of implementation. However, we heard a fairly sorry story of the progress of consultation on the directive from the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon). I am conscious of the difficulties of consulting and I believe that one of the problems when one consults a large number of people is that if one does not take their advice, they naturally feel affronted and feel that they would like a second bite at the cherry. That is especially true of photographers; I am speaking primarily with an interest in photography. They feel that their views were ignored while the film industry was dealt with graciously, as were, to a large extent, the authors.
  After I made an intervention in my hon. Friend the Minister's speech, he got on to the extremely delicate point of whether photography is art. If we got into that debate tonight, the HMSO debate would go on to the early hours of tomorrow morning. I will not follow my hon. Friend down that line, but I ask him to take on board the fact that many people earn their living from taking and selling photographs, sometimes for many years, and depend on copyright laws and protection not only for their livelihood, but for their pension and for their families' wealth in the future. It is, therefore, extremely important

  1267
  that the photographic side of the matter is got right, especially in a day and age when more and more images are being demanded by CD-ROM, by television and by all the other agencies of moving images. This matter will become more important, not less.
  My second fox was shot to some extent by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, who has read the same brief as I have; I shall not repeat word for word what he said. However, when dealing with corporate authors, will my hon. Friend the Minister answer the question why the director of a film should be able to pass on the rights in copyright, whereas a photographer who has worked for a company that has ceased to exist does not have a similar right? I have put the question simply although I know that none of those matters is simple.
  I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) that this is a serious matter. If she believes that if the Government have got it wrong, a united band of authors will be able to seek restitution in the courts, I must disabuse her of the idea. If the regulations go through—and they will, I suspect, because, in general terms, we do not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater—they will become law. The law of the land will be interpreted by the courts. It will be no good saying that we have got the date wrong; her author friends will have had it.
  Mrs. Currie: People like me have the opportunity of a perfect revenge, because if the Minister gets it badly wrong, I can put him into one of my future novels.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: Having read my hon. Friend's novel, I think that it would depend upon which part of the novel he was put into. He might become famous. My hon. Friend once attributed the start of her career as an author to my interest in her affairs. I am glad to hear that she is doing so well out of it because I am not making any money out of photography.
  This is an important matter to many people. I hope that lessons will be learned from the way in which the Government have treated the directive. The questions asked by the hon. Member for Ashfield about the sections that will be attached to it are equally important. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take careful note of that, because so many livelihoods depend on the matter.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I must begin by declaring that, as an occasional author, I might have some interest in this matter. Candidly, I am not entirely sure what the effect of the order will be as I have come late to the subject and am not an expert.
  I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) about the way in which the matter has been handled. It is extraordinary to have nearly two years of consultation with as many as 200 people and organisations and then to leave the House of Commons so little time to consider it on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. That is not a rational way in which to legislate.
  This is a complex area of law which could clearly have a widespread impact. The debate illustrates some of the general points about how not to amend the law of the land that were made last week in a debate, which I initiated,
  1268
  on the legislative process. Unfortunately, we cannot go through the regulations one by one, deleting those that are unacceptable and accepting those that have not raised adverse comment. That is pretty close to disgraceful.
  The fact that copyright is an arcane subject that interests directly only a relatively small number of hon. Members is no excuse for legislating in this fashion. If the Minister had been able to say that, following the consultations, a broad consensus had been reached and that the difficulties had been ironed out, we would perhaps have been able to nod the measure through with a greater sense that we were not being derelict in our duty. Alas, there is clearly discontent and dissatisfaction. Although the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) is doubtless right that people want the law to be amended in broadly the direction of the directive, the uncertainties have given rise to criticism.
  I have been asked to draw attention to the concerns of the Composers Estates Group and the Alliance of Composer Organisations. They fear that hardship will be caused, especially to the original authors and their heirs, by the proposed extension of the 20-year period of copyright. As I understand it, under the proposed regulations, ownership of the extra 20-year period would belong to whoever owned it immediately before the implementation date, 1 July 1995 or, in the case of revived works, the owner immediately before the copyright expired. In many cases, that would be the publisher, rather than the creator, of the work.
  In the case of extended copyright, the creator's heirs will remain bound by what are in some cases out-of-date publishing agreements, often made several decades ago. The draft regulations do not allow them to be renegotiated or updated. In the case of revived copyrights, there is no obligation whatsoever on the publisher to pay royalties or to abide by any pre-existing contract.
  The original European directive, which was published on 29 October 1993, was specific about the exploitation of works which were in the public domain under the old regulations but which became copyright under the new ones. It was intended that
  "persons who undertook in good faith the exploitation"
  of a work when it was in the public domain should not have to make royalty payments when the copyright in such work was revived. It is clear that that was not intended to apply to those who exploited works in bad faith.
  The regulations ignore the reference to "good faith" and extend the immunity from paying royalties to anyone who is
  "in pursuance of arrangements made before 1st January 1995"
  according to draft regulation 23.
  I have been informed by a lawyer who represents the Composers Estates Group that, "in pursuance of arrangements" is not a legal term of art and has no real meaning. It is sufficiently vague to have allowed anyone who exploited a copyright work after the publication of directive and before 1 January 1995—a period of 14 months—to go without paying a single penny in royalties. Such a lack of clarity is a loophole ready and waiting to be used by the unscrupulous to avoid paying royalties. Activities such as stockpiling may have been legally possible with no point of redress for the copyright owner and the potential loss of huge royalties. In this case, ignorance is a defence.

  1269
  Dispensation from royalties should be granted solely to activities relating to revived works which were carried out before publication of the directive. Anyone exploiting, or arranging to exploit, a revived copyright work after the publication of the directive ought to be legally bound to have known that copyright was to be revived and that, therefore, royalties should be paid.
  Draft regulation 24 states that the exploitation of revived copyright is to be subject to a compulsory licence. In practice, that seems to mean that someone who wishes to exploit a revived copyright needs only to give notice to the copyright owner of his intentions and he is then automatically licensed. He is required to agree with the copyright owner the payment of a reasonable royalty, but that does not have to be agreed in advance of the copyright being exploited. Draft regulation 24(4) states:
  "If he does give such notice, his acts shall be treated as licensed and a reasonable royalty or other remuneration shall be payable in respect of them despite the fact that its amount is not agreed or determined until later."
  If the exploiter and the copyright owner cannot come to an agreement, the case has to go to the Copyright Tribunal. That can be cumbersome, time consuming and expensive. While that process is going on, the exploiter can enjoy the legal right provided by the regulations and the copyright owner is in no legal position to stop him. In essence, that means that the copyright owner no longer has an exclusive right to his property and is unable to refuse an application to exploit it, even if he considers the use inappropriate for whatever reason or if no agreement has been reached on the amount of royalties payable.
  The Composers Estates Group has asserted that the United Kingdom will be the only member state with compulsory licensing. In other words, this is not an obligation that has been imposed on us by European law or for other such reasons. It is worth bearing in mind the faith that compulsory licensing was abolished in this country by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
  I am also informed that someone may exploit a copyright in this country by informing the copyright owner under the compulsory licence rules. People are legally entitled to do so even if the copyright owner has not agreed to its exploitation, but that would be illegal in another member state, so someone trying to export a product that exploits copyright in that way could, theoretically, have the export blocked by another member state, which would directly contravene the treaty of Rome.
  Those are serious objections to the regulations. If it were left to me to decide these matters, I would oppose them. I have no opportunity to move amendments to deal with those complaints, and the House has expressed a consensus that the greater good lies in not opposing the regulations. I am not even in a position to make that evaluation satisfactorily. Moreover, I recognise that strength of numbers is not likely to be with me on this occasion, which is not an entirely unfamiliar experience. I therefore reluctantly acquiesce on this matter, which is an example of how not to legislate.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Ian Taylor: As I suspected, this has been a technical debate about what I admitted in my opening remarks are complicated regulations.
  I reassure the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that, although the consultation period threw up one or two positions that
  1270
  were difficult to reconcile, by and large the responses from the many groups that have lobbied me over the past year have shown a broad consensus in favour of the regulations. Points of detail will always have to be worked out and some issues will have to be tested by the courts.
  We were not happy with some points because this measure was effectively achieved by qualified majority voting in the European Union. It was agreed that a timetable would be harmonised, but no detailed instructions were issued in the draft directive on how some measures needed to be carried out. Differences will therefore occur between member states, as have occurred in several different areas in this category.
  Mr. Hoon: Is the Minister suggesting that, where measures are enacted by qualified majority voting, that justifies a member state enacting different legislation from that enacted in other member states?
  Mr. Taylor: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, who is normally a great expert on such matters, that is not what I meant at all. I meant that, when a measure is agreed by qualified majority voting, one must take an element of rough with the smooth because we considered the overall purpose to be beneficial to this country, particularly in the area of sound broadcasting. Furthermore, the directive is not so intrusive that it goes into every area on which every member country must regulate. In those circumstances, different member countries have gone down a slightly different route in applying the regulations.
  I admit that we are late in applying the regulations—I apologise to the House for that—but we are not at the tail of the pack. Other countries are still wrestling with the problems and are having difficulties, as we had attempting to put the directive into proper UK regulations. It is my job not to second-guess other countries but to try to lay a comprehensive group of regulations before the House, which is what I have attempted to do.
  I would test the patience of the House if I went through in detail all the questions that have been asked of me, but I shall attempt to deal with some of them. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) asked about United States law. We cannot definitively interpret US law, but we understand that the restoration of copyrights provided for by US legislation to implement the trade-related aspects of the intellectual property rights agreement under the general agreement on tariffs and trade depends on eligible works being protected in their source country on 1 January 1996. We believe that our legislation will be in force on that date and UK copyright owners should be able to obtain any restorations of copyright in the US to which they are entitled. I have asked our team to be certain about that, and I am assured that it is.
  Other aspects of the directive, such as article 4, need to be implemented and we shall return to that as soon as possible in the new year.
  The hon. Member for Ashfield asked about ownership of revived rights. That is inevitably a complex area and a decision had to be made. Authors will benefit from the increased term in the case of future works by virtue of being the first copyright owners. We had to identify exactly who, in all simplicity, should receive revived rights and we decided that it should be the last owner of those rights.

  1271
  I was asked about musicians' estates. By any reading of the regulations, if an original composer or author does not benefit, it is because at some stage they or their estate transacted those rights to someone else. They are not being denied their rights; we have gone for simplicity and determined that that is the way to proceed. Those who will benefit from the revived rights should be the last owners.
  Mr. Hoon: Is the Minister entirely happy that the revived rights payment system is consistent with legislation enacted elsewhere in the European Union and, moreover, with the general principle applied in Germany, for example, where exclusive rights are guaranteed for a 70-year period? After all, that period was chosen because Germany gave greater rights than other countries in the European Union. The system for revived rights set out in the regulations does not give copyright holders exclusive rights for 70 years but simply provides a system of remuneration, subject ultimately to the Copyright Tribunal, for an extended period of 20 years.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That is a long intervention. It is more like a second speech. I call Mr. Ian Taylor.
  Mr. Taylor: I was beginning to worry about that myself, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I cannot second-guess the German position. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is no such thing as revived rights in that context in Germany because of the 70-year period. The Copyright Tribunal must tackle certain questions. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland remarked on the tribunal. Although it may not be perfect, it is a tried and tested way of proceeding. It is not for the Government to second-guess what a reasonable payment might be in those circumstances. It would be extremely dangerous for us to go on to that ground, which is why the tribunal pronounces on such matters.
  We have never proposed a right to object to the use of a work. Our consultative document included a licence of right, as do the regulations that have been laid before Parliament. If my memory serves me right, that assumption applies to any arrangement entered into before 1 January 1995.
  The issue of film authorship has been raised more than once. We are deferring the implementation of that provision until 1 January 1997. We intend to introduce the change when the so-called "rental" directive is implemented, which we aim to do in the near future. We also intend that the producer of a film will remain one of its authors in the United Kingdom. We do not intend to go further, and the directive does not oblige us to do so. The Commission did not say that total harmonisation of film authorship should be achieved between member states, and the directive does not proscribe that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire asked about arrangements for timing. Regulation 23(2)(a) provides for acts done in pursuance of arrangements made before 1 January 1995 to be carried out without infringing revived copyright. We believe that it is only right that people who have made arrangements before that date should he allowed to carry out acts consequent on them without liability to ownership of revived rights.
  1272
  A wide variety of circumstances may occur and the wording of the regulations must, of necessity, be fairly general. We do not consider it possible to define precisely the kinds of acts that will be permitted. When a dispute occurs, it will be for the courts to determine whether what has been done is genuinely in pursuance of the arrangements made before the specified date. The terminology concerned has been used in copyright legislation before—in transitional provisions in the 1988 Act, for example.
  If necessary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire might read section 57(1), section 180(3) and schedule 1(6) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. I say that because I know that lawyers will involve themselves in that matter anyway, and they might as well do so now.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) mentioned the vexed question of photographers. In no way was I attempting, nor shall I now attempt in any sense, to become involved in the difficulties of trying to define photography. It is both a profession and an art form and the two co-exist happily, but that is not the question.
  The question is whether a photographer is an author in relation to the regulations. I am assured that, in that context, author does mean author as defined in section 9(1) of the 1988 Act, and that that includes photographers. I hope that the photographers in question are happy with that.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Photography is, of course, an art form as practised by myself and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, but it is also—which is more important—a living. The question therefore arises, what happens when the owner of the copyright is a company that has gone bust? Why does not the copyright revert to the photographer or his legatees or whatever, in the same way as it does for the director of a film?
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman asks a question that I am unable to answer because I am unable to second-guess the legal position. Presumably there are circumstances in which such a right might revert to the previous owner, such as when the contract made to pass on the right to the company that went bust has fallen into desuetude. In those circumstances, it will be a question for the courts to test. I must stick to that position otherwise I should be making up law on the Floor of the House, which is a dangerous thing to do.
  In my opinion, the main questions that have been asked show how difficult the regulations are. Far from wasting time, we have used our time constructively to obtain a wide range of reactions from various groups.
  I admit that, in the end, Ministers and Departments must make a decision. We have made a decision, and we have laid the regulations before the House. I am delighted that the matter was chosen for debate on the Floor of the House.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire for her encouragement and for the compliments that she paid on behalf of the Writers' Guild of Great Britain, of which she is an esteemed and honourable member—[Interruption.] Well, she is not a member, but she is a writer. I am slightly concerned that,

  1273
  as a result of the debate, I am to feature in some position or other in her next novel. Before I get myself into further difficulty, I shall commend the regulations to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    RATING AND VALUATION
    That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.

    TAXES
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Estates of Deceased Persons and Inheritances and on Gifts) (Netherlands) Order 1995 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 16th October, in the last Session of Parliament.—[Mr. Freeman.]
    Question agreed to.

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

    INTEGRATED POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL
    That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9491/93 and 7511/95, and of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 2nd June 1995, relating to integrated pollution prevention and control; welcomes the Common Position achieved on this proposal on 22nd June; regrets the inclusion of certain activities in the Directive's scope, such as intensive livestock farming, food production and some industrial sectors, which do not readily lend themselves to this integrated approach; but congratulates the Government on the Common Position as a whole, which will secure the application in Europe of an innovative British approach to pollution control.—[Mr. Freeman.]
    Question agreed to.

  HMSO
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Freeman.]
  6.43 pm
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): Anyone with a working knowledge of the House or of any Department of Government, will know that Her Majesty's Stationery Office has a long and illustrious history. It is one of the oldest Government Departments remaining in existence.
  In 1786, a Treasury official called John Mayor suggested that the Government might make substantial savings if they bought all their paper and stationery through a central source. As a result, Her Majesty's Stationery Office was established as a small office fulfilling precisely that role. In all its activities since then, it has continued to honour that founding purpose by providing its customers with a cost-effective and high-quality service.
  From such humble origins, HMSO gradually expanded into many other sectors, including printing and print buying, all aspects of publishing and supplying stationery, office equipment and furniture. In many of its activities, it came to represent a single, authoritative and trustworthy supplier to government and, in return, HMSO has been assigned many functions vital to effective government in this country.
  For more than 100 years, HMSO has acted as printer to Parliament and, as hon. Members are of course aware, has also provided a service of the highest quality and efficiency, which is vital for the effective conduct of business in the House and the other place.
  Much of HMSO's official printed output has, since 1882—
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so early in his remarks, but while he is doing a historical survey of HMSO, and bearing in mind HMSO and Hansard's very strong connections with Norwich, will my right hon. Friend make crystal clear his commitment to future jobs in Norwich? Will he also express his determination that there will remain a very strong presence for HMSO in Norwich in future, as there has been in the past?
  Mr. Freeman: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's attention to his constituency duties, and I am able to give the following assurances about employment prospects: first, that Ministers will continue to consult the trade union representatives of the work force; secondly, that I can confirm that there are no plans for compulsory redundancies at HMSO in Norwich or anywhere else in the period running up to the proposed sale of the business; and, thirdly, that the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will apply. Incidentally, the provisions of TUPE are not time-limited. As far as a buyer is concerned—
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way at this early stage, but surely he is aware that, after 90 days, the requirements of TUPE are over and that there is no commitment on the part of an incoming employer to honour the undertakings laid down by his predecessor for any longer than that period.

  1275
  The Minister should check with his officials, because that is the position, and there is chapter and verse in industrial relations law at present to show that that is the case.
  Mr. Freeman: The provisions of TUPE apply, obviously, at the point of transfer of an undertaking from one owner to the other, and the owner is bound by those provisions. If an owner seeks to change and negotiate changes in the terms and conditions that apply to the work force of the business, the usual procedures for negotiations apply.
  Perhaps the House will permit me to complete my answer to the first intervention, I inadvertently gave way a second time during my answer to the first intervention.
  Finally, as I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) that, in searching for an acceptable purchaser of the business, we shall seek to select a company that wishes to, and has clear and acceptable plans to, expand the business of HMSO.
  No Minister can give any assurances about the total level of employment or the nature of the operations of any public or private sector organisation in future, but I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied with those four very clear assurances of our policy.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Further to the question to which the Minister has just responded, is it not the case that, the day after the change of ownership, the new employer can give contractual notice in respect of any term and condition of employment? Given that that is so, is the Minister therefore saying that he is guaranteeing, in the sale arrangements, a commitment that any future purchaser would have to give something stronger than the basic contractual requirements? Is he saying that a term of the sale will be something that guarantees that changes will not take place in contracts of employment?
  Mr. Freeman: I would not use the word "guarantee". I said that, in seeking a purchaser for the business, we shall look for a company that wishes to expand the business, and therefore the job prospects. I did not say that we would either seek or expect guarantees from any company. If HMSO were to remain in the public sector, I could not guarantee what jobs would be retained. I have already forecast that if HMSO remains in the public sector, its business and its employment base will contract.
  Mr. John Garrett: Why?
  Mr. Freeman: For the very simple reason that the business of government is reducing. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that, in the past 10 years, the work force of HMSO has contracted very substantially; it has halved in the past decade. That contraction is primarily a function of the reduced volume of turnover available to HMSO within the public sector.
  Since 1882, much of HMSO's official printed output has had the unique legal privilege of being conclusive evidence of the matter stated and it is frequently relied on in the courts. By the end of the decade, HMSO had assumed formal responsibility for overseeing legislative printing and the then controller of HMSO and his successors were appointed as Queen's or King's printer in pursuit of that function. From that time, the controller
  1276
  has also administered Crown copyright on behalf of the sovereign and, by agreement with the House and the other place, he also administers parliamentary copyright. In discharging those functions, HMSO has demonstrated and enhanced its reputation for diligence and reliability, which is now well known across the public sector and beyond.
  The parliamentary and statutory publishing business accounts for about 10 per cent. of HMSO's total turnover. HMSO has always relied substantially on its original activities of supplying its customers with the essential requirements of administration—for example, printing services, office equipment and stationery. HMSO naturally brings to that work the same reputation for high quality and service. Since its founding days, it has been guided by the need to minimise the overall cost to the Government, and therefore to the taxpayer, while maintaining the standards that its customers have come to expect. That objective has guided the Government's policy of reforming HMSO in the past 15 years and it must clearly be paramount in any decisions taken about its future.
  For the greater part of its history, HMSO's services were funded by means of an annual vote from Parliament. HMSO's supplies were, in accountancy terms, an allied service. Therefore, its customers did not have to draw on any of their voted funds to pay for the goods and services that they received. They effectively received them free. Although they benefited from HMSO's purchasing expertise and the savings that are inevitably made when buying in bulk, there was no incentive for them to look for a better deal elsewhere. Similarly, there was no pressure on HMSO to ensure that it offered the best deal.
  As alternative suppliers became increasingly available for most HMSO services, it was clear that more could be done to ensure that the cost to the taxpayer was minimised. For those reasons, in 1980 HMSO became one of the first of the Government's trading funds. That meant that, for the first time, it had to cover all its costs through customer charges rather than through an annual vote of cash. In return, it gained considerable management freedom over operational and finance matters.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend concede that, from that point, the price of Hansard has increased to such an extent that people can no longer afford to buy it? That was a direct consequence of the Government's decision.
  Mr. Freeman: That was correct at the time. However, I am delighted to inform the House that, as a result of negotiating a new service agreement and of HMSO's responsiveness, the price of Hansard is now falling. I hope that the price not only of Hansard but of other documents supplied to the House and to the other place will continue to fall. That is a function of greater efficiency at the stationery office—I congratulate the management and the staff—and of a tougher and more businesslike attitude on the part of the House and the other place regarding the supply of documents.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: My right hon. Friend knows that I am very displeased with the general plans to privatise HMSO. Do not his comments illustrate the good sense of keeping the publication of parliamentary papers properly within the control of Parliament? Is it not impossible to guarantee that if the work goes to a wholly free-standing commercial operation?
  Mr. Freeman: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's statement. Parliament must control the supply of those immensely important services; I do not dissent from that view. I believe that the House will have greater powers than it has at present through the negotiation and execution of a contract between it and the supplier of the services. The powers would be formalised. I do not believe that any successful purchaser of all the printing, publishing and other allied business of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, as it is now called, would seek to renege from, diminish or belittle the importance of the services that it provides to the House. The contract will be extremely important and I believe that Parliament will be able to control it better than at present.
  I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns in that regard. Although I believe that it would be commercially unattractive to separate the parliamentary from the Crown business, as my hon. Friend has pressed me on that point I shall certainly reflect further on the matter. It may be that, on reflection, I shall decide that some arrangements could be made, but I offer no immediate prospect of a satisfactory solution.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister said that Parliament could control the business better. What methods does he have in mind to ensure that?
  Mr. Freeman: I explained to the House that, for the first time in the history of the relationship between Parliament and Her Majesty's Stationery Office, there is now a formal service agreement. That was signed last week and it will come into effect on 1 January. There is a similar agreement with the other place. It is envisaged that the authorities of the House will enter into a formal contract on behalf of the House with the supplier of those services, in the same manner as many other services to the House—which perhaps are not as significant, but which are subject to normal commercial contracts. I believe that the existence of a public document that specifies the nature and the quality of services, together with the price of those services, represents a better mechanism through which the House can control the supply of the services.
  Mr. O'Neill: In the event that HMSO is unable or unwilling to comply with the undertakings into which it enters, what powers will the House have to excise any damages or compensation from the printer?
  Mr. Freeman: It depends on the provisions of the contract. The House may wish to have the right to veto any change in ownership or to inscribe damages into the contract or it may wish to remove the business of printing Hansard from other printing and publishing business. That is the nature of a commercial contract.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Is it correct that the contract could specify that any future change in the operations of the buyer should be subject to the requirements of Parliament? Although parliamentary business may constitute a relatively small proportion of the new operator's turnover, from a commercial point of view it would be under a great deal of pressure to maintain a good relationship with the House and the other place because any failure to fulfil its requirements could jeopardise the rest of its business.
  Mr. Freeman: It must be right that the dozens of private sector companies that supply services to the House
  1278
  and the other place seek to retain their good name and maintain their business with the Palace of Westminster and both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that the same will apply a fortiori to the supply of printed documents.
  Mr. Garrett: If HMSO breaks its contract, all we can do is sue it. Surely the Government should put those requirements into the tender document in the first place.
  Mr. Freeman: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a matter for the House and not for the Government. [Interruption.] One may laugh, but, although I shall be responsible for the contracts placed by the Crown with the printer and publisher supplying documents, the precise contractual arrangements are a matter for the House. Speaking on behalf of the Crown, I would envisage that any contract for the supply of such important documents as White Papers, Green Papers and other statements of Government policy would include extremely tough contractual provisions.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Let me make it clear on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, first, that the service agreement that the Minister has described is entirely independent of the discussion about privatisation and comes into force on 1 January as a result of work already done. Secondly, on behalf of the House, the Commission would expect to reserve the right to make whatever arrangements seemed appropriate if there were any default on the contract by a private organisation that took over the duties of HMSO.
  Mr. Freeman: I quite accept what the right hon. Gentleman said and I agree with him.
  Shortly after 1980, customers—Government Departments—were freed for the first time from the requirement to deal with HMSO and were permitted to use any supplier that offered them the best deal. The results were dramatic. The commercial imperatives placed on HMSO meant that costs fell sharply after it attained trading fund status. That could only be good news for customers. Not only were they now free to shop around but they benefited from the savings passed on by HMSO as a result of its new-found commercial freedom.
  That commercialisation also exposed HMSO to true competition for the first time and the private sector was quick to seize the opportunity. Central Government were and remain an attractive market for many of the services provided by HMSO, which soon had to compete with suppliers that were well used to the rigours of the marketplace and, more important, were not bound by the same public sector regulations as HMSO. In retrospect, the management and staff of HMSO rose to the challenge remarkably well and, despite that intense competition, HMSO remains the clear market leader in the supply of printing and stationery to central Government.
  Ultimately, however, that competition will work against HMSO if it remains in the public sector. For instance, its governmental status means that it is still bound by restrictions on the prudent use of taxpayers' money, which ultimately accounts for nearly all its income. That rules out decisions that would carry only normal commercial risk in the private sector. It is unable to raise investment capital in ways open to private sector business or to diversify into new markets. Most important, it cannot trade with private sector customers when its own central Government market is in decline.

  1279
  In such an environment, HMSO would clearly struggle to maintain its position. Although it has generally continued to meet the financial targets that it has been set, its turnover has declined by some 10 per cent. since 1990. A continued cost-cutting programme has led to the reduction of staff numbers by some 600 over the same period. To allow matters to continue in the same vein would be a gross disservice to the management and staff at HMSO, whose efforts have built on the organisation's formidable reputation and who in recent years have found their futures in jeopardy through being unable to compete fairly with other suppliers.
  At the same time, to return to the old way of a protected market into which customers were tied would deny those customers and the taxpayers the benefits that they have gained since 1980. It would also imply a wholly unjustifiable lack of confidence in the ability of the management and staff of HMSO to run a prosperous, competitive business.
  As I announced in the House last week, we therefore plan to privatise HMSO by means of competitive tender offer. That will allow the business to compete on equal terms with the private sector for the first time. It will be able to trade into wider markets and to diversify and expand as business opportunities present themselves. It will be able to raise funds for investment through all the channels open to private business, rather than having to apply to the Treasury. All those improvements will allow its customers to benefit from further efficiency savings and, as nearly all of them are at present funded from taxation, that will also benefit the taxpayer. At the same time, working in a more secure and prosperous environment will naturally present its staff with a more secure future.
  I am convinced that, without privatisation, the business will continue to decline and its staff will face continuing job losses.
  Mr. Mark Robinson: Is it not fair to say that HMSO is a centre of excellence that will attract a prospective purchaser and that, far from wanting to destroy the business, any prospective purchaser will want to keep the management team together and build on that business?
  Mr. Freeman: I agree with my hon. Friend. I take a constructive attitude to the future of any business which has built its success, albeit in a declining public market, on not only its integrity but its hard work and its skill in obtaining business from Government and Parliament and discharging its function satisfactorily.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again, but, as he is referring to the hard work and the skill of the staff of HMSO, many of whom live in Norwich and the surrounding area, will he respond to the particular point I made earlier about the importance of maintaining a strong base for HMSO in Norwich? That is traditionally so and I believe that it should continue. Can my right hon. Friend make a commitment to that?
  Mr. Freeman: As I said to my hon. Friend earlier, I cannot make any forecast about how a business is organised into the future. However, having visited Norwich
  1280
  twice—I intend to do so again to discuss the future with management and representatives of the staff—it is clearly the sensible headquarters of the business and I know of no reason why there should be any change in that regard. I cannot forecast how the nature of the business of HMSO will change the individual loadings of specific factories or depots in future. Norwich is clearly the centre, and I see no good reason why that should change.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am particularly grateful for the assurance that my right hon. Friend gave me earlier, but surely any internationally based company could buy HMSO and produce from wherever it wished to produce and that is the blunt fact. I would not begin to impugn my right hon. Friend's good intentions or integrity, for which I have the highest possible regard, but he cannot guarantee it.
  Mr. Freeman: Like many hon. Members, I spent the majority of my life in business in the private sector, subject to the rigours of the private sector. One locates businesses where that makes the most economic and business sense. I pay tribute to the management of HMSO for doing that and reorganising the business. Of course I cannot give my hon. Friend any assurance about where and how the business will be organised in future. I cannot do that with HMSO in the public sector, let alone the private sector. For the business to expand, it must be given the opportunity to compete for private sector business which I believe is available, and that must load its existing factories, if they are efficiently organised and located, which is clearly the case. That will enhance job opportunities.
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I recognise that the Minister is accepting interventions; but, to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), the right hon. Gentleman cannot give guarantees, yet he has tried to do so in letters to Madam Speaker and to the work force of HMSO. The Minister has also accredited and applauded the workers and management of HMSO. Does he expect a management buy-out?
  Mr. Freeman: No. There is no sign of any interest on the part of the management and staff, I suspect partly because of the size of the operation. It is a significant industrial operation and one would not normally expect a management buy-out. To return to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I cannot give guarantees about the size of the work force of HMSO in the public sector and nor can the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), who leads for the Opposition and to whom I give way.
  Mr. Derek Foster: May I press the right hon. Gentleman on his statement that the public sector market is in decline? He says that the central Government market is in decline, and that may well be the case for the time being; but the public sector market is far wider than the central Government market, and the right hon. Gentleman has not yet been able to privatise the entire public sector.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman take account of the fact that we now talk in terms of the public sector's being the whole European market? As I understand it, HMSO has done little in the way of marketing throughout Europe. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that in mind when he makes statements in the future?
  Mr. Freeman: The right hon. Gentleman is right. The public market, as broadly defined, is enormous. However, private sector companies could bid, for example, to print the journals and other documents of the European Parliament and the European Commission; bidding is not restricted to HMSO. I should like HMSO in the private sector to compete vigorously for that business. As a matter of policy, I do not want a public sector body, funded and ultimately guaranteed by the taxpayer, to compete for business outwith the United Kingdom public sector when other companies can compete with that business. I am confident that, given its reputation and expertise, HMSO will be able to expand its business into the European public sector when it is privatised.
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He has been very patient.
  May I pursue the point that the right hon. Gentleman made to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)? He said that he could give no assurances about the location of production in the future. I wonder how that squares with his response to questions from hon. Members on 13 December, when he said:
  "We, as the customers—that is to say, the Crown and Parliament—can require the business to have a certain nature and structure … Parliament will be able to control the nature of the business that supplies the products."—[Official Report, 13 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 993.]
  Is the right hon. Gentleman not flatly contradicting what he said only last week?
  Mr. Freeman: I was referring to HMSO's entire business. Parliamentary business represents 10 per cent. of the total. When I was questioned about the parliamentary press, I said that the contract written by Parliament could stipulate that the work must be done at the parliamentary press works—which is, in fact, a misnomer: the press prints more than just documents for the two Houses of Parliament, but that is not inconsistent with—
  Mr. Mandelson: That refers to the location.
  Mr. Freeman: Yes, but I was making the point specifically in regard to the parliamentary business and the parliamentary press. If the hon. Gentleman is asking, by implication, whether the Crown—that is, various Departments—would wish to stipulate when writing contracts that certain documents must be printed in certain cities, let me tell him that I do not consider that appropriate. We would look for a contract with the stationery office that offered good value for money in comparison with the alternatives; how that was organised would be a matter for the stationery office. There is one exception, however. If the hon. Gentleman does me justice and reads all the evidence that I gave to the Select Committee on Finance and Services, he will realise that I was dealing with that specific problem. Indeed, I provided even more assurances in response to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack).
  Accordingly, I propose to invite offers in the new year for the whole business, apart from a small residual body to deal with necessary public responsibilities such as Crown copyright. I plan to make a written statement on Government policy for Crown copyright by early February. The sale process will allow full screening and
  1282
  evaluation of all bids and consultation with customers, principally Parliament. It should also allow for legally binding contracts to be drawn up between customers and the privatised business.
  However, as I confirmed in my statement last week, I am not setting deadlines. There is a prerequisite that Parliament be satisfied—although I am also anxious for the uncertainty to last no longer than is absolutely necessary. It would make little commercial sense for us to withhold any of HMSO's operational businesses from the sale. Many of them are mutually dependent, and all benefit from the independence and integrity of HMSO, which I am keen to preserve after the sale. In particular, however, I note the suggestion of some hon. Members that the parliamentary press should not be sold, and could perhaps be taken over by the House. I have already responded to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire.
  Hon. Members have also previously suggested that HMSO should be freed from all its current public sector operating constraints yet be retained in the public sector. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland advanced that argument, and I am sure that he will do so again this evening. The commercial freedoms that HMSO would need to compete with the private sector in new markets are incompatible with its continuing in the public sector. The first commercial freedom is the right to borrow without the burdens of public sector constraints. No Government could countenance the prospect of a public sector body's having normal commercial freedoms to borrow.
  The second commercial freedom is the right to win customers in any market, public or private. If HMSO as a public sector body were allowed such freedom, its competitors in the private sector would be bound to suspect unfair competition, especially if HMSO were able to borrow money cheaply because its activities were thought to be underwritten by the taxpayer. It is far better all around, for both HMSO and its competitors, for business to be transferred to the private sector, where it can compete on equal terms and can have freer access to the finance that will enable it to expand.
  The only sensible course is clearly privatisation of the bulk of HMSO as it is currently constituted. During such a process, customers will naturally want the maximum assurance that after the sale they will continue to receive the high-quality and cost-effective service to which they have been accustomed. At the same time, potential purchasers will wish to make their own estimate of HMSO's future viability, and to be sure that it will enjoy a reasonably secure level of business after transfer to the private sector. We propose to accommodate both those needs through legally binding contracts between major customers and the privatised business, wherever it is sensible to do so, and for that to come into force at the point of sale.
  Parliament is, of course, HMSO's key customer. The contracts will specify all the customer's requirements, standards of service and, if necessary, the means by which the service shall be delivered, as well as price. Customers' requirements will therefore be clearly specified and fully enforceable, ultimately by recourse to law. Agreeing the contracts with HMSO's customers is an onerous task, but I have every confidence that it can be achieved with the co-operation of those customers, whose interests the contracts will protect.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: In answer to an earlier intervention, my right hon. Friend gave an assurance that he would reconsider the parliamentary aspect. Will he report to the House on that specific point before pursuing his commercial inquiries?
  Mr. Freeman: I have already given an assurance. I must now end my speech, as time is short and others wish to speak, but I shall foreshadow a commitment that I intend to give in a moment. I shall publish the short list of potential buyers; Parliament will have its views on their acceptability.
  The needs of Parliament are particularly important, and it is vital for them to be fully protected in the new contracts required by both Houses. I note that new supply and service agreements will shortly come into force between the House of Commons and the other place and HMSO; they will provide a sound basis for the contracts. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is right: they are wholly independent of and separate from the privatisation proposals, and have an entirely different genesis. I am confident that we can reach a position that fully protects Parliament's needs in the privatisation.
  Mr. Mark Robinson: Does that mean that, when the bids come in, they will first be assessed to establish whether they pass certain quality thresholds, rather like television station franchises? Once those that do not pass those thresholds are eliminated, will those that qualify be considered?
  Mr. Freeman: Not only would the Government wish to draw up a short list acceptable to Departments; Parliament will insist that, if it is to conclude a contract with the privately owned stationery office, the new owner of the business must be entirely acceptable.
  Mr. Dalyell: The Minister has talked of binding legal contracts. Does he realise that the whole set-up in Scotland will have to be rather different? Can he make any statement about the discussions that have been held with the Scottish Office about the future of the 200 people working at South Gyle, 95 per cent. of whom voted against privatisation in a poll? So much for the consultation with the work force of which the Minister speaks.
  Mr. Freeman: With respect, perhaps the work force were not entirely aware of the arguments and advantages of what is proposed, not only for the unit in Scotland but for others, in Wales and Northern Ireland. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the future of those units, and any others, will be made clear before any contract is negotiated and signed. They have been treated as an integral part of the printing and publishing operations of HMSO. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have noted my earlier assurances about what is to be offered, that is, the whole.
  In her letter of 28 November to the Leader of the House, Madam Speaker set out the safeguards that the House of Commons Commission considers necessary to enable the House to continue its agreement with HMSO after privatisation. It was published in the Official Report of 11 December. My reply on behalf of the Government was placed in the Library of the House on 14 December, and explains how those safeguards can be met, primarily through a legally enforceable contract. As well as meeting
  1284
  Parliament's requirements in that way, potential purchasers will have to honour recently negotiated improvements, such as reductions in the price of publications, and, I hope, negotiate further reductions.
  I fully recognise that a change in ownership is a source of concern for staff. However, I am convinced that it is the best means of safeguarding their future by permitting an expansion of the business. I have already given an assurance that I shall consult the trade union representatives of the staff during the sale process. The staff and the trade unions will, of course, be kept as fully informed as possible by the management and privatisation team during the sale process. I can also give the House an assurance that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will apply to the sale of HMSO, and staff will transfer with their existing terms and conditions. That protection is important and applies, of course, in any transaction whether in the public or private sector. I expect the newly privatised business to be able to offer staff a more attractive future as the business prospers and grows.
  In selecting a successful bidder from the short list, one of the factors that we will consider is the bidder's plans for the future growth of the business. Pension rights are protected by social security legislation. The new owner will be required to provide broadly comparable pension arrangements. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the pension scheme is non-contributory. The Government Actuary will be asked to provide an independent analysis of comparability and to approve the new arrangements as offering broadly comparable benefits. In addition, the pension fund will be under the control of the board of trustees, in accordance with trust law.
  We will exclude from the sale a small residual body charged with carrying out HMSO's statutory functions. That body will also be responsible for the administration of Crown copyright and could continue to administer parliamentary copyright if Parliament so wished. Retaining responsibility for copyright in the public sector will allow us to sustain and improve the accessible and affordable publication of government information.
  I confirm that the Government will seek a buyer who will maintain the integrity of the present HMSO. In no circumstances will we offer the printing and publishing businesses separately. The buyer must, of course, be acceptable to Parliament. To that end, I intend to publish the short list of bidders in due course and to invite Parliament to be involved in the selection of the successful candidate to ensure that a satisfactory outcome is achieved for work for Parliament. I undertake to consult the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, and business managers on how that should be accomplished. My dealings have so far been with Madam Speaker, acting on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, but further reflection may indicate another approach. That is the arrangement that has existed so far.
  In addition to this debate, I have already made a statement to the House and given evidence to the Finance and Services Committee. I remain ready to outline the Government's plans further, in Select Committee or elsewhere.
  I commend these plans to the House, in the best interests of HMSO, its customers, its staff, the taxpayer and Parliament.
  7.23 pm
  Mr. Derek Foster: I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for arranging to have placed in the Library his reply to Madam Speaker's letter to the Leader of the House dated 28 November. I also thank the Chairman of the House of Commons Finance and Services Committee, who, at my request, published the minutes of evidence of his Committee's meeting of 21 November 1995, at which the Chancellor gave evidence about the privatisation of HMSO.
  Both documents have only just been made available. I do not blame the Chancellor or the Chairman; they have done their best. The real culprits are the business managers who brought forward the debate from Wednesday to today. They have played into our hands. Because the debate is taking place when the House has not had the opportunity to absorb important new information, that strengthens the argument for another debate in the new year, when even more details will be available. Will the Chancellor and the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee join me in urging the Leader of the House—I am glad to see him in his place; he has a deep interest in this issue as a member of the Commission—to respond positively to these requests?
  The other day, I described the Chancellor of the Duchy as a decent man fallen among thieves. Perhaps I was unkind to thieves. I really do feel sorry for him, as he only just escaped responsibility for carrying through the privatisation of the railways—the poll tax on wheels, in the words of the late Robert Adlee when he was Chairman of the Transport Select Committee. It was out of the frying pan and into the fire. There he is in the Cabinet Office, privatising everything that moves or is stationery. [Interruption.] That was Matthew Parris; we should give credit where it is due. It is a grand clearance sale, or, more to the point, a closing down sale. Everything must go—unbelievable bargains. A thousand little-used Sir Humphreys are going cheap. Those are the actions of a defeated Government. They know that the voters cannot wait to take vengeance. They are scorching the earth in their humiliating defeat.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Did you write that, Derek?
  Mr. Foster: Perhaps Matthew Parris wrote that, too.
  Why are the Government doing that? Perhaps they need the money to start another party in the wife's name. Looking at today's public sector borrowing requirement figures, has the Chancellor of the Exchequer so screwed up the nation's finances that he has to sell off every candle end before the bailiff arrives?
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in his statement, denies that the money is important. If it is not, perhaps this is an elaborate job creation scheme: not jobs for those who work in the agencies to be sold off, as they are likely to lose theirs, but rather jobs for the boys on the boards of privatised companies, for former Ministers, defeated Members of Parliament and defeated Tory candidates. The Chancellor looks a little hurt, as though Nolan had never been necessary.
  Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman drew an analogy with rail privatisation. Is he able to give any commitment to the House that the Labour party, if it were in power, would renationalise HMSO, when unfortunately it is not able to give such a commitment about rail privatisation?
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is a little premature. The Government have not yet privatised HMSO. They could just be frustrated by an early election. Who can tell?
  What other reason can the Government have? Perhaps they have nothing else to do. They have no legislative programme, except a few Bills "to smoke out the Opposition", in the words of the chairman of the Tory party.
  Mr. Mark Robinson: Is not the hon. Gentleman playing a rather familiar record, because every time we have debated privatisation we have heard doom and gloom from the Labour party, when the result has been success?
  Mr. Foster: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he has had gloom and doom so far, he should just stick around.
  The Government have no Bills to speak of, except to smoke out the Opposition, and Parliament is on a one-day week, so we read. Ministers sit in their offices, dreaming up crackpot schemes to prove that the Government are still fizzing with ideas. The truth is that the Government are drifting aimlessly to the general election, with so little sense of direction that they grasp at anything that will appease their lunatic fringe. Perhaps the lunatics are not yet in charge of the asylum but they have certainly written the business plan. Privatisation is an idea whose time has passed. It has been fatally wounded by the greed of the fat cats.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: If the hon. Gentleman hangs on, I shall give way to him in a minute.
  No doubt, hon. Members will have seen the headline on the front page of yesterday's issue of the Observer. It reads:
  "Fat cats get £16m boost to pensions".
  The whole idea has been blown out of the water in recent months. The fat cats get the cream while the staff get their cards. The Chancellor of the Duchy is fanning the dying embers, and the grand scheme has been reduced to this—selling off HMSO.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was right to ask what the Government would sell off next. Will it be the Mace or the Dispatch Box? Such sales are worse than selling off the family silver—now they are selling off the empty boxes in which the silver was kept.
  Mr. Hughes: I was happy to wait for the right hon. Gentleman to give way, and I wait in anticipation to find out whether he intends to say anything about HMSO. He said—I am sure I quote him correctly—that privatisation was an idea whose time had gone. At what point did he form that judgment? Presumably he supported privatisations up to a point and now opposes them. Which ones did he support, because from what he has said it is plain that he supported some?
  Mr. Foster: That was an entertaining intervention, to which I shall not respond.
  This privatisation reminds me of the Deputy Prime Minister's plan to sell off the Post Office.
  Mr. Waterson: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Foster: Someone still supports that sell-off. The Post Office is profitable, efficient and competitive, but we

  1287
  were told that the status quo was not an option and that privatisation was necessary to allow the Post Office to compete in wider markets and to borrow for investment in the private sector. The Deputy Prime Minister had to back down because there was not a majority in the House for his scheme. That also applies to HMSO, because there is no majority in either House for privatisation. If the Chancellor of the Duchy gets his way, that may never be tested because primary legislation is not required.
  I understand that retaining a residual HMSO to administer Crown copyright and to fulfil the functions of the Queen's printer avoids the need for primary legislation. There is some suggestion of secondary legislation connected with the trading fund, but that might involve only a one-and-a-half-hour debate in Committee. No doubt the Chancellor of the Duchy hopes to sneak this measure through Parliament without a vote, and I can understand why. It was clear from the exchanges on the statement that many Conservative Members are not enthusiastic about his plan. If primary legislation were necessary, I am sure that the Government would not proceed.
  As the chairman of the Tory party admitted before the Queen's Speech, most of its measures were designed to smoke out the Opposition. Selling off HMSO fails that test because it smokes out those few Conservative Members of the sensible tendency. For that reason, heaven and hell will be moved to prevent a vote. However, in the November issue of "Public Sector Purchasing" the Chancellor of the Duchy said that the new arrangements for HMSO would not proceed without Parliament's approval. That must mean a vote in both Houses, because I know of no other test for Parliament's approval. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy give both Houses a chance to vote on this measure, which impinges on every hon. Member? Perhaps he would care to respond.
  Mr. Freeman: I thought that I had dealt fully and fairly with that issue but perhaps I can confirm that my advice is that no primary or secondary legislation is needed to permit the proposed transaction to come to fruition. I repeat for the sake of clarity the assurance about the retention of HMSO's business of supplying documents to Parliament as an integral part of HMSO. Parliament must be satisfied about the supply contract for that future business. As I have said, that is a prerequisite for completing the transaction.
  Mr. Foster: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that response, but he did not make clear whether there will be a vote in both Houses.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is taken in that spirit and I am sure that there has to be a vote.
  Mr. Foster: I am relieved to hear that, but we shall see.
  Mr. Mark Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: Perhaps I may be allowed to finish this point, and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy believed that if he could convince the House of Commons Commission or the Select Committee on Finance and Services he would be
  1288
  home and dry. That is clear from his privatisation time schedule. I am not arguing that hon. Members mistrust the Commission or the domestic Committees to conduct detailed negotiations on our behalf and to safeguard the interests of hon. Members. The guarantees that were sought by Madam Speaker in her letter of 28 November to the Leader of the House are comprehensive, although I am sure that Madam Speaker would consider adding other requirements to satisfy the House.
  Mr. Robinson: Is it not open, through the usual channels, to the Opposition to force a vote on any issue on a Supply day?
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that may happen if the Chancellor of the Duchy decides to deny the House a vote. The right hon. Gentleman believed—but I have covered that bit. [Interruption.] That is what comes of spending 10 years in the Whips Office.
  I sense from the mood of the House that hon. Members are unwilling to contract out this decision to the Commission or to the domestic Committees. I think that hon. Members will insist on deciding the issue themselves. The Chancellor of the Duchy intends that parliamentary approval should apply only to the terms of a legally binding contract, which will succeed the new supply and service agreement if privatisation goes ahead. That is clear from the right hon. Gentleman's reply to Madam Speaker.
  Both Houses will wish to decide on the principle of this privatisation, and I shall explain why. First, HMSO's contract with Parliament is its most prestigious. The Government will not consider privatisation without that contract and, of course, the contract enhances the value of HMSO to a potential purchaser. However, the contract is equally important to HMSO: its services to Parliament are an integral part of the whole operation, which is why management and staff wish HMSO to remain an entity. The Chancellor of the Duchy claims to have been persuaded by that argument, but his wish to keep HMSO as an entity is driven more by the exigencies of his timetable than by any wish to satisfy management and staff. A broken-up HMSO would take longer to privatise, and the right hon. Gentleman's deadline of July 1996 may be unattainable if the House authorities cannot complete the essential preparatory work before that date. Any slippage might send the sell-off into the buffers of a general election.
  No doubt, all Conservative Members will have been intrigued by yesterday's front page of The Sunday Times, which says:
  "Major orders alert for early election
  John Major has placed ministers and Conservative Central Office on 'amber alert' for a general election next autumn, six months before his term has to end in May 1997."
  They are probably packing their bags now to get back to their constituencies and prepare for Opposition.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: For Christmas.
  Mr. Foster: Or for Christmas, but if this move were scuppered by an early general election, all the additional work imposed on the House authorities by privatisation would have been for nothing because, without privatisation, a legally binding contract would be unnecessary.

  1289
  The House authorities have only just concluded a new supply and service agreement. If HMSO. remains in the public sector, that agreement would continue for, say, four years. Concluding that agreement has been most time consuming for the House authorities. Drawing up a legally binding contract will prove even more arduous. Doubts have been expressed as to whether that work can be concluded to meet the requirements of the Chancellor's self-imposed timetable.
  Hon. Members are entitled to ask whether any estimate has been made of the additional costs imposed on both Houses by the Government's plan. Will the House require additional members of staff? Has that additional expenditure been budgeted for? If not, can those extra demands be met? If so, what work will have to be deferred to meet those demands? Small wonder that, on 9 December, the front page of the Financial Times revealed a furious row between the House authorities and the Government about this scheme.
  Perhaps we should ask an even more fundamental question: what right have the Government to impose extra costs on both Houses without either House being able to decide the issue from which those additional costs arise? Arguably, on that point alone, the Chancellor is under a moral, if not a legal or constitutional, obligation, to let Parliament decide whether it wants those unnecessary costs imposed by an unnecessary privatisation.
  The next argument goes to the heart of the unease expressed by Parliament about the dilution of ministerial accountability because of the next steps agency initiative, let alone full-blown privatisation. At present, if hon. Members are dissatisfied with HMSO's standard of service, the Chancellor of the Duchy, as Minister with responsibility for public service, is accountable to the House. He will take some remedial action and report to the House. Here we must ask him how many hon. Members have complained about the service from HMSO. Has any formal complaint been lodged by the House authorities? If none, I suggest that the Chancellor of the Duchy should act on the principle, "If it isn't broken, don't mend it!"
  What happens to ministerial accountability upon privatisation? Is the Chancellor still responsible or does that responsibility pass to the people who have signed the legally binding contract? Who will answer to the House? Precisely what sanctions are available, by whom and under what circumstances? In the exchanges on his statement, the Chancellor mentioned suspension of the contract, but surely that is unsatisfactory. The House cannot function without its essential papers. Who will serve the House while the contract is suspended? No other organisation could possibly fulfil the contract's terms on an interim or ad hoc basis.
  Those are crucial issues. Can the House tolerate any dilution of ministerial accountability or a suspension of a legally binding contract as a sanction for non-fulfilment? It is clear that those issues arise only because of the privatisation of HMSO. That is why the House must be allowed to vote on the principle of privatisation.
  There are other reasons why the House must exercise that right. Two hundred years ago, HMSO was set up to stamp out corruption in public sector purchasing. Because it is a market leader, HMSO is able to use the public sector's purchasing power to hold down prices. Because it acts as an independent broker, HMSO is able to spread
  1290
  purchasing across a wide range of firms, rather than concentrating work in a few favoured companies. If HMSO is privatised, the public sector will not benefit from those advantages.
  During the whole of that 200 years, HMSO has served Government and Parliament, while maintaining the highest standards of confidentiality and meeting the most exacting deadlines required by Parliament. Will the Chancellor tell the House if HMSO has ever been investigated by the National Audit Office or the Public Accounts Committee for maladministration or for falling down on a matter of financial probity?
  In January last year, the all-party House of Commons Public Accounts Committee produced one of its most critical reports about the decline in standards of administration and financial probity. The Committee said:
  "In recent years we have seen and reported on a number of failures in administrative and financial systems and contracts within departments and other public bodies which have led to money being wasted or otherwise improperly spent. These failings represent a departure from the standards of public conduct which have been established during the past 140 years."
  Most of those cases arose because business men tried to short circuit administrative and financial procedures. The Government have been so dogged by allegations of sleaze that citizens no longer trust the system and we come to this pretty pass today when the lottery regulator does not even know that his behaviour is improper.
  By this reckless plan, the Chancellor of the Duchy runs serious risks with HMSO's impeccable reputation. After privatisation, will HMSO still be subject to examination by the National Audit Office or the Public Accounts Committee? The Government have sullied the name of the public services by intemperate pursuit of private sector values, but they have no right to risk Parliament's name in the same way.
  As a security printer, HMSO produces a wide range of security and "in confidence" papers such as the Budget. HMSO has an unprecedented record. No leaks have been attributed to it. Can the private sector guarantee to match that record? From time to time, the nature of such papers can jeopardise national security, so high is the risk. That is important to the House, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will recognise. Of course, Conservative Members will point to all sorts of market-sensitive information printed in the private sector as evidence that security printing can be handled just as well after privatisation. Indeed, in the exchanges following the statement, the Chancellor mentioned that some of the Budget papers are already subcontracted to the private sector. What he failed to mention—this is crucial—was that it was subcontracted only under the strict control of civil servants at HMSO.
  Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Is he not aware that some highly reputable companies in the private sector, including some in my own constituency, are engaged in security printing day in and day out and conform to high standards of product quality and security? Surely he is not restating the old Labour notion "public sector good, private sector bad"?
  Mr. Foster: I was not saying that; I was under the impression that the Conservative party was saying the contrary—"private sector good, public sector bad".

  1291
  Departments may of course choose not to use the privatised HMSO for their security documents. Perhaps the Chancellor will tell the House whether it is true that the royal military college at Sandhurst has already stopped using HMSO for some of its security documents, because it could not be confident about the security of a privatised HMSO. Perhaps he could also confirm that the Ministry of Defence is already radically reviewing its relationship with a privatised HMSO. [Interruption.] Someone obviously hopes so. When one bears in mind the fact that Ministry of Defence contracts account for nearly 50 per cent. of HMSO's revenues, could not the privatisation be rather dangerous? Could not the privatisation be attacking HMSO's core business, and would not that totally scupper the Chancellor's argument that privatisation is necessary for HMSO to sell in wider markets?
  I have dealt with the direct risks to services to Parliament; let us now examine the indirect risks. The first is the sale itself. The Chancellor wishes HMSO to be sold as a whole, apart from the residual HMSO. That might be his intention, but there has been a significant change of emphasis from what he said in evidence to the Finance and Services Select Committee to what he said in his statement. He said the same thing tonight. The worrying phrase is:
  "in any event we would not separate the publishing and printing businesses".
  I am sure that the Chancellor is aware that HMSO is much larger than just the printing and publishing business. Perhaps he is unaware that the statement, which he thinks is reassuring, is actually quite worrying to the staff of HMSO.
  Mr. Freeman: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that my statement represented a change since giving evidence to the Finance and Services Select Committee. The change was based on the advice of consultants, who recommended not only offering the business as a whole but in any case—whatever the response—not separating the printing and publishing business. Some might say that that represents an advance. I hope that it is a welcome change and that it gives greater assurance not only to the House but to the management and staff of HMSO.
  Mr. Foster: I do not think that the staff will find that reassuring. They are completely committed to HMSO surviving as an entity. The Minister re-emphasising that he would not in any event separate the publishing and printing business will certainly not be the kind of reassurance that he imagines that it will be. Under the exigencies of having to push through a sale before the general election, surely it is possible that the Chancellor will change his mind even more—perhaps his consultants will advise him again.
  Even if the Chancellor succeeds in selling HMSO as an entity, what guarantee is there that it will remain an entity for long? Rumour has it that a finance house will be the most likely purchaser. The purchase would be made with a view to flotation in two or three years' time. What guarantee is there that the new owner would not hive off bits of the business? Indeed, wringing out of HMSO's £340 million turnover the kind of profit that I have heard mentioned could be achieved only by hiving off the least
  1292
  profitable and concentrating on the most profitable bits of the business. Redundancies would inevitably follow. On that very subject, the Chancellor said that there would be no automatic redundancies. What does that mean?
  What guarantee can the Chancellor of the Duchy give that the company would not fall into foreign ownership, which would be unacceptable to Parliament? He will recall that Madam Speaker's letter made special mention of that. What guarantee can he give that the new owner would not be driven by the market to look for cheaper and poorer quality services to Parliament? The interests of the City coincide only rarely with the public interest. Despite his good intentions, the market might exert pressures opposing Parliament's wish to make its papers more widely and cheaply available.
  For all those reasons, both Houses should have the opportunity to vote on the issue, not only on the narrow terms of the legally binding contract. Those reasons are sufficient for the new Public Service Select Committee to investigate thoroughly the risks to parliamentary services, but the Committee will be able to range more widely.
  For example, the thrust of the Chancellor of the Duchy's argument is that HMSO's public sector market is declining and that privatisation will enable HMSO to sell in wider markets and borrow for investment in the private sector. When challenged as to why the Government will not arrange for HMSO to operate with full commercial freedom in the public sector, he responds that that is not Government policy. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) want to intervene?
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I have made my point.
  Mr. Foster: I think that the hon. Gentleman said that it was daft.
  Frankly, that is not good enough. The Chancellor of the Duchy is forcing through an unnecessary and unwanted privatisation—it is certainly unwanted by the staff, 95 per cent. of whom voted against it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, and we would probably find that it was unwanted by both Houses of Parliament, if they were allowed to vote. He is forcing it through on the pretext that there is no alternative, but he has not even examined the options. Will he confirm that this option was not one of those in the terms of reference given to the consultants who advised him?
  HMSO staff are proud of their record in the public sector. It has met all the targets set by central Government and undergone fundamental change in the past 15 years, becoming a trading fund in 1980 and a next steps agency in 1988. It has been trading commercially since 1980 and with increasing commercial freedom as it has responded to competition from the private sector. All the changes have been negotiated with the co-operation of the staff. They are proud of their record and take pride in the high-quality service that they provide to Government and Parliament. They want HMSO to remain in the public sector.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend not filled with despair by the fact that we have a Government who are so little conscious of the importance of our sovereign Parliament that they are prepared to hand the printing of something as vital as the

  1293
  papers that flow from Parliament to a private firm, not because that is necessary but for the sake of a spurious argument about profit?
  Mr. Foster: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Of course we understand—
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It was not very helpful.
  Mr. Foster: We are one party, unlike the Conservative party. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The whole scheme is being driven by the dogma that HMSO must be put into the private sector if it is to succeed in future. [Interruption.] I am addressing the whole argument. The Chancellor of the Duchy fails to address that argument, which is why I want him to refer the matter to the new Public Service Select Committee.
  The Select Committee should also examine the costs of privatisation. For example, what has been paid to consultants and advisers so far? What is the Government's estimate of additional fees before the sale is complete? How much will privatisation cost HMSO in staff time? How much investment has been carried out already in preparation for privatisation? How far is the low profit in last year's accounts due to exceptional redundancy payments in preparation for privatisation? How much is the preparation for privatisation costing both Houses and will that be taken into account in the contract? How much will be lost to the taxpayer by sacrificing a stream of profits year on year for a one-off contribution from the sale? How far has HMSO's performance been affected by two or three years of uncertainty and the resulting staff demoralisation? How much will be lost to the taxpayer by selling off valuable assets at knock-down prices to secure a quick sale? Is this a good time to sell in view of last year's poor results?
  I shall deal now with the issue of European law, and shall touch on a couple of matters related to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. I understand that the House of Commons operates under the provisions of the public service contracts regulations of 1993, which require tender procedures for contracts of service. That may mean that the House could not commit itself in advance to a contract with a privatised HMSO.
  I understand, however, that if a contract were entered into before privatisation and transferred as part of the sale, the regulations would not apply. If so, that might contravene European law. In answer to my question during his statement, the Chancellor of the Duchy responded that he was advised that that was not a problem. Will he publish the points on which he sought advice and the advice that he has been given? I shall certainly publish advice that I have received from lawyers advising the trade unions, which suggests that there may be some conflict with European law.
  For the Chancellor of the Duchy knowingly to flout European law might make him some kind of a hero with his Euro-sceptics, but it would be quite wrong for him to involve the House authorities in a breach of European law, and wrong for him to involve the legislature in such a breach without a vote in both Houses.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy has confirmed that TUPE will apply and we welcome that—although, understandably, staff are suspicious of how long the terms
  1294
  and conditions of employment will be maintained under the new owner. Pensions, of course, are not covered by TUPE. Although the requirement is said to be "broadly comparable" to the civil service scheme, there are great concerns about what that will mean in practice.
  The scheme should not go ahead without a vote in both Houses of Parliament. It should be referred to the new Public Service Select Committee for a thorough examination of the risks to services to Parliament, of the costs of privatisation and of the feasibility of giving HMSO full commercial freedom in the public sector.
  The Chancellor must be aware that his scheme is deeply unpopular with HMSO staff. He is also clearly not the blue-eyed boy with the House authorities. His scheme is unpopular with all Opposition parties, and many of his Back Benchers are reluctant supporters. Perhaps he should observe Lord Healey's first law of holes—when one is in a hole, stop digging. That at least would bring relief to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who would not have to be a Norfolk turkey voting for an early Christmas. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's Government want to present him oven-ready to the voters and he has been stuffed by the Chancellor of the Duchy. No wonder he is doing the turkey trot. Who would be a Tory candidate in Norwich if this madcap scheme went through?
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Paul Channon: The House has had a treat that it has not had nearly frequently enough in recent years: a speech by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster). I cannot say that I agree with everything that he said. Indeed, it could be argued that a speech of 37 minutes was a trifle long for a debate of this length. Chief Whips have said that to me on other occasions, but perhaps different standards apply to those who no longer have that great responsibility.
  I shall be extremely brief, unlike some, since my job is to report on the Minister's appearance in front of the Select Committee on Finance and Services, to which the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland was good enough to make reference. I note that the right hon. Gentleman now wants to send the report to be examined in great detail by the Public Service Select Committee. The more the merrier I suppose. If my Committee were thereby relieved of another duty, I do not suppose that the Committee's members would mind too much.
  But, in fairness to the House, I should say that the appearance of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave us quite a bit of comfort because he answered all the questions that we put to him and showed no reluctance whatever to appear. Indeed, he has not shown any reluctance to appear in the House, either for the recent statement or this week's debate.
  If I understand the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, he says that we must have a vote on the issue. I would not necessarily mind that. I do not see how a vote could be stopped if hon. Members wanted it. As the right hon. Gentleman said, if necessary, the Opposition can use a Supply day. If those in the House want to vote they will vote. If they do not want to vote, they will not vote. It does not seem to be a particularly difficult thing for which to campaign.
  There are differing views across the Floor of the House about the merits of privatisation and how it has worked on various occasions in various industries in the past, but

  1295
  that is not of great importance to me or, indeed, to the members of my Committee. Whatever our individual views on privatisation, what matters is what effect this particular privatisation would have on the House of Commons.
  If we were satisfied that the House of Commons' reputation would be damaged, that the service to the House of Commons would be severely damaged or on other such grave matters, regardless of party affiliation, we would be right to be against the proposal. My Committee therefore examined the proposal and took evidence from the Chancellor in order to try to address the very natural doubts and worries felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the privatisation of the stationery office.
  I accept what the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland says about the excellent service that the stationery office gives and has given for many years. I pay my tribute to it. But I do not want hon. Members to go away imagining that it has always been roses dealing with the stationery office in this House. When I was a Minister responsible for the stationery office, again and again statements were made and questions were asked because papers did not appear on time. Indeed, the same thing happened to my immediate predecessors in the Labour Government. So being in the public sector was not always a safeguard that things would be all right with the stationery office.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the absence of documents is a common complaint in Standing Committees? It is important to ensure that the record of the previous sittings is available to hon. Members serving on those Committees. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that hon. Members often raise points of order because the Hansard for the previous Tuesday or Thursday is not available?
  Mr. Channon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. It is some years since I raised a point of order in a Standing Committee, and I hope that opportunity will not arise again for quite a while.
  I was the Minister under whose regime and benevolent rule the stationery office became a trading agency, to which the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland referred with pleasure.
  We have seen in Hansard the letter from Madam Speaker containing 12 paragraphs of conditions that she thinks are necessary before the House could agree to a privatisation scheme. It is no secret that the matter was debated in the Commission, nor is it any secret that the matter was debated in the Finance and Services Select Committee—the relevant papers are published. I recall no resistance to the suggestion that the Minister should make a statement. I recall no resistance to the suggestion that there should be a debate. The very fact of a debate implies that, as a possible result of it, there might be a vote. Such a vote could easily be arranged in the future.
  All I want to ask is whether my right hon. Friend can repeat the assurance he gave to the House on a previous occasion. Can he repeat that he will not proceed with the privatisation of the stationery office unless he can conscientiously convince the House that the 12 points of
  1296
  reservation that the Speaker made in her letter will be met in full? My right hon. Friend has already given us that undertaking, but I think that he must give it again to the House tonight. The House can then come to a fair judgment about the future. If those assurances cannot be given, I am sure that the House will not wish to proceed with the privatisation. If my right hon. Friend gives that assurance, I for one will be happy, at least at this stage, to look at the proposal with an open mind and to consider the evidence. I would be happy to give way to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I repeat the assurance that I have already given on that point. Because of the importance of HMSO to parliamentary business, it is obvious and self-evident that Parliament must be satisfied. I cannot dictate Parliament's wish or conclusions on the matter, and therefore it cannot proceed unless Parliament is satisfied.
  Mr. Channon: For me, at least, that goes far enough for me to say that, at this stage, I am content to proceed further and see how the negotiations go. The Minister said that Parliament's wishes must be paramount, and that must be the aim of all of us, whether we are in favour or against privatisation in principle.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. John Garrett: Her Majesty's Stationery Office employs 2,800 workers, of whom 900 are in my constituency at the Norwich headquarters of HMSO. Therefore mine is a primarily constituency interest, although I also have a public service interest, as we all do.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) said, HMSO was set up in 1786 to stamp out corruption in public service purchasing. It is profitable, highly successful and has declared a surplus since 1980. It is in the middle of a three-year plan. As a result of being in the public sector it has the advantage of being able to use the purchasing power of the public sector to hold down prices. It also enjoys large economies of scale, and can spread its purchasing across a range of suppliers. Those advantages have served the Government well.
  One essential is that HMSO is not broken up, on or after privatisation. The Minister frequently says that he will not split its printing from its publishing activities. The right hon. Gentleman has not hitherto realised that one third of HMSO's business is in office equipment and office supplies. If those businesses were sold off—that would be a strong temptation to a private contractor—much of the overhead of the total organisation would have to be spread over printing, print buying and publishing. The loss of one third of the business would make HMSO non-viable. We fear that a major institution would buy HMSO as a whole and then, relatively quickly, resell the profitable parts and collapse the rest of it.
  What guarantees of employment will be extracted from a purchaser? Every other privatisation has been accompanied by massive job losses. That is the burning question in Norwich, which has lost 2,500 jobs directly, and probably as many again indirectly in the past few years. It cannot withstand massive new redundancies. I believe that guarantees of employment in the tender from potential private purchasers are essential.

  1297
  The Government tell us that the TUPE regulations will apply to the workers at HMSO, but those regulations specifically state that workers' terms and conditions may be changed for technological, organisational or economic reasons. HMSO operates on the leading edge of a number of technologies, and is therefore regularly reorganised. The protection afforded by the TUPE regulations may therefore be minimal. Equally, those regulations do not apply to transfers via change of share ownership. We understand that the current preferred route for a sale is to a financial institution, which may therefore not comply with current terms and conditions. Even the Government acknowledge that TUPE regulations provide protection only at the point of sale. If HMSO were to be broken up later, the businesses which were sold on would also not benefit from TUPE. I am strongly under the impression that the TUPE conditions last for three months and would not apply any longer to HMSO.
  When I asked the Minister at the time of his statement what steps he would take .to guarantee security on privatisation, he was unable to answer. HMSO is a security printer—I am well aware that there are other such printers—which produces in-confidence Government and parliamentary papers, passports, benefit books and other products where security matters, and which are subject to potential fraud. There has never been a leak from HMSO. What private sector company would offer such a guarantee when making a tender to take over HMSO?
  HMSO already carries out work for the French Department of Employment and the German Post Office. Why could it not spread into the European public sector markets and British non-Government markets while being retained as a public sector body? HMSO already operates in private markets, and most of its work has already been exposed to market testing. Virtually every test has been won in-house because of the efficiency of HMSO. In fact, 75 per cent. of its goods and services are already purchased from the private sector.
  HMSO has made the profit required of it while publishing important but limited-interest publications, which the private sector would be unlikely to publish because of the lack of profit in particular publications. Open government requires a state publisher prepared to publish limited-interest publications without the constraint of profit.
  The Minister referred to the constraint on the HMSO of the public sector borrowing requirement, but HMSO has made no call on borrowing in the past 15 years.
  In addition to employment and commercial considerations, there are, of course, important parliamentary considerations, which have been the subject of most of the speeches so far. How can a private contractor have the parliamentary experience of HMSO? What will happen if a private contractor fails to provide Parliament with the publications that it needs to do its work? If a contract replaces the present arrangements, all that Parliament can do is invoke a penalty clause. What good is that? Parliament would meanwhile grind to a halt. When will a detailed statement be made on safeguarding Parliament's interests in the cause of privatisation? Will they be made clear in the tender document? Who will be responsible if a private stationery office fails to provide the service that we need? Do the Government propose to hold a golden share in the privatised HMSO, so that at least they have some arm on it?
  1298
  I have some other questions on parliamentary matters. Will the privatised stationery office be the ultimate owner of current and future stocks of Government and parliamentary publications, and of the associated electronic archive? If so, what would the situation be if the company went bankrupt or were taken into foreign ownership?
  A privatised stationery office will naturally wish, in the interests of its shareholders, to extract maximum commercial value from official documents and data. How does that fit in with Government policies on public access to official information, for example, the trend to put more and more Government documents on the Internet?
  The House is making an effort to bring down the sale price of Hansard and other parliamentary documents—a policy which will benefit Government Departments as purchasers of those documents. Do the Government support that policy? Are they making a similar effort to hold down the sale price of their documents? A Government-funded subsidy is currently paid to enable public libraries to purchase all official publications at a substantial discount. Can we take it that subsidy is not affected by the proposed privatisation of HMSO?
  The Minister made a great deal of the fact that House officials recently completed negotiations of a new supply and service agreement, or SSA, with HMSO which is intended to come into effect on 1 January 1996. Are Ministers using that SSA, or related information on the House's financial arrangements with HMSO, for the purpose of discussions with potential purchasers? In other words, will the SSA be built into discussions with potential purchasers? Will the south London press—with its access to Parliament and its unique experience—continue to operate under guarantee? Because of parliamentary business, HMSO's costs are relatively high and its return from sales relatively low. This bodes ill for its survival.
  I do not find the Chancellor of the Duchy's answers to the Speaker's letter sufficiently satisfying on the main points. The Speaker raised the matter of the parliamentary press in south London, and stated that there was concern that somebody who took it over
  "would be tempted to experiment with cheaper methods for providing the service"
  at a risk to the service to Parliament.
  The Speaker referred to the complexity of the House's documents and the procedural rules which underpin them. She said:
  "HMSO staff and management acquire experience and knowledge of those complexities as they progress from job to job in the organisation; and they are brought up in the tradition that in all circumstances the requirements of Parliament are paramount."
  It is unlikely that a private contractor would see the interests of Parliament as paramount, because it is an intangible requirement and is very difficult to put into a contractual document.
  There is also the question of ministerial oversight. Who will be identified within the privatised stationery office to be responsible for contact with the House? Will there be any attempt to water down the SSA with HMSO without agreement by the House authorities? I assume that there could be a period in which the SSA would lapse. The Speaker's letter continued by saying that
  "we consider that any prospective purchaser of the Stationery Office should be required to accept the agreed principles which are set out in the SSA, particularly so far as they concern the rights of the House to regulate the production and reproduction of its documents, in both paper and electronic form."

  1299
  That applies also to location, and particularly to the location of the south London press that produces Hansard.
  The fact is that this is a mere matter of dogma and ideology. The Minister speaks of new opportunities, but new opportunities could been found for HMSO without a requirement to privatise. The staff at HMSO certainly do not think that privatisation will bring new opportunities, because 95 per cent. of them rejected privatisation. The proposal is simply a product of ideology, and the least the House deserves is an opportunity to vote it down.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate because, like the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), I have some constituency interest in the matter. HMSO is based in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but many of my constituents—I do not know exactly how many—work at HMSO.
  I share one thing with the hon. Gentleman, and possibly more. My constituents' worries are no doubt the same as those of his. After all, I am sure that one could not distinguish between the letters which he has been receiving from his constituents who work at HMSO and the letters that I have been receiving. It would be silly of me to suggest that there is some kind of difference in concern across the constituency boundary.
  I want to be frank with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy—there is, if not universal concern among the employees of HMSO, certainly considerable concern. That is why it is important for the matter to be debated and, to that extent, I must support some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  The Government should think long and hard about the way in which they go about this change. It is my first duty to get across to the Government that any change must be in the interests of my constituents. Any other constituency Member of Parliament would say the same. However, I differ from the Opposition Members who spoke in that I would say that there is a hard commercial case to be looked at. If there is time, I shall refer to this matter again. The market has been declining, and HMSO has had to take a long look at the question of possible staff reductions. Therefore, it is wrong of the Opposition to suggest that everything can be left exactly as it is, and that everything will proceed if that is the case.
  The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) complimented me by comparing me to a turkey. I may have got his comparison wrong, but it had something to do with Christmas. The hon. Gentleman would have disappointed my constituents. This is not a party political point. He spoke for some 37 minutes, but he did not say a great deal about what the Opposition would actually do to address the commercial difficulties and problems which HMSO is facing. After all, my constituents are concerned with the distinction between public and private service, but they are also concerned about jobs and prospects. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy is right to say that something needs to be done to improve the opportunities within HMSO, or any succeeding organisation, and those arguments must be taken seriously.
  1300
  It is appropriate that we talk about constituency issues—or Norwich issues—in this debate, even though it is a wider-ranging debate about Parliament and Hansard. Luke Hansard lived in Norwich and served his apprenticeship there before moving to London in 1774. All of us who have read up on the matter know the history. It is important that, in debating HMSO and Parliament, we bring Norwich into it, and I make no apology for doing so. There are other issues which I would like to address briefly in a moment.
  The issues are being considered by the House of Commons Commission and by the Finance and Services Committee. The hon. Member for Norwich, South also referred to parliamentary issues in his speech. I referred to some of the issues in an Adjournment debate in April of this year, when I talked about the cost and distribution of Hansard, the reporting of parliamentary debates and other important matters. I shall not go into great detail, but I hope to refer to those matters as well as talking about Norwich.
  I would be very unhappy if I felt that there was any chance at all of the main headquarters of HMSO moving out of Norwich. That may sound unreasonable, but—as a constituency Member of Parliament—I would have to be unreasonable if I thought that there was any chance of that happening at all. How could I or the hon. Member for Norwich, South say anything else? The Norwich tradition is tremendous, and the strong connection with Norwich must continue. I make no apology for pressing my right hon. Friend on that particular point, as it is important. It is important that the people of Norwich retain their jobs, and also the strong, traditional and historic links which HMSO has with Norwich. I make no apology for pressing that point over and over again. It is important to me, and it will remain important to me if we debate the matter further at a later stage.
  As I said earlier, many of my constituents have written to me to express their concerns about what they see as the Government's plans. I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy for the way in which he has kept me—and, I have no doubt, my colleagues in the House—fully informed about how the Government are going about this. My right hon. Friend has so far kept in touch with the management, staff and trade union side at HMSO, and has done so superbly. I think that he has visited Norwich twice—I know that he has done so at least once—and that he intends to do so again. One cannot fault him on this, and I hope that he will continue to keep fully in touch with everyone involved at HMSO.
  When my right hon. Friend visits Norwich, I hope that he will find time also to visit CCTA which, curiously, stands for the Government Centre for Information Systems. I defy any hon. Member to work out that one. CCTA is situated in my constituency, and of course it is also facing changes. I hope that my right hon. Friend will approach the changes at CCTA in the same courteous way in which he has approached the changes at HMSO.
  Many fears have been expressed in the correspondence that I have received from my constituents. Some of those fears are not well founded, but some need serious answers.
  My constituents are rightly concerned about the effect on the Norwich economy. It is no secret that we have had serious job losses in Norwich in recent years. I hope,

  1301
  therefore, that my Government colleagues will take seriously the fact that the Norwich economy is an issue at the moment. Communications to Norwich are an issue and jobs in Norwich are an issue. Those points are relevant and my constituents are right to address me on them.
  My constituents have referred to other issues about which other hon. Members have already spoken so I do not need to say too much about them. They refer to the possibility of asset stripping and to the possibility of splitting HMSO into units. They also talk about security, to which other hon. Members have referred. I am not saying that those concerns are necessarily well founded, but I know that people are worried about them and Ministers must answer those points.
  Mr. Grrett: If there were a vote, would the hon. Gentleman vote for or against the privatisation of HMSO?
  Mr. Thompson: I would want to find out first whether my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had answered my concerns. As I said a moment ago, he has gone about things sensibly. We shall have to wait and see whether he continues in a sensible way. In spite of the remarks by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, we do not know whether we shall have an opportunity to vote. My right hon. Friend has suggested that the proposal could go through in a Standing Committee. I feel—here I agree with the hon. Member for Norwich, South—that the proposal needs thorough debate and airing in Norwich as well as in the House. It is important, therefore, that I and colleagues here express all our concerns as well as—here I disagree with the hon. Gentleman—the advantages that may accrue from privatisation or from some similar change.
  Several hon. Members have referred to security. I have some sympathy with the idea that there is a risk, if the civil service is left out of it all, that there will be extra leaks. The only trouble is that we seem to have an awful lot of leaks even with our present governmental system.
  Mr. Beith: It is the politicians.
  Mr. Thompson: I shall not respond to that.
  In June 1994, I received from HMSO its newsletter, which comes out at regular intervals. Its controller and chief executive at that time was Paul Freeman; I am not sure whether that name has any significance for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Mr. Freeman headlined his article with the words "Streamlining to survive" and then made the following key points:
  "Up to 30 per cent. of current jobs may have to go for HMSO to remain competitive. Corporate services to be reduced to around 150 staff. Voluntary Early Retirement to continue."
  I could reel off his key points. Anyone who suggests that HMSO's problems start as of this debate is misleading my constituents and the House. There are continuing problems which the management of HMSO have to address and which my right hon. Friend is trying to address. We must try to push some of the more obvious party political controversy to one side and to look at the serious issues.
  My right hon. Friend is probably right, therefore, to suggest that the freedom to trade within the private sector will lead to opportunities for business growth and could well lead to better employment prospects in Norwich. That possibility is, of course, subject to my earlier point
  1302
  about the headquarters remaining in Norwich. New technology means that the staffing requirement may reduce and the volume of production by the printing presses and so on may need to increase. That is why I support the hon. Member for Norwich, South when he talks about expanding HMSO's activities to printing for the European Parliament and for organisations overseas. That must be good news whatever we do politically and it is an important point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who is not now in his place, referred to public service. I too have some difficulty here because I am a traditionalist at heart and a conservative, as many of my constituents are. Although I fully see the commercial arguments in favour of privatisation—perhaps jobs are the issue that will really count in the end—I have some sympathy with those such as my hon. Friend who say that public service is important in itself. That does not mean that I go along with the old Labour view that everything in sight should be nationalised, but I believe that there is a concept of public service. Those of us who have served in the professions, as I have, will not allow our party colleagues to sweep aside the concept of public service. I will certainly not have that. Those in HMSO who are genuinely arguing, not in political terms, for the concept of public service should not be dismissed out of hand. To be fair, I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster dreams of doing that. I must, however, put on record that the concept of public service is an issue that we have to address.
  I have made most of the points that I wanted to make on behalf of my constituents. To sum up, I believe that my right hon. Friend is handling the matter well. He is keeping people in Norwich fully informed and, as I know, he has a lot of support from those who are responsible for HMSO and for taking it forward into the future. However, my right hon. Friend has a lot of work to do to convince the employees as a whole of the rightness of this move.
  The point of my speech is to persuade my right hon. Friend to do all that he can to ensure that there is, if not here in Parliament certainly within HMSO, a thorough debate about the future. Subject to all that—here I respond to the hon. Member for Norwich, South—I would have no difficulty, if the matter came to a vote, in voting for the proposals as long as I was convinced that they were in the interests of my constituents. If I were convinced of that, I could override any other reservations that I might have or any old-fashioned ideas that I might have—which unfortunately I have not got rid of altogether.
  There is a parliamentary issue as well. Hansard, which is printed and published by HMSO is important. It should be distributed more widely and that is why I initiated an Adjournment debate on that subject some months ago. I was keen that the price of Hansard should be reduced. On 6 December, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) confirmed in a parliamentary answer that there would be reductions. There had been an earlier reduction in the price of the weekly Hansard from £22 to £12 as long ago as May. Within the past week, there has been an announcement of a reduction in the prices of the daily Hansard, Bills and Select Committee reports. That is a move in the right direction.
  If we move to privatisation, about which I am happy subject to the conditions I outlined, we must ensure that Parliament is protected in a number of ways. One way is

  1303
  to ensure that Hansard becomes more available—whether through electronic communications and the Internet, through cheaper printed Hansard or through free or cheap issues to public libraries, I do not mind, but I believe that it is important to Parliament to ensure wider distribution. I have no idea whether that has anything to do with privatisation, but I believe that whatever change comes, it is important.
  I know that many hon. Members on both sides agree that the reporting of Parliament is going by default. The press reporting of Parliament is a disaster; it has now been reduced to sketch writing and the trivial. There were references earlier to Matthew Parris who, dare I say it, is probably the best sketch writer.
  Mr. Waterson: Where is he?
  Mr. Thompson: I have no idea where Matthew Parris is. The sketch writers are here only for the first hour or so of the day and they then go off to dinner or to do whatever else they do. They certainly lead a comfortable life. Matthew Pan-is is probably the best sketch, writer, yet even he often bases his sketches these days on matters that have nothing to do with what has take place in the Chamber. I could expand on that but I shall not do so, you will be relieved to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is an important issue and I shall return to the subject of Hansard and its circulation at a later date.
  I will not submit to the temptation of saying anything more on a subject about which I feel extremely strongly. I say merely that I hope that my right hon. Friend understands my remarks on behalf of my constituents. I hope, once again, that he will accept my appreciation for the way in which he is going about the debate on this important issue.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: I am sponsored by the printers union, the Graphical, Paper and Media Union, and it is perhaps appropriate that I should deal almost exclusively with that aspect of the matter.
  One problem with the reporting of Parliament concerns the technical difficulties that now weigh heavily on newspapers, because of the deadlines that they have to meet, so that the presses can start rolling at a particular time. That sort of problem does not arise with HMSO. The arrangements that have been arrived at between the work force, Hansard and those in this House who pay the bills, as it were, mean that the service is carried out in a unique way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) mentioned a problem that those of us who sit on Standing Committees encounter from time to time: the non-availability of papers. I am assured by my friends who work on the printing presses that they would be more than happy to be able to provide that service earlier for the convenience of the House. It is the constraints that have been imposed on them over a period of time that prevent them from doing so.
  It is unfortunate that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has left, because I was going to pay him something of a compliment. He is well known on both sides of the House as a courteous and solicitous man. In the past,
  1304
  I have had to cross swords with him on many occasions when he represented other Departments and I have always found him to be genuinely concerned. As a consequence, he is sometimes a wee bit thin-skinned and takes it all out when the barbarian hordes in the Opposition try to rough him up a bit. Although his answers this evening have been polite and courteous, they have not been satisfactory. He has almost been honest enough to admit that, in so far as he has said that he cannot give guarantees on the number of jobs after the sale of the business or what the working conditions will be.
  We have given the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster four or five days' notice, but he seems to misunderstand the nature of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) referred to the criteria by which a change in circumstances may take place. When ownership changes, some three months' notice has to be given before the TUPE regulations can be altered. I think that the figure is 90 days, so it is nearly 14 weeks. That is the point at which negotiations start.
  We know that such negotiations would not necessarily involve the preservation of the status quo. Indeed, there would be no point in having negotiations or giving notice if there was not going to be a change. We also know that when ownership changes, new owners are often ambitious enough to notice areas of profitability or loss that they would like to promote or cut out. As a consequence, jobs may go and factories may be moved about the country.
  As a Scotsman, I remember that it was only 10 years ago that Mr. Ernest Saunders came to Edinburgh and told everyone that the Distillers company headquarters, which was then located in the city, would remain there and that Guinness, having taken over Distillers, would locate its business in Edinburgh. That may have been an early sign of the Alzheimer's disease that apparently afflicted Mr. Saunders later and from which he miraculously recovered.
  I do not suggest that the people who take over HMSO if the privatisation goes through will behave as Mr. Saunders did, but unless something that will last for a long time is written into the terms of the sale, the chances of the headquarters remaining in Norwich are, to say the least, difficult. I do not say that because I wish anything to happen to the headquarters in Norwich. As one who represents a Scottish constituency, I know the importance of breaking the stranglehold of London on all business and commercial life. One does not have to be in favour of devolution as much as the Government are opposed to it—or dubious about it, like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—to recognise that we need a diversity of not only ownership but location of ownership across the country. I am dubious about any assurances that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster might try to give us on the matter.
  Hon. Members have continually returned to the point that it is somehow necessary to change ownership because the business is contracting, so there has to be some sort of commercial freedom that has hitherto been unavailable. Such a lack of commercial freedom did not restrict British Rail, prior to the threats of privatisation, from being in competition with companies to deliver parcels or, indeed, bodies. No competition was allowed in respect of the railway lines, but there was competition in respect of parcels. There is also the Post Office, which offers a range

  1305
  of services in the public sector, enters into competition with private sector companies and goes after commercial contracts with private businesses.
  I do not understand why HMSO, in its myriad activities, cannot, for example, bid to provide local authorities with papers and services or offer to print examination papers for examination boards. If it can produce cheques for giros, why not for banks? Why could it not be allowed to print bank notes? Some of those activities might well require investment, but nobody suggests that the sizeable investment that HMSO has had to undergo over the past 15 years came from the City or broke the Treasury rules. It was generated from within the business. I cannot see why the rules that apply to some bodies that operate in the public sector should be denied to HMSO. I find the Government's blinkered attitude strange.
  It is equally strange that when, at this late stage of a Parliament, the Government are trying to keep the privatisation fires burning, this is the best that they can get away with. The criteria for privatisation now are not how much money they can get or the scale of the operation; they are whether it can be achieved without legislation. That is the case with the privatisation of the nuclear industry and with that of HMSO. Both are businesses which have operated extremely efficiently and which, of their sort, could be classed as world leaders, but both are to be sold off.
  We do not know what the sum involved will be yet. We shall find out, doubtless, in due course. We shall want to know whether the quality of service that the House and the country receive will be sustained. It is a service that enables people to go to HMSO retail outlets and purchase papers at the same time across the country. It publishes papers of a sensitivity that can sometimes be of tremendous commercial advantage to individuals. That service is carried out by people who are not especially well paid and who will not themselves gain from the privatisation. Those people have committed themselves to the service of the community. I emphasise the point that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) made—an ethic of public service still prevails and has its adherents.
  Some of the people of whom we have been speaking, such as those who are recipients of non-contributory pension schemes, may begin to look at the matter differently if they are required to pay 6 per cent. or 9 per cent. of their salaries towards the pension fund, which will by and large, but not necessarily, just about meet present pension requirements. That is where the Minister's lack of clarity throws into doubt the sincerity of the whole operation. Between Thursday and today, the Government's position has shifted. On Thursday, HMSO was to be sold off in its entirety; tonight, the Minister said that he is willing to look at the printing and publishing business being dealt with separately. If the printing and publishing business is separate, I am not sure whether the headquarters at Norwich could survive.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I wanted to speak on that point, but time did not permit me to do so. It was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). I, too, have my doubts about the separation of the two sides of the business, although I realise that this is a parliamentary rather than
  1306
  a constituency matter. However, jobs could be at risk and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that concern, which I share.
  Mr. O'Neill: Other hon. Members have raised the issue and will continue to do so.
  We are not happy with this proposal. My colleagues in the printing unions are dreadfully worried about it because they have seen too many takeovers in the recent past, in which working conditions have worsened, factories and printing shops have closed down and pension funds have been messed about. We welcome the Minister's assurances, but I hope to God that his ambitions and ours will be realised. As we say in Scotland, "I hae ma doots aboot that," because we do not believe that those who want to take over HMSO will have anything like the ethics of public service behind them and will take the company's long-term interests to heart. Ultimately, they will run the company for three or four years, strip it down, separate off parts of the business that are not commercially attractive, perhaps give them away at knock-down prices, and then try to realise from the profitable core the best price that they can get. They will do that not for the taxpayers, this House or those who work for the business but simply for the company shareholders whom they represent and with whom their loyalty lies.
  The House of Commons has far higher standards and far stronger commitments. We should have the right to vote on the issue and the House should have a clear prospectus of what is on offer. Until we do, I hope that no Opposition Member will encourage the Minister in the foolishness of his endeavours.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this important debate. It has been interesting, not least because Opposition Members have given us a re-run of many themes and prejudices of old Labour. As the definitive voice of new Labour will wind up for the Opposition, it will be interesting to see at the end of the debate how the two philosophies are reconciled.
  I shall make four main points. First, we must view the proposal as a natural progression. HMSO has had a sweep of history of some 200 years or more, but in terms of its recent history, we have been told that, in 1980, it began to recover its costs and some two years later, Government Departments were liberated from the obligation to purchase from HMSO. So competition with the private sector has been a fact of life for the organisation for the past 10 years or more. In 1988, it became an executive agency, so there is nothing new about the current proposal. It is the natural result of all that has gone before, particularly in the past 10 or 15 years.
  Secondly, hon. Members on both sides of the House have echoed the view that, whatever happens to HMSO, it is important to have clear safeguards about the future role of the stationery office, especially vis-à-vis this House and the other place. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made it clear the other day that he is determined that whoever buys the stationery office will maintain its independence and integrity. That is important for all those participating in the debate. It is also clear from the points that have been

  1307
  canvassed in the important exchange of letters between Madam Speaker and my right hon. Friend that an eventual buyer must be fully acceptable to this House.
  Mr. Dalyell: Let us suppose that, at first, the buyer fulfilled all those criteria and the sale was accepted in good faith but then, for some reason that we cannot determine here and now, things went sour and became less and less satisfactory. Can the hon. Gentleman imagine himself or one of his colleagues on the Government Front Bench coming along to this House and saying, "Sorry, we have no means of producing parliamentary documents"? That scenario is not fanciful; it could too easily happen.
  Mr. Waterson: I am grateful for the opportunity to deal with that point. I have no dreams of being on the Front Bench, but if I were, I cannot imagine that scenario arising. This is a matter not between the Government and HMSO, but between this House and another place and the stationery office in its new incarnation. All Opposition Members have signally failed to appreciate the importance of a contractual relationship. At present, the arrangement between this House and HMSO does not come close to such a relationship. As my right hon. Friend explained, there will be a series of detailed provisions not only on the existing position but on any future changes in the stationery office's structure or operation, on the basis that it would have a paramount obligation that those would be subject to Parliament's requirements. As the hon. Gentleman knows, any contract would include two possibilities: first, to sue for damages; and, secondly, if a breach or breaches were sufficiently serious, to withdraw from the entire contract and claim a "fundamental breach", to use lawyers' jargon.
  Beyond that, as I said in an intervention on my right hon. Friend, considerable commercial pressure will be placed on the stationery office's buyer to ensure that the relationship does not go sour. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) said that such a relationship was a key factor in any privatisation. I am the first to appreciate that that is a two-edged sword, but it gives the ultimate buyer a substantial commercial incentive to ensure that the relationship does not "go sour".
  To continue with the question of safeguards, it is also important that this is a fully transparent process. As my right hon. Friend said, the shortlist of bidders will be published and officials of this House—not members of the Government—will be involved in the selection. He went further and listed the wide range of consultations that will take place, not only through the usual channels, but more generally in the House and no doubt in another place.
  As I said in response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the whole process will result in a detailed, legally binding and enforceable contract with the newly privatised stationery office, spelling out in great detail a range of enforceable obligations including, as I have said by way of an example, a provision that any future changes in its operation should take account of Parliament's requirements.
  As a lawyer, I am the first to appreciate that the devil is in the detail. However, commercial contracts of that type are entered into all day, every day, throughout the
  1308
  commercial sector, and it appears to me bizarre in the extreme to suggest that there are especially insuperable obstacles to legal draftsmen about what is now proposed, especially when, in addition to the supervision of the lawyers involved, there will be such a heavy weight of other, as it were, back-seat drivers looking over their shoulder to ensure that they get the detail right to protect the requirements of the House—and all that, with the recourse to law as a back stop, should anything go especially wrong. Further, we have spoken already about the protection for existing staff under TUPE, which would mean that their existing terms and conditions would apply.
  We have heard a great deal from Opposition Members about that apparent poll of employees, suggesting that 95 per cent. of them oppose the idea. Is that a surprise? If one tells people that they are likely to be hit on the head by a meteor, they will start worrying about being hit on the head by a meteor. I wonder in what terms the options available to HMSO were described to the work force.
  The third main issue is: what other options exist for HMSO? We have heard some airy-fairy talk in the debate about foreign contacts, developing business overseas and so on, without any true recognition of the scale of capital outlay that might be required. We have heard about a shrinking Government market. We have also heard how, between 1990 and 1994 alone, HMSO's turnover declined by more than 10 per cent. There are job loss implications in that trend; there already have been job loss implications, and it would be foolish and irresponsible of the House not to recognise that truth.
  The fourth issue is the freedom that may be introduced to the stationery office's current operations—freedom from the constraints of Government and the public sector; commercial freedom to embark on those new and exciting markets that hon. Members spoke about. The stationery office and its employees should not look nervously to the past; they should look boldly to the future. The vast experience and expertise of HMSO's staff, coupled with the efficiencies that have been won in recent years, should make it, on any view, a major player in any market, national or international.
  However, as I have said, access to capital—the freedom to raise capital where and how it wishes—is essential to grow that business, like any other. In other sectors, we are witnessing the development of the private finance initiative, producing hospitals and the like, and moves to give grant-maintained schools the opportunity to borrow on the open market. That is all part of the process, which is so much a feature of the Conservative philosophy, of setting free organisations which have a role in the modern world, and which have the expertise and the commitment of their staff, but which are held back by the dead hand of the public sector.
  In that context, I might mention the possibility—only briefly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because, were It do otherwise, you would no doubt call me to order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman already seems to be wandering out of order, so I should be grateful if he would stick to the subject of debate, as there are other hon. Members who wish to get in.
  Mr. Waterson: I was mentioning only the very same arguments that we have heard in favour of what is proposed for HMSO. Many of them could apply equally to the Royal Mail.

  1309
  Finally, a significant feature of the debate has been the attitude of Opposition Members. They have opposed every privatisation, whether it be of electricity, water, British Telecom or gas, and apparently propose to oppose this one. We have heard about the railways from the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, who was not regarded as out of order in making that argument. There was no pledge to renationalise—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may be a lawyer, but he does not challenge the Chair like that. I should be most grateful if he would respect the Chair and conclude his speech, as he would appear to be doing, on the subject before us.
  Mr. Waterson: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not intending to challenge your judgment, but I was suggesting that a more general issue about privatisation has run as a theme through the debate. Although I would be the first to accept that we are discussing a specific privatisation, many of the themes are common to other sectors.
  However, I was drawing my remarks to a conclusion. There was no pledge to renationalise British Rail. There is apparently no pledge to renationalise HMSO.
  You and I are very familiar with the process, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It begins with Opposition Members objecting strongly to a proposal to privatise. It moves on to the rubbishing of every aspect at each stage of the process, seeking to sow unjustified fears in the minds of employees, potential investors and the electorate. It continues with carping from the sidelines while the hard work proceeds and the enterprise goes ahead. The criticism becomes more muted as the privatisation is deemed a success. Labour party policies are fudged and any commitment to renationalise is quietly interred at dead of night in that rather large socialist graveyard with which we have all become familiar. Finally, there is an acceptance—usually tacit—that once again privatisation is here to stay, bringing tangible and lasting benefits to consumers, taxpayers and employees.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) spoke at some length about privatisation, but this debate is not about privatisation in the usual sense. If the Government were serious about privatising HMSO, they would present a Bill to the House so that all hon. Members could debate the matter and consider the problems in detail both in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is an honourable man—I have dealt with him before on transport—and he should admit that he agreed to a debate on the privatisation of HMSO, without a vote, only after sustained pressure from hon. Members and the Finance and Services Select Committee. I believe that there should be a debate with a vote—and that it should be a free vote. We are discussing the provision of services to the House. The decisions that we make in the months ahead will affect the future work of Members of Parliament, particularly Back Benchers.
  When I was elected to the House in 1979, I did not realise that I could receive a transcript of the proceedings of Parliament within 12 hours of a debate taking place. Over the years, I have realised what an asset that facility is, not only to Ministers and Front-Bench spokespersons
  1310
  but to Back Benchers like me. When constituents write to me and ask for my views and those of other hon. Members about an issue, I can reassure them about the matter and send them a copy of Hansard within a few days of its being debated here. The service is very useful for Back Benchers who do not have the civil service back-up Ministers enjoy.
  HMSO's services were developed over hundreds of years, and I do not think that we should surrender them willingly. We have an old saying in the engineering profession: "If it works, don't fix it". Why are we seeking to fix something that works very effectively for us and for the people of this country?
  Many hon. Members have spoken about the control that Parliament exercises over the pricing of Hansard. Not so long ago, the Administration Select Committee—of which I am Chairman—reached the unanimous decision that Hansard should be produced more cheaply for those who supply libraries, schools, universities and other academic institutions. That is possible only if we retain control of HMSO.
  It must be cause for concern that the service might be delivered into the hands of private printers. Unlike some of my hon. Friends who want to speak in the debate, I have never worked in the printing industry. It has always seemed an uncertain industry—Maxwell comes to mind—of ownership changes and asset stripping. I do not know whether the famous Lord Hanson had any influence over it—it is always argued in the tobacco industry in my Glasgow constituency that, if a company is profitable and has good industrial relations, there is no need to worry about it— but lo and behold, because a company was on a certain site, a new owner could take away the facilities that it provided for the sake of making a quick buck.
  At present, HMSO is an excellent asset with printing facilities across the river at Bermondsey. We might negotiate a contract with another printing company, but what will happen if the facilities move from Bermondsey to another part of London? That would make it difficult for Hansard to be delivered on time. We all know the problems of road transportation in London.
  Hon. Members know that space in the House is precious; it is used by Officers of the House, Members, back-up staff and for many other purposes. The advantage of the facilities across the river is that they provide printing and storage. No contract, no matter how tightly it is drawn up, could ensure the continuation of those facilities.
  The Canadian Parliament handed over its printing service to a private contractor and it is now an absolute disaster. New Zealand is also experiencing difficulties with private contractors, as are many other Parliaments. I am not arguing about privatisation—my views are well known—but, like every other hon. Member, I want to ensure that we keep the good facilities that we have. The dedicated Hansard staff service all the Committees and work night and day to ensure that the printer receives the material.
  When there is a crisis, the House appreciates the work of Hansard. I recall the Falklands and the Gulf war when Ministers and Opposition spokesmen made certain comments that we wanted to see on the record before we proceeded—and we could within hours of the House rising. We have to ask ourselves whether we want to risk losing that facility. I do not want to run that risk and I shall vote against it.

  1311
  We should improve our existing facilities. Putting our proceedings on the Internet and improving computer links so that more people can read about what we do in Parliament has been mentioned. The press has failed abysmally to cover the work that we do. The dedicated work that Back Benchers and Ministers do receives no press coverage, but people want to know about various issues that affect their daily lives. We must have a debate and a free vote.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: I shall begin by taking up one theme that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin)—public access to the documents produced by HMSO, notably Hansard, and the other papers it presently produces for the benefit of the House.
  There will be considerable agreement on both sides of the House that the day-to-day coverage of Parliament provided by newspapers and the broadcast media falls below the standard that is desirable if we want the electorate to be informed about the issues that are debated in the House and the arguments that are presented by both sides of it.
  Earlier today, I received a letter from the Buckinghamshire county librarian expressing some concerns to which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will he able to respond when he makes his welcome debut at the Dispatch Box. I believe that that librarian speaks on behalf of other, similar, services in expressing anxiety about the possible impact of the proposals on the availability of Hansard and other parliamentary papers to the general public through libraries.
  As the hon. Member for Springburn said, the present policy is to supply public libraries with HMSO publications, including reports of the House's proceedings, at discounted prices, with the aim of securing a properly informed electorate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can reassure me that the Government intend to make binding arrangements for the discounts to be continued after privatisation.
  I have no objection in principle to the privatisation of HMSO. It is, in my view, somewhat otiose to argue that only through the public sector can the House expect documents to be delivered on time and printed accurately. Those of us with experience in the private sector of the way in which our printing and publishing companies deal with documents such as annual reports, or companies' financial results, will know that that sector is perfectly capable of meeting the demanding standards that the House would wish to impose on it.
  Some Opposition Members have tended to overlook the fact that the contract to produce parliamentary documents on behalf of the two Houses would be highly prized. The company would have every commercial incentive to ensure that it delivered a service to Parliament that would enable it—the publisher and printer—to boast about that service, and about its continuing contract with the House of Commons, when seeking business with other clients both here and abroad. I expect the pressures of the market to ensure the delivery of the high-quality service that the House expects.
  1312
  I was grateful for the assurances that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was able to give about the procedure that will apply to the details of the proposed privatisation. I hope that Ministers will be able to give us more details of their thinking before long. I believe that it was the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) who spoke of the possible risk of a foreign publishing company's securing the business; I do not think that that, of itself, is to be feared. I imagine that, in any case, under European Community law it would be illegal for the Government—or, possibly, the House of Commons—to discriminate in favour of a United Kingdom company as against a company based in another European Union state.
  This, however, is the important point. Will my hon. Friend the Minister assure us that all hon. Members will be informed in good time of the nature of the criteria that will apply in the judgment of the individual bids that are submitted?
  Mr. Dalyell: With a foreign company, what would happen to the stringent security arrangements that now apply to the employees of HMSO?
  Mr. Lidington: As I understand it, employees of a private sector company, whether it is British-owned, German-owned or American-owned, would be subject to the same process of law and to the same contractual obligations. Given the increasingly international nature of the publishing business, those are constraints of which the management of any company that sought business the Government and Parliament might offer would be well aware.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure me on the points that I have raised. The principle of privatisation seems to be sensible. We are discussing a business with a considerable turnover, and the arguments adduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for giving it the freedom and opportunity of the private sector are sensible, but we must ensure that we get the detail right, so that we can carry the measure forward with the full support that it deserves.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall ask the Minister just two questions. First, a factual question. With whom has he discussed the matter in relation to the staff? I am told that it was not discussed with the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union; the Graphical, Paper and Media Union; or the GMB. I am told that he had one somewhat cursory meeting with the Civil and Public Services Association; the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists; and the National Union of Civil and Public Servants, but that, other than that, there has been no contact. When the Minister replies, can we have the factual truth—or untruth—of that situation?
  Secondly, I return to vetting. We are talking about some of the most sensitive documents that our country handles. Huge amounts of money could be made. Are we entirely, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) suggested, to rely on contract law? What will happen about the vetting of individual employees? With the Budget statement and equally sensitive documents, it is not sufficient for the firm to

  1313
  give a general blanket assurance. There must be very clear track records of employees who are to handle such matters.
  I should like answers to those two questions.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Gary Waller: Much attention has been paid today to the interests of employees of HMSO and of this House and the other place. That is quite right, but I want to say a few words about the interests of the ultimate customer—the user of official information—and the dissemination of that information using electronic means. I have no doubt that, in future, it will become common for such information to be conveyed in that way, for it to be manipulated and for added-value services to be applied to it.
  The Information Committee of the House, of which I am Chairman, has already given some attention to the matter of parliamentary copyright, not specifically because the matter of privatisation has arisen but because we recognise that copyright is in many ways the key to the way in which information is used. It must be a key to open doors, not lock them. I know that some publishers are concerned that it is being used to lock doors rather than open them.
  I shall speak about Crown copyright this evening, because I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is planning—early in February, I believe—to complete a review of the matter and that his views will then be published. Leading firms of legal publishers such as Butterworth, Sweet and Maxwell and Longman, and specialist electronic publishers such as Context, with whom the House has an agreement for the electronic dissemination of POLIS, are concerned about what they describe as
  "the limitations that HMSO has been attempting to impose on our freedom to reproduce materials which state what the law is and how it is administered."
  Few matters are as important as freedom of information in relation to the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and it is vital that there should be no barrier to access legal information.
  I have one or two questions for my hon. Friend the Minister, who is to wind up. If the privatised stationery office is required to obtain a licence to exploit Crown copyright from that part of HMSO which remains in the public sector—I assume that it will—will that licence be offered to the stationery office on the same terms as those on offer to competing private sector publishers? Will the stationery office be in a different position from others who add value to official information? What, if any, exclusive access will the stationery office have to Crown copyright materials? Will it operate in the same way as any other publisher of information in this area or will it have a special, privileged position?
  I have a specific question about the statute law database project. Work has been continuing on that database for some time and I understand that the project will be completed next year. Will the stationery office have an exclusive right to offer services from that project to the public or will an open licence be available to any suitably qualified private sector publisher? I hope that all those important matters will be addressed.
  I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has already said in evidence to the Select Committee on Finance and Services and in his
  1314
  helpful comments to the House that his instinct is for open government. That is encouraging, and I hope that, when he makes his decision about the use that will be made of copyright, he will demonstrate in a tangible way that he is determined to put his words into practice.
  9.27 Pm
  Mr. Robert Litherland: I have been connected with the print industry for 51 years. I started in the industry as a boy of 14, and I am rightly proud of the fact that I am a sponsored member of the Graphical, Paper and Media Union. My prime allegiance is to the workers who are affected by the privatisation policy.
  The question that goes begging is, "Why privatisation at all?" The Minister repeatedly recognised the quality of service and the efficiency of HMSO's workers and paid tribute to the management and staff for their commercial success in recent years. Why the big hurry? Why are we discussing a deadline of the summer of 1996?
  From the Minister's speech and from his statement last week, it appears that the arguments are excuse rather than good reason. It all boils down to the Government's policy of privatising public concerns however successful they may be. Their dogmatic approach is that HMSO must be privatised although, as hon. Members in all parts of the House have said, it is working and providing a good service.
  A great deal of money has gone into the streamlining of this successful enterprise and I query the investment. Is it another example of the fattening-up process that takes place before every privatisation? HMSO is a free-standing organisation that has never had any history of leaks of highly sensitive details and that should be allowed to compete in the outside market and has the capability to do so—but to this Government that would be heresy.
  What is dismaying—hon. Members have called for it tonight—and needs extra debate and questioning is the Minister's inability to give complete assurances on whether future private owners will sell on after purchase. He cannot give an assurance on what workers' pensions will be, whether they will be secure and whether all the terms and conditions, such as pay, holidays, health and safety, will be met. Can he give an assurance that a future owner—my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned it—could not be a foreign printer, perhaps a powerful German printer?
  What about the most precious commodity of all: the workers. What will they make of the Minister's remarks? Will the proposal be to their benefit in the long run? I and, I am sure, they come to the conclusion, "Not a lot". They are not fools, Minister. They have witnessed the redundancies following the privatisation of gas, water and electricity.
  The fattening up may be good for the fat cats, but it will be disastrous for many workers. What a prospect that is to offer workers just before Christmas, when they will sit with their families and ponder what next year will bring and what predicament they will be in. As has been said, the results of a ballot gave workers' views loud and clear: 95 per cent. voted against privatisation.
  From the Speaker of the House down to the shop floor, concern is being expressed. The letter from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to Madam Speaker states:
  "I recognise, and am sympathetic to, the concerns which you raise about the service which HMSO provides to the House and how to safeguard it for the future."

  1315
  I shall not give a long quotation, but it continues:
  "No supplier would want to be associated with a failure to deliver the services required by such a noteworthy customer. Done well, the Parliamentary business would be the best possible advertisement for the company. Done badly, other potential customers would take flight."
  To me, that reply does not reek with confidence. What would happen if the new owners could not meet their obligations? Perhaps, in his winding-up speech, the Minister will explain who would be accountable.
  As has been recognised, there is cross-party concern for HMSO's future. We wonder where privatisation will end when, now, it is on our very Parliament's doorstep.
  I am getting the nod to end my speech, but I for one, unlike the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, do not believe that a relationship with the private sector can be stronger or better than what we have now. I agree with the argument that there should be further debates and that the matter should go to a free vote.
  9.33 pm
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: This debate has been useful. It has revealed the paucity of the Government's argument on the privatisation of HMSO and exposed some serious and justified concerns among not just Opposition Members but Conservative Members. It has focused attention on employees' understandable anxieties. I hope that the Minister will respond in particular to the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
  The debate has left unanswered a host of legitimate questions about the future course of our parliamentary proceedings and work if privatisation goes ahead. I perfectly understand why the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) has, as he said, decided to quit the House at the next election. He had some very strong things to say about the Conservative party.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I ask the hon. Gentleman not to put a spin on what I may have said, and I hope that he will not misquote me further.
  Mr. Mandelson: I do not want to count my turkeys or my chickens, but the hon. Gentleman had some harsh words to say about the Government's attitude toward public service. I share his views entirely. I will only say in addition that if he felt reassured by what the Minister had to say to him about job losses, he is very easily satisfied indeed.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) made clear at the outset, the Opposition do not agree with this privatisation. We take that view not because we are opposed to all private sector involvement in the delivery of public services—I can reassure the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on that point—but because privatisation for its own sake, regardless of economy, efficiency or effectiveness, simply cannot be justified.
  The privatisation of HMSO is unwarranted on those three grounds. It is a needless rigamarole that involves great risks to the service that Parliament receives from HMSO. In all probability, it will leave everyone worse off or, at the least, dissatisfied—including, as I shall argue,
  1316
  quite possibly the private sector purchasers too. In our view, the privatisation is a recipe for huge tensions, if not chaos, between the prospective private purchaser and its chief clients—Parliament and the Crown—as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) made very clear, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) spelled out in his detailed and comprehensive speech.
  This is of course the latest in a series of unjustified privatisations which have been pushed forward by the Government. One wonders where the Government's next lurch to the right will lead. Perhaps Madam Speaker herself will be next in the firing line. Perhaps she will be sponsored, rather as the speaking clock that says, "The time as sponsored by Accurist." We might hear, "Order—as sponsored by Securicor." That may be a joke, but then the Government are proceeding with the privatisation of the railways. If they can do that, anything might follow.
  I come directly to what the Minister has described—he placed great stress on this in his original statement to the House last week—as the "point of substance" and the "nub of the issue". He maintains that, to safeguard jobs and expand job opportunities, HMSO should become a private sector company so that it can enjoy the freedoms of the private marketplace and avail itself of the opportunities that are provided by free competition, unshackled, unconstrained and uninhibited by the burdens at present placed on it by its public service and Parliament-related obligations.
  I agree that that is the nub of the issue. On the surface of it—certainly as presented by the Minister—what he is setting out has some attractions to it, in his terms. In making his case, however, the Minister is being thoroughly disingenuous because the realities of the marketplace could turn out to be very different. As one hon. Member after another has made clear, we are not dealing with the privatisation of any ordinary business. If anyone had any doubt about that, Madam Speaker's letter to the Leader of the House and the 12 conditions which she set out make it absolutely clear that we are dealing not with an ordinary business but with an essential and highly complicated public service.
  Let us examine the case that the Minister made last week and again tonight. He seeks to create the impression of a wonderful free market nirvana, which is set to liberate the imprisoned business of HMSO. In the next minute, he is anxious to spell out and emphasise that, in its work for Parliament and for the Crown, nothing will change and therefore the handcuffs will stay on; every protection, every peculiar standard and idiosyncrasy that we demand in this place, every vagary, every pressure, every timetable, every ebb and flow of parliamentary business will be met faithfully and on time by the newly privatised business.
  That does not sound like commercial freedom to me in its accepted sense. It sounds like the sort of framework and conditions that are not linked to the costs, competition or considerations of profit, which are the basis of private business, but are instead fundamental to the provision of public service.
  Of course there will be attractions to the private sector. The Minister has previously described HMSO as a valuable asset with substantial recent investment in plant and machinery. Who could gainsay the rich pickings there? But how long will that attraction last and how long

  1317
  will the new owners' interest be sustained if the business is maintained in its present state, as the Minister has claimed and promised repeatedly tonight?
  The Minister said in his original statement that the new owners will organise their business as they are told to do in order to safeguard HMSO's unique parliamentary and public service obligations. What other self-respecting private business is told by its customer which specific "nature and structure" its company will have, not only now but for all time? The Minister used that description.
  According to the Minister, Parliament will even be entitled to lay down
  "the location of the press and the staff and the way in which the business is structured and organised."—[Official Report, 13 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 993.]
  He says that the business will not be broken up. The parliamentary press will be integral to the rest of the business and it will all stay as it is at the moment, so the Minister insists. According to him, the customer will be calling the shots about the supply of products in every respect. Some commercial freedom that. I do not call that an ordinary commercial freedom. I find it a very exotic definition of commercial freedom—if the Minister is to be believed. Of course we are entitled to wonder how far that will be the case and how his promises will be fulfilled in practice.
  Let us not get on to the practice; let us dwell a little longer on the principle that the Minister enunciated in his speech. In relation to their official printing and publishing work, the new private owners—apparently—will be bound hand and foot by a Draconian, far-reaching all-embracing contract, the Minister claims, imposed by its core customers: ourselves and the Crown. Will these conditions, dictated by public service and Parliament's needs, really offer the privatised stationery office the full opportunities to roam, compete in the marketplace on an equal footing with its rivals, and pick up business as and when and where it wishes, as the tender document implies? I rather doubt it.
  If something has to give in this arrangement, I think that I know what it will be. Will it be the company's commercial freedom or our publishing needs? I think that market forces will have their way and no slap on the wrist from us or attempted enforcement of our contract is likely to have any sway at all in the face of those overwhelming market forces, which the Minister has said—and advocates—as the proper conditions in which this new privatised business should operate.
  The whole complicated and unnecessary exercise is a thoroughly misconceived and botched job from start to finish. It has been dreamed up by the peddlers of right-wing dogma who infest the modern Tory party. They change the name, change the status, introduce private shareholders, and clothe the whole thing in reassuring rhetoric, all as long as the private sector can be substituted in form and appearance for what is at the moment an extremely successful public enterprise.
  That is the nub of the issue. The privatisation is not about safeguarding jobs and expanding job opportunities, as the Minister has claimed, but about protecting Tory dogma and advancing ministerial careers. The idea is to get one more privatisation scalp on the Government's belt, and, incidentally, many thousands of pounds more in the pockets of Coopers and Lybrand in the process, and then
  1318
  to sit back as the whole thing proceeds to fall apart. Of course it will not be those on the Conservative Front Bench who will clear up the mess; it will be us.
  I am not surprised that the Government have fixed the debate so that no vote can take place at the end of it. Too many of their own Back Benchers—we have heard from many of them tonight—know that the privatisation is a needless, pointless, wasteful exercise, which, in its haste and clumsiness, will result in Parliament, its authorities and staff having to spend more time, more energy and more money on getting the same or worse service than they get from the current arrangements. What on earth is the point?
  On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to his new position. I hope that he will be able to give a darn sight better explanation of this crack-brained scheme and a much better justification of it than we have heard to date. I hope that the assurances that have been called for on timing and other considerations will be given, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland requested. Better still, the Minister could do us all an enormous favour and announce to general relief all round that the Government have had second thoughts in the Tea Room and called the exercise off. If they cannot do that, let us test the opinion of Parliament and put the issue to a proper vote in the new year.
  9.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. David Willetts): This debate has been a welcome opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House to express their views about the effect of the proposed privatisation of HMSO on services provided to Parliament.
  The debate has arisen from a series of concerns which Madam Speaker herself expressed in her letter of 28 November, and to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave a full reply in his letter of 12 December.
  It appears that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) is not familiar with the fundamental points that my right hon. Friend made in his letter. It has been made clear before, and I am pleased to take this opportunity to repeat the point, that, for example, no supplier taking on the responsibility of a privatised HMSO would possibly want to be associated with the failure to deliver the services required by such a noteworthy customer as ourselves. There is an enormous potential for the House to ensure that it gets the services which it is rightly entitled to expect through a clear, enforceable and legally binding legal contract.
  Mr. Mandelson: Where are the sanctions?
  Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the power of a legal contract in terms of the quality and the enforceability of service that it can bring. The sanctions would be available through law rather than through arrangements within the public sector. The sanctions would be explicit, legally enforceable, contractual arrangements.

  1319
  We have already made it clear that it is ultimately for the House to set that contract. We will work with officials of the House to ensure that it reflects the issues that have been legitimately raised in the debate.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: It is all very well for the Minister to talk about a contract; but it is not a contract to deliver 20 pints of milk to the door of the House of Commons but one to deliver the record of the parliamentary proceedings. If that is held up even by a day, it can cause havoc and represents a great deal of work wasted by the dedicated Hansard staff.
  Mr. Willetts: That is why the contract could make it clear, for example, that local overnight production facilities should be available close to the House. These matters should be made explicit in a contract. Although this is a matter for the House rather than for the Government, I would suggest that there is potential for the House to set out clearly and enforce more rigorously the standards that it is rightly expecting.
  Mr. Garrett: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that the House would have a hand in the selection of the company to take over HMSO. How will that be done?
  Mr. Willetts: Through Madam Speaker, we have invited officials of the House to become involved in all stages of privatisation, including the selection of the final winning tender.
  Mr. Dalyell: Have they agreed?
  Mr. Willetts: Perhaps I might carry on.
  Mr. Channon: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Beith: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Willetts: I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon).
  Mr. Channon: I may be interrupting the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). When dealing with the position of members of staff of the House, would it not be wrong for them to take part in that sort of decision? Surely they will be observers of, rather than active participants in, any such Committee.
  Mr. Willetts: This is ultimately a matter for the House—it is not a matter for the Government. I can only say that the Government have invited, through Madam Speaker, the officials of the House to become involved in the process. It is not for the Government ultimately to decide.
  Mr. Derek Foster rose—
  Mr. Dalyell: Have they agreed?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) must control himself. [Interruption.] Is the Minister giving way?
  Mr. Willetts: I give way to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster).
  Mr. Foster: I am sorry to intervene, as I know that the Minister's time is short. However, this is a crucial point.
  1320
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow is asking whether the officials of the House have agreed to take part in such a privatisation procedure—yes or no.
  Mr. Willetts: It is not for me to speak for the officials of the House. I have made clear on behalf of the Government that an invitation has been offered, but it is not for me to speak on behalf of the House. It would be impertinent for me to try to do that. That is why we have exchanged some important correspondence with Madam Speaker on this subject, but I am not going to try to tell the House how it should conduct its own affairs.
  Mr. Beith: May I make it clear on behalf of the House of Commons Commission that the invitation that the Commission received was for officials to take part in a process by which a contract would be prepared? The Commission would be willing to allow the officials to attend such a meeting as observers only, to make clear what the interests of the House are, and not as participants. The Commission has not yet considered the invitation—because it is entirely new—to officials to be involved in the selection of a company that might be entrusted with such a contract. That matter has not yet been considered.
  Mr. Willetts: It is very important that the House should be satisfied at all stages that the winning company meets the requirements that the House wishes to specify for the contract. That is ultimately a matter for the House, rather than for the Government. We, for our part, will do everything possible to ensure—
  Mr. Grrett: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Willetts: I am afraid that I must make some progress. There are a lot of other points that I wish to cover, and I have only eight minutes remaining.
  One of the other matters raised was the question of TUPE, and the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) asked questions on that subject. I can assure him that TUPE applies at the moment of transfer, and TUPE will apply in this case. There is no period of time attached to TUPE as it takes place at a specific moment. The reason why people reflect on a 90-day rule is that if any employer wishes to change the terms of employment of his or her employees, it is normally thought reasonable by the courts to offer that sort of period of notice. That is a separate matter from TUPE.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised the issue of security vetting. If a Government Department contracting with HMSO has an important security concern, it will be perfectly free to specify exactly what security vetting of individual employees is necessary for it to publish such documents, as it does at the moment. The hon. Gentleman also asked about consultation with the trade unions. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has already had one meeting with trade union representatives and he hopes to have further meetings with them in the new year.
  The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) asked me about the arrangements for ensuring that the quality of public debate was encouraged—something about which both sides of the House care—by continuing the current arrangements whereby public libraries received government documents

  1321
  at a discount. I am pleased to be able to give my hon. Friend the assurance that those arrangements will continue.
  Underneath the variety of specific points raised in the debate, perfectly legitimately, there was a deeper problem. The problem is that, for the past 15 years, every time we have explained the merits of privatisation, the Opposition have steadfastly refused to understand them. The fears voiced by the Opposition have been proved false by events. Yet again, we had today the threadbare arguments that we have heard before every privatisation. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland implied that private business men were sleazy and could not be trusted with money. We were told that the security requirements were such that it would be impossible for the requisite standards to be met by a private contractor. I must tell hon. Members that we can be proud that many of the world's banknotes are printed by private security printers in this country.
  There is an assumption that only public ownership will do. There is an assumption that if one has a public policy objective, one has to own the means of production, distribution and supply and that, otherwise, one has no means of meeting those public policy objectives. That is our fundamental disagreement with the Labour party and it remains as clear now as it was when we embarked on privatisation 15 years ago.
  Labour Members now ask why HMSO cannot enjoy greater market freedom to compete with the private sector while remaining within the public sector. That argument at least reflects a recognition that things cannot carry on as they are. Anyone who looks at the figures for HMSO over the past few years can understand why. In 1990, its turnover was £389 million. In 1994, its turnover was £351 million. In 1990, it had 3,400 employees; it now has 2,900. As currently constituted, subject to all the inevitable constraints of the public sector, the business will not be able to thrive. We offer the best prospect for the employees of HMSO to be part of a growing and expanding business.
  It would simply not be acceptable to allow a public sector trading organisation, which borrows from the national loans fund—it has, incidentally, £30 million of public sector borrowing outstanding at present—to go out and compete with private sector printers or publishers. It would not be reasonable for a body that would not pay corporation tax to compete in the private sector. It would not be reasonable to expect Ministers, who are accountable to the House, to allow HMSO to take on commercial risks when those risks would ultimately be borne by the taxpayer.
  The only way in which HMSO can enjoy the freedom that the Opposition now say they wish it to enjoy is for it to be part of the private sector. That is the only credible way forward. At the moment, HMSO faces increasing competitive pressure in its public sector marketplace. We have heard claims that the Ministry of Defence is now looking to market-test its publishing and printing requirements. I am not aware of that taking place as a result of the prospective privatisation of HMSO. It is what is going on throughout the public sector. The public sector is free to choose where it goes to purchase its printing and publishing services.
  HMSO is competing with private bodies for public sector work. As currently constituted, it has no reciprocal freedom to go out and compete with private sector providers for
  1322
  business in the private sector. I do not believe that any hon. Member, on careful consideration of the arguments, could possibly imagine that HMSO could remain in the public sector and have such freedoms. All the Opposition Members who have said that they wish it to have greater freedom while remaining in the public sector have made as clear a case as one could possibly imagine for the privatisation of HMSO as the only way forward.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the tradition of the House that the Department of the Clerk of the House is not brought into controversy. May I suggest that you bring to Madam Speaker's attention what has been said tonight and that she might take a statement on the position?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can help the hon. Gentleman. The Speaker has already ruled on the matter. I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have been aware of that.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  BROADCASTING
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Patrick McLoughlin be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting and Mr. Derek Conway be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Bates.]

  PUBLIC SERVICE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Peter Ainsworth, Mr. Hartley Booth, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. Jim Cousins, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. John Gunnell, Mr. David Hanson, Mr. David Hunt, Sir Peter Lloyd, Mr. Giles Radice and Dr. Tony Wright be members of the Select Committee on Public Service.—[Mr. MacKay, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  PETITION

    Nursery Schools (Rochdale)
    10 pm
    Mr. Jim Callaghan: I beg to ask leave to present a petition which reads:
    To the House of Commons.
    The Petition of the residents of Rochdale Borough and other places
    Declares that the Government's proposals for funding the education of under five year olds by a system of vouchers exchangeable for a sum payable to an institution would have a negative effect on the provision of education for the five year olds in the Rochdale Borough and would put at risk the existing eight nursery schools.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education to reconsider the proposals for funding nursery education via the system of vouchers with a view to establishing a fairer and more efficient way of providing children under five with the best possible education in their early years.
    And the Petitioners remain.
    There were 2,550 petitioners, and the petition was signed by Colin Lambert and others.
    To lie upon the Table.

  The Lizzards, West Drayton
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  10.2 pm
  Sir Michael Shersby: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of great importance to my constituents who live in Yiewsley and West Drayton—the unauthorised and non-conforming industrial activity taking place on a 22-acre site in the metropolitan green belt.
  I wish to declare an outside interest in that I am president of the London Green Belt Council, a voluntary association of residents' associations around London. My position is honorary and unpaid.
  The site to which I refer is known locally as The Lizzards. Access to it is via Tavistock road and Trout road, Yiewsley. The activity about which my constituents have complained is the reprocessing of waste materials and the crushing of concrete. I am advised on good authority that much of the waste material is being imported from other contractors by a company known as Towerway Ltd.
  The waste apparently includes earth, blocks of concrete reinforced with steel and similar material which is thought to come from motorway construction works. My information is that Towerway Ltd. makes a charge for receiving this material and is engaged in its resale. I am advised that Towerway claims to occupy the land under licence from a company known as Guinea Enterprises Ltd., which is registered in the Isle of Man. The directors are Isle of Man residents and are not known to the local planning authority.
  The use of The Lizzards for this industrial activity came to my attention in the spring. A number of my constituents living in Tavistock road became aware of an unusually large number of heavy lorries using their road. The lorries were loaded with soil and concrete and entering the site by means of a makeshift road, which had been bulldozed across open land and given a temporary tarmac surface to enable entry. People living in Trout road also reported increased heavy lorry traffic. They have complained to me about a misuse of green belt land and an intolerable increase in heavy traffic along a residential road.
  I immediately raised the matter with officers of Hillingdon council planning department, the local planning authority, who confirmed that they had informed Towerway Ltd. that its activity was non-conforming. As a result, on 24 April this year, the company applied for retrospective planning permission. Although, on 4 July, Hillingdon council rejected the application, the company disregarded the planning control and continued its activities. As a result, during the long hot summer that followed, my constituents continued to suffer from the noise of an unending procession of heavy lorries thundering past their homes from as early as 6.30 am, with an accompanying spillage of soil and other material on the public highway.
  My constituents also suffered the loss of the amenity constituted by the green belt land, which is part of the Colne Valley park and intended for the public's general enjoyment. I inspected the site several times during the summer months and was saddened to see how large piles
  1324
  of soil had formed a large bank adjoining the bridleway, trees had been crushed, and an amenity that has been enjoyed for many years by local people who like to walk their dogs and enjoy the open landscape had been spoilt.
  In spite of local planning officers' efforts, that company continues an unauthorised and objectionable activity in defiance of our planning laws. May I tell the House about the traffic volume? On Friday 15 December, no fewer than 107 vehicles travelled up and down Tavistock road between 6.30 am and 5 pm. On Saturday, the traffic started at 6.40 am and continued until just after 3 pm. Today, the traffic started at 6.40 am and, by mid morning, 23 lorries had gone up and down the road. How are my constituents to sleep, given the noise from those heavy lorries? It is an intolerable level of traffic on a quiet, mainly residential street.
  The reprocessing activity is unlicensed and does not conform to regulations made by the London Waste Regulation Authority in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which deal with transporting and recycling waste. I am advised that the authority has threatened prosecution. As a result of my interest in the matter, I received a letter from the planning and property consultants acting for Towerway Ltd. It claims that the company is engaged in a major restoration job by restoring the land to agricultural use without recourse to public funds and that residents should acknowledge that they live on historically commercial access roads and that lawful traffic and commercial activities share their right to be there.
  From the inquiries that I have made, I can demonstrate that that is not a lawful activity and that Towerway Ltd. has no right to be there. The site in question was originally owned by the Henry Boyer trust. It was transferred to Guinea Enterprises Ltd. in the recent past but no transfer has been registered at the Land Registry. Before 1947, part of the site was filled or overfilled with a variety of types of refuse, including tyres, concrete and scrap metal. In 1947, the former Middlesex county council gave permission for gravel winning and excavation. There was also a requirement for the treatment of the filled land, not all of which may have been carried out.
  In 1964, there was a consent by the Middlesex county council for the clearance of tip refuse, and that material has been extracted since then for road construction. I am advised that Towerway is not removing tipped refuse alone, but is engaged in reprocessing and tipping, for which planning permission is required. As I have mentioned, no such planning permission has been granted, so now we have an unauthorised activity on land that, until earlier this year, was valuable open space, acting as an important lung in the green belt.
  Many of the activities of Towerway are, I am told, not new to the local planning authority, which has already had to cope with similar activity on green belt land at several sites, including Bungalow farm off the Bath road at Longford in the south of the borough. As a result of that case, there was a public inquiry and an appeal by the company was dismissed. Enforcement proceedings are now in progress. Hillingdon council is taking appropriate enforcement action in the case of Towerway's use of The Lizzards. However, that is a lengthy process and meanwhile the non-conforming use continues, to the detriment of local residents.

  1325
  I have suggested to my hon. Friend the Minister—this is one of my principal reasons for mentioning the matter in the House—that the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are inadequate to solve the problem of non-conforming users who completely disregard the established planning controls. It is difficult for planning authorities to cope with well-informed operators who know how to play the system. If they are registered offshore, they can attempt to avoid control by simply changing their name when action is taken. They are what I can only describe as "chameleon companies".
  I shall explain to the House the way in which those companies avoid control. When an enforcement notice is issued, there is a right of appeal, which takes 12 months or more to be heard. Meanwhile, the offending activity continues. The stop notice procedure was intended to be an effective emergency remedy in such circumstances, but is inadequate because a local planning officer cannot effectively enforce the notice on the operator, who usually keeps a low profile and is not easy to identify or to find on the site.
  It is no use trying to enforce a notice against a lorry driver entering or leaving the site. The stop notice must be effective against the operator in person. Such people make it their business not to be available for that purpose. It can be difficult to demonstrate in a criminal court that they have acted in breach of a notice if they control activities off site.
  If the operator is on site, how does the enforcement officer tackle him? He is armed with little more than his pen and his personality. He has no power of arrest. He would have to be accompanied by a police officer. As we all know, police time is valuable; an officer is not always easily available for that purpose.
  At Bungalow farm, Longford, where a stop notice was served at 7 am, another lorry entered the site shortly afterwards. The driver was cautioned, but then he vanished and the unauthorised activity continued. If the driver could have been arrested by a police officer, it would have been a huge deterrent. He might have been subject to a fine of £20,000 in a magistrates court and an unlimited fine in the Crown court. However, the offence was not an arrestable offence.
  I wonder, therefore, whether my hon. Friend the Minister will consider discussing with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary the possibility of making such persistent and flagrant disregard of a stop notice subject to a custodial sentence. Another possibility might be to give a local authority power to take physical steps to stop the breach, perhaps by confiscating equipment or preventing access to the site in question by installing structures or barriers to the site off the public highway.
  Knowing my hon. Friend the Minister as I do, I hope that he will give his careful consideration to the difficulties that are being experienced by my constituents, and which I have described tonight. I hope that he will use all of his influence to support the local authority and, if he can, help to bring relief to my beleaguered constituents in Yiewsley and West Drayton.
  10.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I am grateful to my
  1326
  hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) for raising this particular difficulty. I understand from his description the difficulties experienced by his constituents who live anywhere near the sites. They are inevitably affected by the heavy lorry movements, the noise, dust and disturbance. It is particularly annoying for them when they believe that those activities are not within the law, as no planning permission was applied for.
  My hon. Friend will know that I cannot comment on the merits of the allegedly unauthorised activities that are taking place on the sites, or on the planning enforcement action that the council is taking now or may take in the future. It is possible that the matters may be the subject of some form of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Nevertheless, there are lessons to be learnt. We suspect that so-called cowboys have set out to ride roughshod over the planning control regime. In 1989, the planning enforcement regime was reviewed thoroughly. That review was quickly followed up by the Government, and the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 was enacted as a result.
  Authorities have a versatile and effective tool kit for dealing with the whole range of unauthorised development and I encourage local authorities—particularly this one—to utilise that to the full. I suspect that the local authorities may be able to go a little further in certain areas.
  One of the most important provisions in the 1991 Act is that enabling authorities to counter a particularly harmful breach of control. They may seek an enforcement injunction in the High Court or the county court. If the courts grant an injunction, it will be directed at named individuals, or at companies, who will be required to stop the activity involved in the alleged breach of control. An injunction can also be sought if an authority anticipates that a breach of control is about to take place. Anyone named in an injunction who does not observe its requirements will usually be in contempt of the court. Continuing contempt may result in a term of imprisonment.
  To make it easier to obtain that type of injunction, a special procedure enables an authority to obtain an injunction against someone whose identity is unknown. That can assist authorities greatly if they are dealing with a fly-by-night operator who presents a false identity or who is adept at changing his or his company's name. I can remember a local authority resorting to long-range camera photography in order to nail certain individuals.
  An authority may issue an enforcement notice and reinforce its effect with a stop notice. There is no right of appeal to the Secretary of State against a stop notice, so it can effectively prohibit an unauthorised activity almost immediately. The maximum summary penalty on conviction of not complying with the prohibition in the notice was increased from £2,000 to £20,000 by the 1991 Act.
  We sometimes hear criticism that planning authorities are reluctant to use a stop notice because it may result in their having to pay financial compensation to the person whose activities are prohibited by the stop notice if that person succeeds in an accompanying enforcement appeal to the Secretary of State. In fact, compensation would not be payable if the enforcement appeal succeeded on the grounds that planning permission

  1327
  should be granted. If the appeal succeeds on one of the other legal grounds in section 174(2) of the 1990 Act, some compensation may be payable, depending on the particular circumstances.
  I believe that planning authorities do not need to fear having to pay compensation if they draft their enforcement notices correctly in relation to planning law and the facts of the alleged breach. We know that enacting planning legislation is not enough. The Government's policy and procedural guidance to planning authorities also play a part. My Department's planning policy guidance note 18, entitled "Enforcing Planning Control", emphasises that the Government do not condone any wilful breach of planning control and that they encourage vigorous enforcement action to stop or remedy unacceptable unauthorised development.
  Earlier this year, consultants appointed by my Department completed a review of the effectiveness of the enforcement amendments in the 1991 Act and a copy of
  1328
  their report is in the Library of the House. The consultants concluded:
  "This review of the use and effectiveness of the enforcement system indicates that the new and amended provisions introduced by the 1990/1991 Planning Acts are largely working well and that significant legislative change is not required".
  That is generally reassuring. In the first instance, perhaps my hon. Friend should look to his local authority to take some of the hints and suggestions that have been made and be a little more forward in attacking the problem.
  Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has related such a tale of horror that I shall look again at the matter to see whether we can learn anything from it. We shall keep the enforcement procedure under close review. I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend and I wish him well in his bid to rid his constituents of the difficulties that he has related to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Ten o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EC Funding
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which organisations in the United Kingdom have received subsidies from the EC for the purpose of advancing the idea of Europe; and if he will make a statement on the process by which such organisations are nominated and chosen, indicating the role of Her Majesty's Government in these deliberations. [5898]

  Mr. David Davis
  Many organisations in the United Kingdom are funded by the EC for particular purposes, such as student exchanges, infrastructure projects, research, and to stimulate debate on issues affecting Europe. The involvement of Her Majesty's Government differs in each project.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which British Government Ministers have visited Indian-administered Kashmir in each of the last five years. [6461]

  Mr. Hanley
  I am not aware of any official visits by British Government Ministers to Indian-administered Kashmir in the last five years.

  Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the expenditure of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and 1(c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title for each year since 1990–91; and what estimate he has made for 1995–96 based on expenditure to date and existing plans. [6569]

  Mr. Hanley
  Details of advertising expenditure incurred by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—both diplomatic and aid wings—were given in response to a question asked by the hon. Member for Gordon on 13 February,Official Report column 487. Information on the proportion which was spent on newspaper advertising could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost. The projected spend on all advertising and promotional material for 1995–96 is £2,719,000.

  EU (English Language Use)
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what research his Department has(a) evaluated and (b) commissioned into the increase in the use of the English language in the EU; and if he will place copies of all such research in the Library. [6331]
  836
  Mr. Hanley
  The answers are as follows:

  (a) None;

  (b) None.

  However, the British Council-led English 2000 project has initiated research into the use of. and attitudes towards, the teaching and learning of English in the EU and in other parts of the world. The project will carry out in due course more in-depth studies of this issue. The British Council's report "English in the World" will he placed in the Library.

  European Commission (Information Policy)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he was consulted by the European Commission about the booklet "Do You Still Believe All You Read in the Newspapers". [6532]

  Mr. David Davis
  The European Commission is responsible for its information budget and how it is spent. Questions on the European Commission's information policy should be addressed to the Commission.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total cost of the booklet "Do You Still Believe All You Read in the Newspapers?" published by the European Commission; and what was the British Government's share of that cost. [6533]

  Mr. Davis
  We understand that the production cost for the booklet was £21,500, with a print run of 50,000 copies, at a cost of 43p for each copy.

  The United Kingdom made no direct contribution to the cost of producing the booklet. The Commission budget is funded from the general budget of the European Communities, to which the UK contributes.

  Khalifa Bazelya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the circumstances of the expulsion of Khalifa Bazelya. [6650]

  Mr. Hanley
  The head of the Libyan interests section was declared persona non grata on 11 December for activities not compatible with his diplomatic status. This action was taken solely on security grounds.

  China
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Government of the Peoples Republic of China concerning the employment of child and prison labour in(a) economic zones and (b) export industries; what visits have been made to such enterprises by embassy staff; and if he will make a statement. [6022]

  Mr. Hanley
  We continue to be deeply concerned about reports of the exploitation of child and prison labour in China. We take every suitable opportunity to raise our concerns about all forms of human rights abuse in China. with the Chinese authorities. Most recently, the Foreign Secretary did so with the Chinese Vice-Premier and Foreign Minister, in London on 3 October.

  Madrid Heads of Government Meeting
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals to increase democracy and to reduce poverty he will be submitting to the European Council Heads of Government review meeting in Madrid. [6275]

  Mr. David Davis
  At the Madrid European Council decisions were taken on the launch of the 1996 intergovernmental conference, at which we will continue to work to improve the democratic legitimacy of the European Union including a voting system which better reflects population and an enhanced role for national parliaments. There was also discussion at Madrid of employment, competitiveness and deregulation, all of which are important factors in reducing poverty.

  International Bodies (Budgets)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the impact on the United Kingdom contribution to the budgets of(a) the United Nations, (b) the World Bank and (c) the European Union of the Budget statement of 28 November. [6333]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

  Treaties
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many treaties have been agreed with other countries in the calendar year to date. [6743]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Treaty records contain details of 81 bilateral treaties concluded and 28 multilateral treaties signed during the calendar year. Arrangements are being made for a list to be deposited in the Library of the House shortly.

  East Timor
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigations he has made into reports about Hawk aircraft flying over East Timor. [6689]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have looked carefully into the reports about Hawk aircraft flying over East Timor, but have found no evidence to substantiate them.

  European Commission (London Office)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions on political activity apply to the head of the London Office of the European Commission. [6946]

  Mr. David Davis
  Officials activities are governed by staff regulations, which have been agreed with the Council. Officials are required to carry out their duties and conduct themselves solely with the interests of the Communities in mind. They must seek permission to engage in any outside activity, whether gainful or not.
  838
  Permission shall be refused if the activity is such as to impair the official's independence. Further information is available from the European Commission at:
  No. 8 Storey's Gate London SW1P 3AT.
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the running costs of the European Commission's London offices; and from what European Union budget these costs are paid. [6669]

  Mr. Davis
  This information is available from the European Commission Office at:
  No. 8 Storey's Gate London SW1P 3AT.

  British Embassies (Commercial Services)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the services which are available from British embassies abroad to British companies seeking assistance with business information, for which a charge is made on the companies concerned; and if he will list the level of charges and when they were introduced. [6680]

  Mr. Hanley
  The commercial services offered by British embassies which attract a charge are in the following list.

  Charging for the existing range of export services was introduced on 1 April 1989; the list reflects the current prices which came into effect on 1 October 1995.

  The Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office provide, through overseas trade services, a wide range of assistance to British companies. The services which attract a charge and are delivered by overseas posts are listed in the following table.

  Charging for the existing range of export services was introduced on 1st April, 1989; the list reflects the current prices which came into effect on 1st October 1995.

  Charge £

  Market Information Enquiries (MIE) and Overseas Investment Enquiry Service (OIES)

  Market information held by post

  45

  Up to four hours work at a post overseas

  90

  Over four and up to eight hours work at a post overseas

  180

  Over eight and up to 12 hours work at a post overseas

  270

  Over 12 and up to 16 hours work at a post overseas

  360

  Over 16 and up to 24 hours work at a post overseas

  450

  1 Over 24 and up to 48 hours work at a post overseas

  900

  1 Over 48 hours work at a post overseas

  1,350

  Export Representative Service (ERS)

  Up to 24 hours work at a post overseas

  450

  Over 24 and up to 48 hours work at a post overseas

  900

  Over 48 hours work at a post overseas

  1,350

  Overseas Status Report Service (OSRS)

  Up to four hours work at a post overseas

  90

  Over four and up to eight hours work at a post overseas

  180

  Over eight and up to 12 hours work at a post overseas

  270

  839

  Charge £

  Over 12 and up to 16 hours work at a post overseas

  360

  Over 16 and up to 24 hours work at a post overseas

  450

  New Products from Britain (NPFB)

  Per article—first market

  80

  Per article—each subsequent market

  40

  Programme Arranging Service: in Market Help Service, Seminar Organisation Service

  Minimum charge—up to two hours work

  70

  Hourly thereafter

  35

  1Available in selected markets only. The charges for MIE, OIES, ERS and OSRS are based on the time taken to complete the work by diplomatic staff overseas. ERS and OSRS are not available for some markets.

  Democratic People's Republic of Korea
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's current diplomatic relations with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. [6814]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have no diplomatic relations with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit of the delegation from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. [6815]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have no diplomatic relations with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Any visits to the United Kingdom from that country are on a private basis.

TRANSPORT

  Railtrack
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects Railtrack plc to publish the first annual statement about future network capacity required under the terms of its network licence; and if he will make a statement. [7346]

  Sir George Young
  Railtrack plc published its first network management statement today. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  I welcome the news that Railtrack expects to spend over £1 billion a year on maintenance and renewal of its assets over the next ten years.

  Railtrack's statement shows the professional approach which it is adopting to the management of its assets and a long-term commitment to a safe and efficient railway. I believe it also provides evidence of the benefits that privatisation is expected to bring for passengers. This scale of investment and the plans that Railtrack has outlined today should lead to a better quality service and a better-managed infrastructure for the railways of the future.

  Search and Rescue Helicopter Cover
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the individuals and organisations 840
  represented in his working party on the review of the search and rescue helicopter cover around the United Kingdom coast. [6745]

  Mr. Norris
  The search and rescue helicopter review group is made up of representatives of the Department of Transport, including the chief coastguard, the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office, Her Majesty's Treasury, the Department of Health, the Health and Safety Executive, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office, the Northern Ireland Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers and ACPO (Scotland)

  Departmental Staff (Members' Letters)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many officials he employed(a) full-time and (b) part-time in his Department in each of the last three years to answer letters sent to him from hon. Members; and what was the estimated overall cost of replying to them in each of the last three years. [5610]

  Sir George Young
  No staff in my Department are employed exclusively in answering letters from hon. Members. It is difficult to estimate the overall cost of replying to them but in 1994 Transport Ministers received over 15,000 letters from hon. Members.

  Vehicle Excise Duty (Exemptions)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motor vehicles over 25 years old are currently listed in the SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4 and SP5 postcode areas; and how many of them will qualify for exemption from vehicle excise duty as a result of the recent Budget. [6810]

  Mr. Norris
  An estimated 3,750 vehicles over 25 years of age are currently licensed in the SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4 and SP5 postcode areas. Of these, 2,500 are in private and light goods, motorcycle or tricycle taxation classes and will qualify for exemption from vehicle excise duty as a result of the vehicle taxation changes announced in the Budget on 28 November 1995.

  European Night Sleeper Trains
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date it is expected that the European night sleeper trains will receive their operating certificate following completion of construction. [6034]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: As the operators have not yet put in an application for an operating certificate, it is not possible to state when it will be granted.

  National Transport Concession Scheme
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider proposals to introduce a national transport concession scheme for people over retirement age. [6455]

  Mr. Norris
  No.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the European Court judgment on the Atkins case on the equalisation of transport concession schemes at the age of 60 years. [6453]
  841
  Mr. Norris
  The European Court of Justice has not advised the Department of the date on which it expects to make its judgment on this case.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what transport concessions are available to people over retirement age in other EU member states. [6451]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department does not hold detailed information on concessionary travel schemes for people over retirement age which are available in other EU member states.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions have been held in the European Transport Ministers Council on a European-wide transport concession scheme for people above retirement age. [6450]

  Mr. Norris
  None, to the best of the Department's knowledge.

  Transport Passes, Greater London
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had on the future of the free transport pass for Greater London pensioners. [6454]

  Mr. Norris
  None. This is a matter for the London local authorities which fund the scheme.

  Crash Testing Programmes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase crash testing programmes in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [6556]

  Mr. Norris
  There are no plans at present to increase the Department's crash testing programme for motor vehicles. The current programme includes research to evaluate the feasibility of a new car assessment programme which could provide crash-worthiness data as consumer information. The size of future programmes will be decided in the light of this research.

  Rail Services (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all passenger service requirements affecting rail services to and from Wales which have(a) been proposed and (b) been accepted. [5956]

  Mr. Watts
  The passenger service requirement for the Great Western franchise was finalised on 16 May by the franchising director following consultation with local authorities and rail users-consultative committees, and was included in invitations to tender for the franchise. The franchising director will develop and consult on further passenger service requirements for franchises that serve Wales during 1996.

  Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 6 December,Official Report, column 264, relating to the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, what is the time scale for the conclusion of the national debate on transport policy. [6125]
  842
  Mr. Norris
  Views on "Transport: The Way Ahead" were invited by the end of September, where possible. Many groups asked for more time in which to respond. When Ministers have considered the responses, a further report will be published drawing together the threads of the debate.

  Consultants
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those(a) consultants, (b) outside organisations, and (c) individuals employed by his Department in each year since 1990, indicating the purpose of their employment and the total payments made to them. [3958]

  Mr. Norris
  I will write to the hon. Member with details and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Servants (Briefings)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 4 December,Official Report, column 17, on how many occasions in each of the last three years civil servants have provided factual briefing to former Prime Ministers. [6123]

  The Prime Minister
  The information is not held centrally.

  Procurator Fiscal System
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Prime Minister what further consultations he intends to have before finalising decisions about changes to the procurator fiscal system in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [6043]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: A Crown Office steering group has been carrying out a senior management review of the Crown Office and procurator fiscal service. The extent and nature of any consultation will depend on the outcome of the review.

  Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the expenditure of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title for each year since 1990–91; and what estimate he has made for 1995–96 based on expenditure to date and existing plans. [6572]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Civil Servants (Contact with Opposition)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what preliminary contacts he has had with the Leader of the Opposition regarding official contact between Members of Her Majesty's Opposition and civil servants from 1 January 1996 onwards. [6554]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the reply that my right hon. Friend, the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister, gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 30 November,Official Report, column 835.

  Departmental Staff (Members' Letters)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister how many officials he employed(a) full-time and (b) part-time in his Department in each of the last three years to answer letters sent to him from hon. Members; and what was the estimated overall cost of replying to them in each of the last three years. [5624]

  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Committee and Conference Rooms
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee when he expects the Committee to conclude its review of the use of Committee and Conference Rooms; and if he will make a statement. [6651]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I am pleased to announce that at its meeting on 28 November, after having consulted Madam Speaker about our proposals, the Administration Committee concluded its review of the use of Committee and Conference Rooms.

  The Committee endorsed the ruling that the rooms should be booked by Members only for
  "private meetings or conferences in connection with a Parliamentary subject".
  The Committee believed that it would be helpful for the House to have a clearer definition of a "parliamentary subject", and agreed that it should mean a matter of current or possible future concern to the House, which falls into one or more of the following categories:

  (i) Matters intended to increase the awareness of, interest in, or promote discussion of Parliament, its history, institutions and procedures, or the constitution of the United Kingdom;

  (ii) Matters relating to the effect, or possible effect, of extant or proposed legislation (including Private Bills and Private Members' Bills);

  (iii) Subjects under investigation by a Select Committee of the House;

  (iv) Local issues, especially those involving more than one constituency, or which could not more easily or readily be dealt with in a Member's regular advice surgery;

  (v) Meetings with recognised charities, when the sponsoring Member is a trustee, governor, parliamentary advisor or other officer of that charity

  (vi) Matters to raise interest in, or to encourage or facilitate movement towards, the establishment of parliamentary democracies in other countries;

  (vii) Matters which are affecting, or could affect, the safety. well-being or interests of UK citizens or organisations at home or abroad, or those of EU, commonwealth or foreign nationals resident, or organisations operating, in the UK;

  (viii) Matters in which the UK is, or may become, involved on a political, economic or military level, and relationships between the UK and any other country or countries;

  (ix) Meetings with representatives (elected or otherwise) from EU. commonwealth or foreign Parliaments or Governments, or from the European Parliament. the European Commission, or international organisations. eg UN or NATO;

  844

  (x) Meetings with representatives of the Secretaries' and Assistants' Council, the Whitley Committee Trade Union Side, recognised Trade Unions or staff associations;

  (xi) Any other meeting approved by the Speaker.

  The Committee believed that the main criterion for approving use of Committee or Conference Rooms is that meetings should be connected in some way with the parliamentary duties of the Member who books the room. Rooms should not be used for purposes unrelated to the House, such as entertainment or the launch of any commercial or financial product.

  We endorsed the current practice for Rooms to be booked for the purposes of launching pamphlets or reports of a political, or party political, kind.

  We believed that it would be appropriate also for Rooms to be used to launch any book written by an hon. Member, or by a former hon. Member who is now a Member of the House of Lords, and that the sale of books at such a launch should be permitted.

  We also agreed that hon. Members may book Rooms to launch books written by Strangers, provided that it falls within headings (i) or (vi) above or any of the categories below:

  (a) Histories of the Palace of Westminster, the House of Commons or any of its Departments;

  (b) Anthologies of Members' speeches and extracts from their diaries;

  (c) Biographies of former Members of either House;

  (d) Biographies of former servants of the House (eg Erskine May, Hansard or Bellamy);

  We do not, however, believe that it would be appropriate to permit the sale of books written by Strangers at launches held on House premises.

  We also agreed that Sub-Committees of official party groups, that is, the 1922 Committee, the parliamentary Labour party and the parliamentary Liberal Democratic party, should be accorded precedence in booking the rooms over all-party groups, parliamentary groups and individual Members.

  These new regulations will come into effect upon the return of the House from the Christmas recess.

  Following a recent incident, I would like to remind hon. Members that whenever they have booked a Room for a meeting with constituents or other guests, it is the hon. Member's responsibility to remain in the Room at all times. If an hon. Member does have to leave the meeting for a Division in the House or in a Standing Committee, he or she should return to the Room immediately their vote has been recorded. It is also incumbent on hon. Members to ensure that their meetings finish on time, so as not to inconvenience any other hon. Member who may have booked the Room for a succeeding meeting, and that once the meeting has concluded, all guests are escorted off the premises or left in the charge of another hon. Member or the relevant House authority, for example, in the Strangers' Gallery.

  United Nations 50th Anniversary
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the United Nations 50th anniversary to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [6983]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 5 February to Friday 9 February 1996.

  Average Hourly cost
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what estimate he has made of the average hourly cost of the House of Commons on a sitting day. [5435]

  Mr. Paul Channon
  It is not practical to allocate the majority of House costs as between sitting and non-sitting days. The outturn for the financial year ended 31 March 1995 for the Works and the Administration votes, that is, excluding Members' pay and allowances, was £102,256,000. There were 158 sitting days in that year. Further information is given in the Commission's annual report.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  BBC Transmission Facilities
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she proposes to privatise the BBC's transmission facilities. [4640]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The BBC is handling the arrangements for the sale of its transmission services. It expects to complete the sale in about a year.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received regarding disparity of regional distribution of national lottery funds. [4647]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The lottery distributors are looking to ensure that there is a fair regional distribution of funds. They have been making awards for only nine months. I shall consider the regional spread of awards after one full year of distribution and consider if any changes are necessary to ensure balance.

  The House will be interested to hear that today's 128 awards are being made in Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations have been received concerning a review of aspects of the national lottery. [4649]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have received a number of representations about reviewing the national lottery.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to change the National Lottery Act 1993; and if she will make a statement. [4636]

  Mr. Sproat
  The number of people playing and the money being raised for the good causes has exceeded everybody's expectations. I have no plans to change the National Lottery Act. The national lottery is working well.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when(a) officials and (b) Ministers were first informed of the use of GTec's private jet by the director general of the national lottery; what guidance was given to the director, and when, on acceptable levels of hospitality; and if she will make a statement. [6334]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My Department became aware of the actual flights taken in the week before the Public Accounts Committee hearing on Monday 11 December. In August 1994, in discussing the director general's proposed US trip, officials of my Department advised that the director general would need to ensure that all due propriety was observed and that the cost of flights and accommodation should be borne by the Office of the National Lottery and not their hosts. Oflot is a non-ministerial Department and therefore responsible for implementing its own hospitality and travel arrangements taking into account the principles and rules set out in the civil service management code. Oflot is under no obligation to clear with, or inform my Department about its detailed arrangements.

  Piers
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the total amount of lottery proceeds contributed to the maintenance and development of seaside piers. [4648]

  Mr. Sproat
  The national heritage memorial fund has awarded £475,042 to the Clevedon pier trust in Avon for the restoration and conservation of this listed pier.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to celebrate the Year of the Pier in 1996. [4652]

  Mr. Sproat
  Piers at seaside resorts are an important part of Britain's built and cultural heritage. They are also a unique element of our distinctive national tourism product. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will seek opportunities to celebrate and publicise the Year of the Pier in 1996.

  Sports Broadcasting
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has to ensure that the broadcasting of major national sporting events remain on terrestrial channels. [4653]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government have no plans to alter current arrangements. Listed sporting events cannot be shown on a pay-per-view basis, and sports rights holders are free to dispose of their rights to broadcast in the interest of their sport.

  Listed Buildings
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the listing of post-war commercial and industrial buildings. [4654]

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend announced on 24 November that she had that day added 21 post-war buildings—comprising 13 commercial, three industrial and five railway buildings—to the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. Details are in the Library. Her decisions were in respect of 40 recommendations she had received from English Heritage, and followed a consultation exercise in which owners and the general public were, for the first time, invited to give their comments on the proposed listings.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received concerning concessionary television licences for retired people; and if she will make a statement. [4657]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government receive regular representations on the subject of concessionary television licences for retired people. However, the Government have no plans for any changes to the existing concessionary scheme, nor to introduce reduced fee television licences for all pensioners. Any increase in concessions available would reduce the BBC's income and impact upon its home broadcasting services.

  Children's Play Services
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on Government financial support for children's play services. [4658]

  Mr. Sproat
  On November 21,Official Report, column 67, my right hon. Friend announced that, subject to the successful completion of post tender negotiations, the National Playing Fields Association will carry out work in the areas of information dissemination, playwork education and training and play safety for the Department of National Heritage. Funding will be set at £400,000 per annum, which is broadly consistent with the Sports Council's spend on play since 1993.

  Film Making
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures her Department is taking to encourage film making in Britain. [4659]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The British Film Industry is presently in a buoyant state and the Government will continue to provide significant public funds of over £23 million next year in support. That includes support for the British Film Institute, British Screen Finance, the European Co-Production Fund, the British Film Commission and the National Film and Television School. In addition, up to £100 million of lottery money is available to be spent on film production and other film projects over the next five years. I have also established a high level advisory committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Middleton, to look at obstacles to the industry's growth.

  Library Inspectorate
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to create a new library inspectorate. [4661]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have no plans to create a library inspectorate. However, I take my statutory responsibilities towards public libraries seriously, and will continue to monitor the quality of the service through the professional library advisers in my Department, and to draw on the expertise and experience of the Advisory Council on Libraries.

  Public Lending Right Scheme
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she will lay before Parliament her report on the operation of the public lending right scheme 1994–95; and what will be the rate per loan payable to authors under the scheme in February 1996 in respect of loans of their books to public libraries from July 1994 to June 1995. [7148]

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today laid before Parliament her report on the operation of the public lending right scheme in 1994–95. The Registrar of Public Lending Right has proposed to my right hon. Friend, on the basis of the size of the public lending right fund this year and information about loans of books by local library authorities, that the rate per loan for payments which will be made under the Scheme next 850
  February should remain at 2p. In the light of consultation with interested organisations, my right hon. Friend has agreed to the registrar's proposal.

  Public Library Review
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the public library review following the publication of the ASLIB report and the subsequent consultation exercise. [7149]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The provision of the public library service is a statutory responsibility of local authorities, in England and Wales under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. The legislation provides a broad framework, requiring local authorities to provide a "comprehensive and efficient" library service but leaving the details of how the service is to be provided to local decision making; we do not intend to change these arrangements. My responsibility, under the same Act, is to superintend and promote the improvement of the service and to secure the proper discharge by local authorities of their functions in relation to libraries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has an equivalent responsibility in Wales.

  Libraries are of great value in our national life. They introduce children to the world of books and reading, and foster their interest through adulthood. They offer lifelong support for learning and education. They are important sources of reference material and public information. They give individuals and businesses access to an information base of commercial and economic importance.

  This is a time of major change for the direction and management of the public library service, especially given the continuing revolution in information technology. To address these new demands, the Government have launched a number of major initiatives in the library and information sector.

  Potentially the most far-reaching of these is the public library review. This demonstrated the importance attached to libraries by the public and examined a number of fundamental issues:
  the nature of the public library service in England and Wales. and how it should respond to changing demands;how each library authority can provide a clear specification of what it sets out to achieve;how performance can be effectively monitored and the results published;how to involve the private sector, to diversify sources of funding and to take maximum advantage for the community of the national resource which public libraries represent;the use of information technology in public libraries; and future arrangements for co-operation between library authorities. including the role of the regions in England.
  The responses to these issues, and others posed by documents such as report on library services for children and young people "Investing in Children", deserve serious and detailed consideration. My Advisory Council on Libraries and the Library and Information Commission, among others, will have an important contribution to make. The Library and Information Services Council (Wales) will similarly be providing advice to my right hon. Friend. I intend to report on the issues further in a policy paper to be published next year.
  851
  I am pleased to take this opportunity to announce a successor scheme to the public library development incentive scheme, to run from April 1996, which will match central Government funding to local resources. It will focus on practical proposals for library development in the context of the issues outlined above, and will give priority to projects with the widest potential application and relevance.

  Like all public services, libraries must justify the level of financial support they receive and express clearly their role, in terms which can be easily understood. Under section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, a library authority has a duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service. In fulfilling this duty, a library authority is required to have regard to the desirability of a number of factors: encouraging people to make full use of the library service; providing advice on its use; and having facilities available for people to borrow or refer to books and other materials which are sufficient in number, range and quality to meet both the general and special requirements of adults and children. In Wales, public library services are provided in both English and Welsh as appropriate, having regard to the linguistic character of the area served. It is not the Government's intention to move away from this definition, but to illustrate it in support of our statutory role to "superintend and promote" public libraries in England and Wales.

  The consultants' report on the public library review, the publication of which my predecessor announced in his answer of 16 May, Official Report, columns 150–51, covered a range of subjects in considerable detail. However, I believe that in dealing with the core functions of public libraries, it attempted to be all-inclusive and it confused the different functions and objectives of public libraries.

  In the Government's view, the most important functions of the public library service are:

  (i) providing reading for pleasure

  (ii) enlightening children and developing lifelong reading skills and habits in adults

  (iii) encouraging lifelong learning and study

  (iv) providing reference material including public information about local and national Government and EU publications, current affairs, and business information

  (v) providing materials for the study of local history and the local environment

  To carry out these functions, libraries must by statute provide books and other printed material, such as periodicals, as well as "other materials". Many libraries now provide a wide range of non-book materials such as cassette and video tapes, multi-media and open learning packages, talking books, compact discs, CD-ROMs and other new media. Libraries are also expected to provide suitable places and facilities, and assist users in directing them to the appropriate material. To encourage access and use by the widest range of the local population, public libraries frequently serve a variety of cultural needs and provide special materials such as large print books and sub-titled videos. They also provide services for the housebound, as well as providing disabled access to, and within, library buildings.
  852
  My right hon. Friend and I should like to make it clear once again that the Government have no plans to privatise the public library service. However, as with all public services, the Government are concerned that it should be run as efficiently as possible. The public library service has already developed, and continues to develop, creative partnerships with the private sector, including the voluntary tendering of certain areas of support services. Following the publication of the consultant's report into contracting out, which I announced to Parliament on 19 July, Official Report, columns 1457–58, the Government are continuing to consider steps that might be taken to encourage more effective management of public libraries and to involve the private sector more in providing library services. There are a number of options, and I shall make a further statement to the House on these matters next year.

  The public library service is a great British success story. Its quality and professionalism is admired worldwide. The local public library is freely available to everyone and is used regularly by a wide cross-section of society. For many people, the public library is their cultural centre and their university—a means of access to the world of information, knowledge and works of creative imagination. For children, the public library is often where they begin to read and to learn. For many older people, the public library also provides their meeting place and their community centre, and reading is at the heart of their quality of life.

  The Government recognise the importance of the public library service, and are committed to its development and improvement as we face the challenges of the future.

  British Academy of Sport
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are her proposals for a British academy of sport. [4646]

  Mr. Sproat
  As I announced on 5 December,Official Report, column 153, the Sports Council has issued a consultation document on what the structure and content of the British Academy of Sport might be and has asked for responses by 31 January 1996. This follows the announcement in the Government's sports policy statement "Sport: Raising the Game" that the Government wish to see established a British Academic of Sport, together with a national network of facilities.

  BBC Funding
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the future funding of the BBC. [4660]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As set out in the White Paper, "The Future of the BBC", the Government are committed to the continuation of the licence fee for at least the first five years of the new charter.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to extend the private finance initiative to(a) the BBC, (b) BBC Worldwide and (c) BBC World Service. [5396]

  Mr. Sproat
  We have encouraged the BBC to use to the full the opportunities available under the private finance initiative to meet its needs for capital investment.
  853
  In relation to the home services, the BBC is examining a number of private finance options and it is for the corporation to determine where the PFI offers the most benefit in relation to individual projects which would otherwise be funded from the licence fee. The BBC World Service is funded by grant in aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and is therefore expected to explore the scope for private finance in relation to all capital investment decisions. The rest of BBC Worldwide embraces the BBC's commercial activities, which are not publicly funded; it operates to maximise the benefits of the BBC brand and is structured according to the principles of the PFI.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to impose conditions on the BBC as to the way it can use the money accruing from the privatisation of the transmitter facilities. [5387]

  Mr. Sproat
  The basis of the sale, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 27 November,Official Report, column 439, has been agreed by us and the BBC. This provides that the BBC retains the proceeds of the sale related to licence fee funded transmission facilities; the BBC has said that it will invest the proceeds of the sale within the BBC on digital production technology. We have no plans at present to impose any conditions on the BBC in respect of the proceeds it will receive from the privatisation of its transmission services.

  Crown Jewels
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) of 27 November,Official Report, column 449, on the crown of Queen Adelaide, if the imperial crown of George I and the coronation crown of George IV are classified as regalia. [5324]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 12 December 1995]: Following an objection by my Department's expert adviser to the issue of export licences, the applications to export the frames of the imperial crown of George I and the coronation of George IV were referred, in the normal way, to the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art. The reviewing committee consulted my Department, the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Lord Chamberlain's Office on whether the crown frames constituted regalia. The reviewing committee was advised that the discarded crown frames could not be regarded as part of the regalia.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the history of ownership of the Imperial State Crown of George I and the Coronation Crown of George IV since 1965. [5239]

  Mr. Sproat
  The crown frames were lent by the Amherst family to the Museum of London from 1933 to 1985. We have no information about the ownership of the crown frames between the withdrawal of the loan to the museum of London and the purchase of the frames by Asprey (Bond Street) Ltd. in 1987. I understand that they have now been acquired by Prince Jefri Bolkiah of Brunei and that the prince has most generously decided to present them to the nation.

  Chauffeur-driven Cars
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what the cost of chauffeur-driven cars used by her Department was in each of the past five years. [5847]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage was established in 1992 and figures are not therefore available before the 1992–93 financial year. The total cost of departmental use of the Government car service in the years for which information is available is as follows:

  £000

  1992–93

  167.2

  1993–94

  243.6

  1994–95

  242.8

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much has been spent on furnishing and the decorating ministerial offices in her Department in each of the last three years. [5559]

  Mr. Sproat
  Expenditure on furnishing and decorating ministerial offices in each of the last three years is included in the running cost expenditure of my Department, which is published in the annual report, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much her 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. [5576]

  Mr. Sproat
  In 1994–95 the cost of hospitality for my Department, including the Historic Royal Palaces agency and the Royal Parks agency, which is included in the running cost budget for my Department, was £55,142. Figures for the financial year to date are £63,087. The projected budget for 1995–96 is £93,600.

  The difference between the cost of hospitality in 19954–95 and the projected budget for 1995–96 reflects a significant underspend in 1994–95 and an increase in 1995–96 to include provision for the launch of a major new exhibition in the Mantegna gallery at Hampton Court palace.

  European Community Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to the statement of the Secretary of State for the Environment of 21 November,Official Report, column 454, if she will make it her policy to review past legislation in respect of additional burdens imposed by regulations implementing European directives. [5073]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 11 December 1995]: It is the policy of my Department to ensure that we do not add any unnecessary burdens when implementing European directives in the UK. We will take every opportunity to look at existing legislation in the light of this policy.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage 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. [5700]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: My Department is committed to the payment of invoices within agreed contractual provisions or within 30 days of the presentation of a valid invoice or delivery, if later. Although the information requested is not available, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost, on the basis of a sample of invoices received by the Department of National Heritage during 1994–95, 90.6 per cent. were paid on time.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list all qualitative and quantitative research projects and surveys carried out for her 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 her 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. [5982]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]:Details of the public opinion surveys commissioned by my Department and its two agencies are set out.

  Of the two surveys commissioned directly by the Department, the first was a follow-up to the 1992 Green Paper on the future of the BBC. The second was part of the work carried out to develop the tourism strategy outlined in "Tourism: Competing with the Best", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  The surveys carried out by both agencies are general market research surveys carried out to assess the public's views and opinions regarding the attractions for which they are responsible.

  DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HERITAGE
  The future of the BBC

  (i) Commissioned: November 1992

  (ii) Cost: £14,706.25

  (iii) Carried out by: Research International Advertising and Media

  (iv) Number of people surveyed: 6,300

  (v) Location and timescale: British Isles: November 1992–June 1993

  (vi) Individuals and organisations which have been given access to the findings:

  Copies of the report was placed in the Library of both Houses and provided to the Chairman of the National Heritage Select Committee. Copies of the summary of the report were made available on requests to individuals and organisations.Quality of serviced accommodation 856

  (i)Commissioned: 17 April 1995

  (ii) Cost: £81,820.50

  (iii) Carried out by: MVA Consultancy

  (iv) Number of people surveyed: 845

  (v) Location and timescale: London, Stratford-upon-Avon, The Lake District, York, and Bournemouth and was completed in August 1995

  (vi) Individuals and organisations which have been given access to the findings:

  The research has been made available to the tourism industry.
  THE ROYAL PARKS AGENCY
  General market research

  (i) Commissioned: 19 January 1994 (Three year contract)

  (ii) Cost: £ 154,560.00 (to date)

  (iii) Carried out by: University of London

  (iv) Number of people surveyed: 26,500 (to date)

  (v) Location and timescale: The Royal Parks (and will be completed in December 1997)

  (vi) Individuals and organisations which have been given access to the findings:

  The results of the first year's surveys were included in the Royal Parks agency 1994 annual report, a copy of which is available in the House library. For subsequent years, the results will he made available in the same manner.Survey to discover attitudes towards opening a new royal park to celebrate the millennium

  (i) Commissioned: 6 October 1995

  (ii) Cost: £925.00

  (iii) Carried out by: University of London

  (iv) Number of people surveyed: 288

  (v) Location and timescale: Thurrock Lakeside Shopping Centre—1 day

  (vi) Individuals and organisations which have been given access to the findings:

  HISTORIC ROYAL PALACES AGENCY
  Summer visitor survey

  (i) Commissioned: 21 July 1993

  (ii) Cost: £12,450.00

  (iii) Carried out by: MEW Research

  (iv) Number of people surveyed: 916

  (v) Location and timescale: Historic Royal Palaces—July—September 1993

  (vi) Individuals and organisations which have been given access to the findings:

  The results of the summer surveys are used in assessing the overall level of customer satisfaction and these are included in the Historic Royal Palaces agency annual report.Advertising tracking

  (i) Commissioned: 24 June 1993

  (ii) Cost: £4,525.00

  (iii) Carried out by: BMBR International

  (iv) Number of people surveyed: 1,589

  (v) Location and timescale: London—June-October 1993

  (vi) Individuals and organisations which have been given access to the findings:

  The agency management team.Citizens charter

  (i) Commissioned: 1 January 1993

  (ii) Cost: £7,825.00

  857

  (iii) Carried out by: Numbers Market Research and Vital Statistics Market Research Data Services

  (iv) Number of people surveyed: 3,697

  (v) Location and timescale: Historic Royal Palaces—January-December 1993

  (vi) Individuals and organisations which have been given access to the findings:

  The agency management team.
  Summer visitor survey

  (i) Commissioned: 18 July 1994

  (ii) Cost: £10,325.00

  (iii) Carried out by: CC and C Research Ltd.

  (iv) Number of people surveyed: 990

  (v) Location and timescale: Historic Royal Palaces—July?September 1994

  (vi) Individuals and organisations which have been given access to the findings:

  The results of the summer surveys will be used in assessing overall customer satisfaction and this is included in the Historic Royal Palaces agency annual report.9. Royal Palaces advertising campaign

  (i) Commissioned: 30 June 1994

  (ii) Cost: £9,420.00

  (iii) Carried out by: Gallup

  (iv)Number of people surveyed: 1100

  (v)Location and timescale: Historic Royal Palaces—July?September 1994

  (vi) Individuals and organisations which have been given access to the findings:

  The agency management team.10. Citizens charter

  (i) Commissioned: 1 January 1994

  (ii) Cost: £9,150.00

  (iii) Carried out by: Vital Statistics Market Research Data Services

  (iv) Number of people surveyed: 3,955

  (v) Location and timescale: Historic Royal Palaces—anuary?December 1994

  (vi) Individuals and organisations which have given access to the findings: The agency management team.

  11. Summer visitor survey

  (i) Commissioned: 6 June 1995

  (ii) Cost: £7,950.00

  (iii) Carried out by: CC and C Research Ltd.

  (iv) Number of people surveyed: 300

  (v) Location and timescale: Historic Royal Palaces—July-August 1995

  (vi) Individuals and organisations which have given access to the findings: In addition to forming the basis of the customer satisfaction survey to be included in this year's annual report, the results of the survey were included in the student information pack.

  12. Poster campaign

  (i) Commissioned: 12 September 1995

  (ii) Cost: £2,950.00

  (iii) Carried out by: MEW Research Ltd.

  (iv) Number of people surveyed: 600

  (v) Location and timescale: London—September 1995

  (vi) Individuals and organisations which have given access to the findings: The agency management team.

  13. Tower of London moat

  (i) Commissioned: 11 September 1995

  (ii) Cost: £375.00

  858 Carried out by: MEW Research Ltd.

  (iii) Number of people surveyed: 60

  (iv) Location and timescale: Around the Tower of London—1 day

  (v) Individuals and organisations which have given access to the findings: The agency management team.

  14. Hampton Court Palace—Advertising

  (i) Commissioned: 1 December 1995

  (ii) Cost: £8,200.00

  (iii) Carried out by: Simon Priest and Associates

  (iv) Number of people surveyed: 42

  (v) Location and timescale: Central London—December 1995

  (vi) Individuals and organisations which have given access to the findings: The agency management team.

  15. Hampton Court Palace—garden visitors

  (i) Commissioned: 5 July 1995

  (ii) Cost: £10,000.00

  (iii) Carried out by: MEW Research Ltd.

  (iv) Number of people surveyed: 7,500

  (v) Location and timescale: Hampton Court Palace—November 1995

  (vi) Individuals and organisations which have given access to the findings: The agency management team.

  16. Kensington Palace

  (i) Commissioned: 16 July 1995

  (ii) Cost: £9,950.00

  (iii) Carried out by: MEW Research Ltd.

  (iv) Number of people surveyed: 1,002

  (v) Location and timescale: Kensington Palace—July 1995

  (vi) Individuals and organisations which have given access to the findings: The agency management team.

  17. Overseas visitors

  (i) Commissioned: 16 June 1995

  (ii) Cost: £1,256.00

  (iii) Carried out by: MEW Research Ltd.

  (iv) Number of people surveyed: 1,408

  (v) Location and timescale: Central London—July?September 1995

  (vi) Individuals and organisations which have given access to the findings: The agency management team.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Redundant Churches
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how the implementation of the Wilding proposals will be affected by the reform proposed in the Turnbull Commission. [5648]

  Mr. Alison
  The proposals of the Wilding report of 1990 on the care of redundant churches, which included giving the commissioners a more pivotal role, have now been largely implemented. The Turnbull Commission proposals include the transfer of the commissioners' functions in this field to a National Council for the Church of England. The commissioners and their partners in this work are anxious that such a change should not diminish the continued successful implementation of the Wilding
  859
  proposals which have assisted the preservation of and the finding of suitable alternative uses for important listed churches.

  There are a number of aspects of the Turnbull Commission proposals which require sufficient time for detailed consideration and successful resolution. These include:

  (1) Arrangements for providing the Church's share (30 per cent.) of the cost of running the Churches Conservation Trust. At present these are a charge on the commissioners' investment income and a comparable degree of security needs to attach to any new arrangements.

  (2) Proposals for a Church Heritage Board to act in a co-ordinating role. The Church/state position of some of the bodies proposed to be co-ordinated needs to be fully considered.

  (3) Accountability of Parliament. It is not yet clear whether the Second Church Estates Commissioner would still be able to answer questions on redundant churches in this House.

  (4) A proposed strategic approach to church redundancies. If this were to precipitate a considerably greater number of church closures and more frequent non-statutory inquiries the present financial and administrative arrangements between the Church and state could come under greater strain.

  General Synod
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what powers exist for the Standing Committee of the General Synod to overturn a chancellor's decision on the need for a re-run contest for a General Synod election on the ground that the elected member is a Church Commissioner. [5649]

  Mr. Alison
  This is not a matter for the Church Commissioners. The hon. Member should write to the Secretary-General of the General Synod.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the expenditure of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title for each year since 1990–91; and what estimate he has made for 1995–96 based on expenditure to date and existing plans. [6568]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Information on past years is not held centrally in the form and detail requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Expenditure figures for centrally purchased DTI advertising in 1995–96 are not yet available, but expenditure in 1994–95 was £0.56 million.

  Natural Environment Research Council
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the forthcoming prior options reviews for the Natural Environment Research Council. [7150]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government announced on 29 September 1995 that all public sector research establishments would be subject to prior options reviews.
  860
  Prior options reviews of the Natural Environment Research Council's—NERC—Centre for Coastal and Marine Sciences—CCMS—the British Geological Survey and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology—CEH—will be carried out in the first half of 1996.

  CCMS with its headquarters at Plymouth has the following component laboratories: the Dunstaffnage marine laboratory; the Plymouth marine laboratory; the Proudman oceanographic laboratory. CEH with its headquarters at Wallingford has the following component institutes: the Institute of Freshwater Ecology; the Institute of Hydrology; the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology and the Institute of Virology and Environmental Microbiology.

  The reviews will build on any relevant recent studies.

  I should welcome comments from interested parties. Comments relating to CCMS should be sent by the end of January 1996; and those relating to BGS and CEH by the end of February 1996. They should be sent to:
  Dr. David Lynn, Policy and Communications Division, Natural Environment Research Council, Polaris house, North Star avenue, Swindon, SN2 1EU.

  Cable and Wireless plc
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has given his consent as holder of the special share in Cable and Wireless plc to any change in the company's articles of association. [7151]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Following a request from Cable and Wireless plc, I have given my consent, as holder of that company's special share, to a minor amendment to its articles of association. The amendment would require the company's chairman or its chief executive to be British. The present articles place a similar requirement on any executive chairman of the company, or on any chief executive if there is no executive chairman. I understand that Cable and Wireless will now he seeking the agreement of its shareholders to this amendment.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had from the European Commission concerning ERDF grants given to state owned bodies that are subsequently privatised. [5889]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Secretary General of the Commission wrote to all member states earlier this year requesting details of European regional development fund grants to companies which were subsequently privatised. A list of such grants in the United Kingdom was sent in reply. The Commission subsequently asked for further information. We have asked for clarification of this request.

  National Grid
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how electricity consumers with pre-payment meters will receive their part of the rebate associated with the flotation of the national grid. [5890]

  Mr. Eggar
  The arrangements for distributing the national grid discount to its domestic customers have been determined by the regional electricity companies themselves. However I understand that they intend to make the discount to customers registered with them on 31 December 1995, including those using prepayment meters, as soon as practical during the first quarter of 1996. The precise manner in which the discount will be made will depend on the prepayment method used and the individual company making the discount.

  Fuel used in generation by major power producers1 in the United Kingdom

  Coal

  Natural gas

  Oil2

  Year

  Quantity (Million tonnes)

  Price (£ per tonne)

  Quantity (GWh)

  Price (pence per KWh)

  Quantity (Million tonnes)

  Price (£ per tonne)

  1985

  73.9

  45.76

  3—

  1.019

  10.6

  165.79

  1986

  82.7

  46.23

  32

  0.916

  6.1

  79.60

  1987

  86.2

  43.76

  35

  0.735

  4.8

  74.63

  1988

  82.5

  47.11

  50

  0.610

  5.4

  54.58

  1989

  80.6

  45.81

  54

  0.665

  5.5

  61.19

  1990

  82.6

  43.77

  88

  4—

  6.7

  53.49

  1991

  82.0

  43.47

  202

  4—

  5.8

  56.62

  1992

  77.0

  45.84

  11,602

  4—

  5.2

  57.76

  1993

  64.1

  42.44

  72,901

  0.706

  4.7

  55.91

  1994

  60.6

  36.35

  105,668

  0.667

  3.9

  67.90

  Notes:

  1Major power producers are defined as all companies whose prime purpose is the generation of electricity. Companies who produce electricity as part of their manufacturing or other commercial activities but whose main purpose is not electricity generation are excluded. 2 Includes Orimulsion, oil used in gas turbines and diesel plant, and oil used for lighting up coal fired boilers.

  2Not available on a comparable basis.

  3 Since privatisation of the electricity industry price data that relate to fewer than 3 companies are treated as confidential.

  Source:

  Digests of United Kingdom Energy Statistics.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money the Medical Research Council has spent in each of the last 10 years and how much it estimates it will spend in the current year and each of the next three years on research(a) into the risk of transmission of the BSE agent from cattle to (i) humans and (ii) other primates, (b) into an early diagnostic test for Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and (c) effective treatment for Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. [6187]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  In 1994–95 the total spend by the MRC on research directly or indirectly related to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, including BSE, was £0.75 million. This included CJD related transmission studies to address the possible relationship between CJD and BSE in individuals who might potentially have been exposed to high levels of BSE because of their occupation. The corresponding figure for 1985–86 was £235,000. Data for the intervening years are not available. The major part of the MRC programme is funded in partnership with the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council at the neuropathogenesis unit in Edinburgh.
  862
  Generally speaking, customers using card, token or key meters will receive a voucher which may be redeemed against the purchase of new cards or tokens or against the recharging of their keys. Those using smart cards will receive a direct credit to their cards. Those using coin meters will either receive a cheque or cash. Where cheques are given, these will he sent as soon as possible. Where cash is used, the customer will receive cash when the meter is next emptied.

  Energy Statistics
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each year since 1985 the total quantity and the average price of(a) coal (b) gas and (c) oil purchased by major electricity generating companies. [5885]

  Mr. Page
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Although the MRC does not currently fund applied research into diagnostic tests or treatment of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, some of the fundamental research into transmissible spongiform encephalopathies aims to improve the understanding of the pathogenesis of these disorders in man and, thus, indirectly diagnosis and treatment. The Council has funded research into transmission of spongiform encephalopathies in primates in the past but is not doing so at present.

  The Council's expenditure in future years is partly dependent upon applications received, assessed and awarded in the annual competitions, and it is not possible to predict the level of spend. The council does place strategic importance on ensuring that there is high quality research in these areas.

  Fuel Prices
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each year since 1985(a) the average beach price of gas, (b) the average pithead price of coal and (c) the average imported price of coal in unit prices. [5886]
  863
  Mr. Page
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Average beach gas price1 pence/kWh

  Average pithead coal price2 £/GJ

  Average imported coal price2 £/GJ

  1985–;86

  0.586

  1.86

  1.27

  1986–87

  0.523

  1.77

  1.06

  1987–88

  0.478

  1.73

  0.87

  1988–89

  0.500

  1.79

  0.91

  1989–90

  0.528

  1.77

  1.08

  1990–91

  0.575

  1.77

  1.00

  1991

  0.595

  —

  —

  1991–92

  —

  1.83

  1.03

  1992

  0.590

  —

  —

  1992–93

  —

  1.84

  1.02

  1993

  0.600

  —

  —

  1993–94

  —

  1.51

  0.99

  1994

  0.618

  —

  —

  1994–95

  —

  1.40

  0.99

  1Average price of gas purchased by British Gas. Excluding the levy on indigenous supplies. Data ceased to be available on a financial year basis in 1991.

  2 The figures cover coal production and imports in the United Kingdom. The average price for imported coal is recorded at the port.

  Regional Offices
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what ways the regional directors of the integrated regional offices are accountable to Parliament. [6693]

  Mr. Eggar
  The regional directors of the Government offices for the regions are civil servants reporting jointly to the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Education and Employment, and for Transport, and to the President of the Board of Trade, each of whom is accountable to Parliament for the work of his or her Department.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what performance measures the Government are using to assess the effectiveness of the integrated regional offices. [6692]

  Mr. Eggar
  Each Government office is being set performance targets in the areas of competitiveness, regeneration and sustainable development, the

  Department for Education and Employment: 1995–96

  Budgets (£k)

  NE

  NW

  YH

  M

  WM

  EM

  ER

  SW

  SE

  L

  Employers Investment in People/Investors in People

  3,292

  7.936

  6,505

  2,179

  6,064

  5,366

  4,509

  3,731

  6,283

  9,061

  Skills for Small Businesses

  439

  975

  876

  267

  966

  719

  905

  857

  1,430

  1,566

  Childcare Grants

  976

  2,020

  1,712

  548

  1,917

  1,438

  2,003

  1,626

  2,653

  2,225

  Training for Work Fees

  24,984

  29.996

  32,556

  20.021

  29,212

  19,209

  18.943

  23,635

  23,285

  47,445

  Allowances

  26,030

  31.251

  33.919

  20,804

  30,435

  20,013

  19,736

  24,624

  24,260

  46,996

  Youth Training, Youth Credit and Modern Apprenticeships

  54.987

  102,821

  76.354

  31,974

  73,680

  61.130

  63,398

  54,509

  77,395

  59,120

  Accelerated Modern Apprenticeship Starts

  734

  975

  897

  300

  913

  718

  991

  804

  1,302

  986

  Pre-16 work Experience

  325

  407

  284

  118

  740

  280

  642

  385

  1,082

  437

  Competitiveness Fund

  1,164

  2,588

  2,124

  713

  2,609

  1,521

  1,943

  1,903

  3,209

  2,813

  Development Fund

  588

  1,307

  1.072

  360

  1,317

  768

  981

  961

  1,529

  1,420

  Careers Service including London Central Careers Unit

  10.783

  21,680

  20.741

  7.084

  20,404

  14.658

  19.549

  16.621

  27.690

  26,202

  Careers Staff and Teacher Training

  237

  481

  462

  137

  441

  313

  418

  350

  587

  534

  Careers Libraries

  83

  179

  159

  46

  172

  128

  171

  149

  246

  190

  864
  development of partnerships, the internal management of the office and the administration of departmental programmes. These targets are being developed as part of the Government offices MINIS exercise, and will be published in the new financial year.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the programme expenditure for each of the integrated regional offices. [6694]

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is as follows:

  Department for Trade and Industry: 1995–96

  Expected expenditure outturn (£m)

  European Regional Development Fund Payment to third parties

  47.6

  Regional Selective Assistance

  103.5

  Inward Investments

  12.4

  Locally delivered Business Services1

  135.8

  Export Promotion Schemes and Services

  55.7

  Small Firms' Merit Award for Research and Technology (SMART)

  11.9

  Support for Programmes under Research (SPUR)

  7.9

  Notes:

  The table identifies the main DTI programmes in whose administration and delivery the Government Offices are involved. The Government Offices are not directly involved in administering or delivering the whole amount of the programme expenditure identified in the table. Regional breakdowns for DTI programmes are not available.

  1Includes development of Business Links.

  Department of Transport: 1995–96

  Government office

  Forecast outturn (£k)

  NE

  152

  NW

  75

  YH

  55

  M

  40

  WM

  46

  EM

  20

  ER

  38

  SW

  53

  SE

  91

  L

  6,062

  Expenditure includes the costs of the Woolwich Ferry. transportation studies, statutory advertising and public enquiries.
  865

  Department of the Environment: 1995–96

  Forecast outturn (£ million)

  NE

  NW

  YH

  M

  WM

  EM

  ER

  SW

  SE

  L

  Housing investment programme

  64.9

  134.4

  119.7

  37.1

  136.7

  84.3

  93.6

  97.8

  136.8

  337.0

  Housing partnership fund

  1.6

  2.8

  2.7

  0.7

  3.1

  1.9

  2.1

  2.8

  3.2

  9.7

  Cash incentive scheme

  0.6

  1.9

  0.3

  0.7

  1.9

  1.5

  4.8

  2.6

  10.9

  34.6

  Specified capital grant for private sector renewal

  12.6

  52.0

  32.3

  13.5

  49.1

  25.6

  24.4

  33.8

  43.6

  49.8

  Single regeneration budget

  151.7

  139.5

  127.9

  101.4

  137.5

  72.1

  9.3

  31.8

  9.8

  328.4

  European regional development fund1

  12.5

  17.9

  19.2

  14.9

  10.8

  8.3

  —

  4.5

  0.6

  —

  1Figures for European regional development fund are the period 1 April 1994 to 15 December 1995.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the average regional selective assistance expenditure per head of working population in the assisted areas for the period 1993 to 1995. [6696]

  Mr. Eggar
  During the period 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1995, average expenditure per head of working population in the assisted areas of England was £31.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the allocation of regional selective assistance between foreign-owned and United Kingdom-owned firms for the period 1994–95. [6697]

  Mr. Eggar
  The value of offers accepted in England was:
  UK owned £ million: 101.2Foreign owned £ million: 59.3.

  Regional Industrial Policy
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total cost of regional industrial policy including(a) regional selective assistance and (b) other direct assistance to firms for the period 1990 to 1995. [6699]

  Mr. Eggar
  The information is available in the "Annual Report on the Industrial Development Act 1982".

  Patent Office
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what methodology is in place to produce a benchmark in the Patent Office in respect of the contracting-out procedure; if the guidelines laid down by the National Audit Office will be adhered to; and if he will make a statement. [5840)

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Benchmarking of in-house services will follow guidance issued by HM Treasury, the office of Public Service, and the Department of Trade and Industry. The calculation of any benchmark will be open to National Audit Office scrutiny and must follow any guidelines laid down by that office.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the dates over the last two years when he and other Ministers in his Department have met with elected trade union representatives at the Patent Office. [5842]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  There have been no meetings between Ministers of the Department of Trade and Industry and Trade Union representatives in the last two years.
  866
  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make arrangements for elected trade union representatives to be included in staff/management meetings in connection with the contractorisation of the facilities' management services section at the Patent Office. [5837]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  In any contracting out exercise, the Patent Office management will follow the terms of the 1989 DTI agreement on consultation on proposals for contracting out.

  Business Links
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many business links have been established; what services they deliver; and if he will list the total costs of delivering these services and the total number of Department of Trade and Industry staff located in business links. [5841]

  Mr. Page
  A total of 171 business link outlets were operational on 15 December 1995. Seventy-three DTI staff are currently located in business links. A number of core services lie at the heart of business links. These include:

  an enquiry and information service:

  personal business advisers;

  diagnostic services;

  and help for start ups and micro businesses.

  Business links also provide direct access to 11 categories of specialist advice and support including; marketing, finance, exports, management, training. technology and design. A copy of the "Business Link Service Guide" can he found in the Library of the House.

  The cost of delivering services is different for each business link and is met from a number of sources including DTI funding. fee income from assisted businesses and contributions from business link partner organisations. The total cost of all business link services could therefore he obtained only at disproportionate cost. DTI's budget for 1995–96 is £38.5 million for pump-priming funding and £57.4 million for services.

  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the business links that have been established in the Yorkshire and Humberside region and the scheduled opening dates for others. [6206]

  Mr. Page
  The following is the information:

  Dates

  Open Business Links

  Barnsley

  Opened 3 May 1994

  Doncaster

  Opened 18 April 1994

  867

  Dates

  Calderdale/Kirkless:

  Brighouse

  Opened February 1995

  Huddersfield

  Opened February 1995

  Batley

  Opened February 1995

  Halifax

  Opened March 1995

  Todmorden

  Opened 29 November 1995

  Humberside:

  Hull

  Opened 18 September 1995

  Leeds

  Opened 2 October 1995

  Rotherham

  Opened 19 April 1995

  Sheffield

  Opened 19 September 1995

  Wakefield

  Opened 16 October 1995

  Schedule Opening Dates

  Bradford

  January 1996

  Humberside:

  Grimsby

  January

  Scunthorpe

  March

  Boothferry

  April

  East Yorkshire

  April 1996

  North Yorkshire

  May 1996

  Retirement and Severance Schemes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many voluntary schemes and early retirement schemes are currently operating in his Department and its agencies; and if he will list the United Kingdom offices which are currently running such schemes. [5838]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A voluntary early retirement and severance scheme is currently operating in all parts of the Department which fall within gross running cost control. This includes the Insolvency Service, the office of manpower economics, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and DTI staff in Government offices.

  A retirement and severance scheme following the Department's senior management review is currently nearing completion.

  Schemes are also running in the Patent Office, Companies House and Radiocommunications Agency covering selected grades to help restructure these agencies.

  Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many companies have failed to provide redundancy payments for their employees(a) due to company closure and (b) as a result of the employer failing to meet statutory obligations under the terms of current employment legislation for each from 1979 to 1995. [6270]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cases involving the recovery of employees' redundancy payments have been taken to industrial tribunals for each year from 1979 to 1995. [6253]
  868
  Mr. Taylor
  Information is not available in the precise form or for the full period requested. The number of applications relating to redundancy payments disposed of by industrial tribunals in Great Britain since 1986–87 is as follows:

  1986–87: 5,389

  1987–88: 3,403

  1988–89: 3,223

  1989–90: 3,837

  1990–91: 5,022

  1991–92: 5,234

  1992–93: 7,084

  1993–94: 8,567

  1994–95: 7,478.

  These figures include cases withdrawn or settled without recourse to a hearing.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total cost to the national insurance fund as a result of companies failing to meet their obligations to their work forces in respect of the non-payment of statutory redundancy payments for each year from 1979 to 1995. [6252]

  Mr. Taylor
  The information is given in the table.

  The total cost to the national insurance fund was as follows:

  Year

  £million

  1979–80

  19.3

  1980–81

  42.0

  1981–82

  53.0

  1982–83

  72.2

  1983–84

  69.0

  1984–85

  57.1

  1985–86

  54.6

  1986–87

  50.2

  1987–88

  34.9

  1988–89

  32.4

  1989–90

  25.7

  1990–91

  67.6

  1991–92

  131.8

  1992–93

  161.9

  1993–94

  130.6

  1994–95

  89.5

  1995–96

  150.7

  1 April-November 1995.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what areas of his Department are being considered for contracting out; and which offices and staff are involved; [5669]

  (2) what agencies under the jurisdiction of his Department are being considered for contracting out; which offices and staff are involved; and if he will make a statement. [5670]

  Mr. Lang
  The activities within my Department and its agencies which are either being considered for contracting out or where work is underway to contract
  869
  out under the "Competing for Quality" programme are as follows. Where work is underway contracting out will be dependent on the Department or agency receiving bids which offer value for money compared with keeping the activity in-house.
  (i) In the Department:

  Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes (PCSPS) Administration

  Financial administration functions of Overseas Promotions Support.

  (ii) In Agencies:

  Companies House:

  London Office and English satellite offices

  Edinburgh Office

  Cardiff Office:

  Customer Enquiry Unit

  Postal Search & Search Account Service

  Remittance processing

  Office Services.

  Patent Office:

  Facilities Management Services (Newport)

  Marketing & Information Directorate (Newport)

  Information Technology Services (Newport)

  London Front Office.

  The Insolvency Service:

  Case administration functions of Official Receivers in all Official Receivers' Offices.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many nominations were submitted in each region by the Trades Union Congress and Confederation of British Industry for lay membership of industrial tribunals during the past five years; and how many in each case he has rejected. [6474]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  During the period nominations were submitted in 1992 and 1995. The information requested is set out in the tables.

  Table 1: Nominations by the Trades Union Congress

  1992 Appointment exercise

  1995 Appointment exercise

  Regional office

  Nominated

  Not appointed

  Nominated

  Not appointed

  Bedford

  57

  40

  65

  50

  Birmingham

  54

  33

  44

  34

  Bristol

  69

  41

  47

  24

  Cardiff

  42

  25

  61

  28

  Leeds

  88

  66

  85

  63

  London North

  118

  189

  141

  110

  London South

  81

  58

  128

  85

  Manchester

  91

  71

  88

  59

  Newcastle

  59

  29

  41

  34

  Nottingham

  60

  43

  55

  48

  Southampton

  73

  22

  53

  53

  Scotland

  53

  18

  75

  21

  Totals

  845

  535

  883

  609

  1Of the 118 CBI and TUC nominees not appointed in 1992. 51 nominated by the TUC and 18 nominated by the CBI (who satisfied the basic criteria for selection) were appointed for 11 months only in 1994. This was to meet the need for additional lay members for a new Office of Industrial Tribunals in the London north region.

  870

  Table 2: Nominations by the Confederation of British Industry

  1992 Appointment exercise

  1995 Appointment exercise

  Regional office

  Nominated

  Not appointed

  Not Nominated

  Not appointed

  Bedford

  51

  40

  23

  18

  Birmingham

  47

  26

  35

  31

  Bristol

  60

  47

  27

  16

  Cardiff

  33

  8

  30

  18

  Leeds

  38

  129

  34

  21

  London North

  42

  29

  45

  26

  London South

  63

  51

  44

  26

  Manchester

  61

  44

  27

  15

  Newcastle

  41

  10

  18

  16

  Nottingham

  28

  19

  23

  21

  Southampton

  60

  28

  23

  23

  Scotland

  41

  19

  22

  5

  Totals

  565

  350

  351

  236

  1Of the 118 CBI and TUC nominees not appointed in 1992. 51 nominated by the TUC and 18 nominated by the CBI (who satisfied the basic criteria for selection) were appointed for 11 months only in 1994. This was to meet the need for additional lay members for a new Office of Industrial Tribunals in the London north region.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many lay members of the industrial tribunals in each region have not been reappointed in the last(a) 15, (b) 10 and (c) five years, giving the nominating organisation in each case. [6475]

  Mr. Taylor
  Information on the number of non-reappointments to the lay membership of the industrial tribunals in 1989, 1992 and 1995 is given in the following tables. Details for 1983 and 1986 are no longer available.

  Region

  Non-reappointments

  Nominating body

  1989

  Birmingham

  3

  TUC

  Bristol

  1

  CBI

  Cardiff

  1

  CBI

  Leeds

  4

  CBI(1); TUC(3)

  London (North)

  14

  CBI(8); TUC(6)

  London (South)

  21

  CBI(11); TUC(10)

  Newcastle

  10

  CBI(5); TUC(5)

  Nottingham

  3

  CBI(2); TUC(1)

  Southampton

  18

  CBI(13); TUC(5)

  Scotland

  1

  CBI

  1992

  Bedford

  1

  CBI

  Birmingham

  9

  CBI(4); TUC(5)

  Bristol

  3

  TUC

  Cardiff

  2

  TUC

  Leeds

  6

  FSB(I); LGMB(1); TUC(4)

  London (North)

  24

  BRC(1); CBI(5);LGMB(2): TUC(16)

  London South

  9

  BRC(1): CBI(4); TUC(4)

  Manchester

  6

  BRC(1):CBI(3); TUC(2)

  Newcastle

  1

  TUC

  Southampton

  5

  CBI(1); TUC(4)

  Scotland

  10

  CBI(2): TUC(8)

  1995

  Bedford

  3

  ABCC(1): TUC(2)

  Birmingham

  2

  CBI

  871

  Region

  Non-reappointments

  Nominating body

  Bristol

  3

  TUC

  London (North)

  1

  TUC

  London (South)

  9

  ABCC(1); CBI(5);IOD(1); TUC(2)

  Manchester

  2

  CBI(1); TUC(I)

  Newcastle

  1

  TUC

  Southampton

  6

  CBI(4); TUC(2)

  Scotland

  5

  COMPS(l); TUC(4)

  Note:

  The nominating bodies referred to in the above tables are: Association of British Chambers of Commerce (ABCC); British Retail Consortium (BRC); Confederation of British Industry (CBI); Council of Managerial and Professional Staffs (COMPS); Federation of Small Businesses (FSB); Institute of Directors (IOD); Local Government Management Board (LGMB); Trades Union Congress (TUC).

  In addition, in a special exercise to supply additional lay members to the London (north) regional office of industrial tribunals in advance of the main 1995 recruitment, 85 lay members who satisfied the basic criteria but were not selected for appointment in 1992 were appointed for 11 months in November 1994. These appointments were made on the basis that they would be reconsidered with new applications received in 1995. Sixty of the one year appointees were not reappointed.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who has access to information contained within personal files held on lay members of industrial tribunals. [6473]

  Mr. Taylor
  Information provided by lay members which is needed for allocating lay members to hearings and for monitoring purposes—for example, ethnic origin—is prepared and held on computer records centrally and made available to regional secretaries and listing officers in regional and other offices of industrial tribunals. Any other information relevant to the appointment or reappointment of lay members is held centrally within my Department and is accessed by seven members of staff involved in the process of appointments to industrial tribunals. The views of the judiciary may be sought on reappointments and where views are submitted copies may be held by the following people and their personal secretaries: the secretary to the industrial tribunals in Scotland, the regional chairmen in England and Wales and the two presidents of industrial tribunals.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish details of the procedures used by his Department in determining the appointments and re-appointments of lay members of the industrial tribunals in England and Wales. [6472]

  Mr. Taylor
  The procedures for appointing lay members to industrial tribunals were publicised in a press notice issued by the former Employment Department on 30 December 1994. A copy of which is available from the Library of the House. Lay members are normally reappointed at the end of a three-yearly term of office unless their performance or attendance has been unsatisfactory. Decisions on reappointments are taken by the Secretary of State after consulting the industrial tribunal judiciary.

  Gas and Oil
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the prospects for the gas and oil industry on and offshore in Suffolk and Norfolk, in 1996 and beyond. [6200]

  Mr. Page
  The offshore area to the north and north-east of Norfolk contains the main gas basin of the United Kingdom continental shelf—the southern basin. The interest shown in this area in recent rounds of offshore oil and gas licensing demonstrate that the area's prospectivity is still considered to be good by the oil and gas industry. Sixteen blocks were licensed in the southern basin in the 15th round and eight blocks were licensed on the margins of the southern basin in the 16th round. Exploration activity in relation to these licences will continue into 1996. It is too early to forecast prospects for the oil and gas industry as a result of this activity.

  There have, however, been a number of discoveries in the basin as a whole which are likely to he developed over the next 20 years. I have also offered for licence five blocks offshore to the east of Norfolk and Suffolk in the recently announced 17th round. Applications for this round are due on 27 November 1996.

  There are currently no onshore oil and gas licences in Suffolk and Norfolk, nor were any applications received for this area in the recent 7th round of onshore licensing.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate his Department has made of the quantities of(a) oil and (b) natural gas likely to be extracted from the sea area adjacent to the north Wales coast, indicating the likely value of such products for each of the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [5431]

  Mr. Eggar
  Exploration of the sea area immediately adjacent to the north Wales coast has not progressed sufficiently to allow future hydrocarbon recovery to be estimated.

  The operator's estimates of overall recovery from the nearby Hamilton, Hamilton N, Lennox and Douglas fields are published each spring in the "Energy Report" and stand at some 32 billion cubic metres of gas and 19 million tonnes of oil. For reasons of commercial confidentiality my Department does not publish forecasts of oil and gas production for individual fields.

  Regional Challenge
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the eligibility criteria for regional challenge funding and objective 5b funding at the beginning of 1995; how the criteria had been changed before the announcements of the results: and if he will make a statement. [6195]

  Mr. Eggar
  The eligibility criteria for objective 5b grants, and the additional criteria for objective 5b regional challenge grants. are contained in the single programming documents for each of the areas where the competition was held and in the regional challenge bidding guidance. The criteria were not changed before the announcement I made on 11 December 1995,Official Report, columns 463–65.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the outcome of his Department's review of measures taken to facilitate small firms' access to appropriate areas of Government procurement in the light of best practice. [6670]

  Mr. Page
  I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer on 27 November 1995,Official Report, columns 432–33, which summarises the key actions taken as a result of the review. Progress has been made to implement all the recommendations relevant to the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Departmental Staff (Members' Letters)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many officials he employed(a) full-time and (b) part-time in his Department in each of the last three years to answer letters sent to him from hon. Members; and what was the estimated overall cost of replying to them in each of the last three years. [5618]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No officials are employed either full time or part time in the Department solely to answer letters from Members of Parliament. Supplying the information required to reply to such correspondence is part of the normal duties of many of the staff of the Department.

  Within the Department's top level organisation which includes all Ministers' private offices approximately 10 years of staff effort are expected to be spent on processing all ministerial correspondence in 1995–96, including correspondence with Members of Parliament. However this is only part of the total staff effort spent on ministerial correspondence across the Department, a detailed estimate of which could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Greyhounds
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the cost to the European Community of the support given to the breeding of greyhounds in Ireland; what has been the cost per puppy bred; and what assessment he has made of the number of greyhounds being purchased. [2965]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 30 November 1995]: Inquiries are continuing and I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

TREASURY

  Departmental Staff (Members' Letters)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many officials he employed(a) full-time and (b) part-time in his Department in each of the last three years to answer letters sent to him from hon. Members; and what was the estimated overall cost of replying to them in each of the last three years. [5621]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  This information is not available without expensive research.

  EU Expenditure
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the total British contribution, in ECU and pounds sterling, to the additional Community expenditure programmes authorised at the Edinburgh summit and subsequently to implement the Commission's White Paper, "Growth, Competitiveness, Employment: The Challenges and Ways Forward into the Twenty First Century"; and what expenditures from these funds have been allocated to projects inside the United Kingdom; [5759]

  (2) over what time scale the additional Community expenditure, authorised at the Edinburgh summit and subsequently to implement the Commissions White Paper. "Growth, Competitiveness, Employment: The Challenges and Ways Forward into the Twenty First Century", is to be spent; [5760]

  (3) what additional expenditure by the European Community, in billions of ecu and pounds sterling, were authorised at the Edinburgh summit and subsequently to implement the Commissions White Paper, "Growth, Competitiveness, Employment: The Challenges and Ways Forward into the Twenty First Century"; and how much of this total sum is to be spent through (a) the European Investment bank, (b) the European Investment Fund and (c) other Community expenditure programmes. [5761]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The objectives set out in the European Commission's White Paper, "Growth, Competitiveness and Employment: The Challenges and Ways Forward into the Twenty First Century" are reflected wholly or in part in a range of European Community expenditure programmes and other actions. It is not possible, however, to break down this expenditure into that which funds implementation of the White Paper and that which does not.

  Own Resources Decision
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which countries have not yet ratified the Edinburgh own resources decision; when their ratification is expected; and what concessions are expected to he made to secure such ratification. [6534]

  Mr. Heathcoat Amory
  The Netherlands has yet to ratify the own resources decision. The timing and handling of ratification is a matter for individual member states.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the public sector borrowing requirement in each year from 1990 to 1995. [6976]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The table gives the information requested. The budget forecast for the PSBR in 1995–96 was £29.0 billion.

  Public sector borrowing requirement

  1989–90: -£7.9 billion

  1990–91: -£0.6 billion

  1991–92: £ 13.8 billion

  1992–93: £36.3 billion

  1993–94: £45.4 billion

  1994–95: £35.9 billion.

  Steam-powered Vehicles
  Sir John Cope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many steam-powered road vehicles over 25 years old he estimates will require licences in 1996–97; and what he estimates their average mileage on the roads per vehicle will be. [6005]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Around 600 vehicles, with very small annual mileage.

  Sir John Cope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates will be the revenue, net of costs of collection and enforcement, received from licences for steam-powered road vehicles over 25 years old in 1996–97. [6007]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Around £20,000.

  Sir John Cope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what considerations led him to exclude steam-powered road vehicles from the proposed exemption for licences for other vehicles over 25 years old. [6006]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Budget introduced a concessionary rate of £35 vehicle excise duty for all steam-powered road vehicles whatever their age. Prior to this harmonising measure only steam-powered agricultural vehicles were liable to £35 duty and steam-powered road rollers had to pay £150.

  EU Publicity
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money is spent by(a) the European Commission and (b) the European Parliament in publicising their activities in the United Kingdom. [5952]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  These are matters for the European Commission and the European Parliament respectively.

  Unemployment Figures
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate her Department has made of the number of individuals out of work for more than six months who do not feature in the unemployment figures. [6078]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Like many other countries, the United Kingdom publishes two official measures of unemployment. Each measure defines unemployment in a different and unique way and is equally valid. There will be some people who appear in one measure but not in the other. However, neither measure excludes those who have been unemployed for more than six months according to the particular definition being used.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many statutory instruments his Department sponsored in the last session of Parliament; and how many of these(a) constituted a new rule or regulation, (b) were introduced to implement European Community directives and (c) amplify the minimum standards set out in an original European Community directive. [2466]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The information requested is in the table.
  876

  Number

  HM Treasury

  Statutory Instruments made during 1994–95 Session: of which:

  28

  a. Constituted a new rule or regulation:

  7

  b. Introduced to implement and EC Directive: of which:

  5

  c. Amplified minimum standards set out in Directive:

  0

  Inland Revenue

  Statutory Instruments made during 1994–95 Session: of which:

  71

  a. Constituted a new rule or regulation;

  41

  b. Introduced to implement and EC directive: of which:

  0

  c. Amplified minimum standards set out in directive:

  0

  HM Customs and Excise

  Statutory Instruments made during 1994–95 Session: of which

  56

  a. Constituted a new rule or regulation;

  44

  b. Introduced to implement and EC directive: of which:

  21

  c. Amplified minimum standards set out in directive;

  12

  1 Comprising i. The Excise Goods (Drawback) Regulations 1995. These regulations implement Council Directive 92/12/EEC. and set out in more detail the UK requirements and procedures for reimbursement of excise duty; and ii. The Travellers' Reliefs (Fuel and Lubricants) Order 1995. This restricts duty free movement of fuel in standard tanks of commercial vehicles to fuel on which the fuel was acquired, at a rate that is appropriate to the use to which the fuel was acquired, at a rate that is appropriate to the use to which the fuel is being, or is intended to be, put. This Order implemented Directive 94/74/EEC which did not make it clear that the relief of duty should only apply to fuel released for consumption at the rate appropriate to its use or intended use. Customs had to seek formal clarification of this point before the Order could he laid. It should be noted that whilst these two Statutory Instruments amplify the provisions of the European directives which they implement, they do so in order to clarify, and provide greater certainty, as to their meaning. Neither has the effect of "gold plating", or adding additional burdens, to those required by the directives.

  Tax Statistics
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for the last available year the amount of tax(a) collected and (b) uncollected for (i) PAYE, (ii) capital gains tax, (iii) corporation tax, (iv) schedule D and (v) VAT; and what were the corresponding figures for Wales, expressed also as a percentage of the overall United Kingdom tax take. [2858]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: The amounts of PAYE, capital gains tax, corporation tax, income tax—other than PAYE—(a) collected and
  (b) uncollected and consequently written off as irrecoverable for the year ended 28 October 1994. the last year available, are as follows:

  Tax

  Collected £

  Remitted/written off £ million

  PAYE

  56 959

  270

  CGT

  718

  43

  Corporation tax

  12 506

  262

  Income tax (other than PAYE)

  12 112

  583

  Separate figures for Wales in respect of these taxes are not available.
  877
  The amount of VAT collected in financial year 1994–95 was £41,817 million of which about £1,970 million or 4.7 per cent. is estimated as attributable to Wales.

  The amount of VAT written off or remitted in calendar year 1994 was £550 million. In this question, "uncollected" has been defined to mean "uncollected and subsequently written off or remitted". Seventy per cent. of remissions and write-offs are attributable to the insolvency of the taxpayer; the balance represents amounts which it is not practicable or conscionable to collect.

  Post Office
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the post-tax profits made by the Post Office his Department expects to receive in each of the next three years following the proposals published in the Budget; and if he will make a statement. [5557]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 12 December 1995]: The proportion of post-tax profits represented by the Post Office's external financing limits over the survey period will be determined by how the Post Office now chooses to meet the financial targets set it.

  Venture Capital
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what publicly available literature has been produced to explain the venture capital trust proposals contained in the 1994 Budget.[5544]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 12 December 1995]: A booklet was published in January this year containing detailed notes on the legislation proposed together with the legislation itself and explanatory press releases. This was preceded by a consultative document published in March 1993 and was followed by further press releases on 28 March, 29 June and 14 September 1995 about changes made on Report to the Finance Bill, the regulations and various statements of practice arising from the legislation respectively. A leaflet is being now market tested and finalised for issue early in the new year summarising the details of the scheme. Other literature has also been published by venture capitalists including the prospectuses of the venture capital trusts which have been launched.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown of administration costs incurred to date and forecast for the future on private finance initiative work. [5725]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: As the administration costs of the private finance initiative are both public and private it is not possible to provide the breakdown requested.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the changes in the number of people of working age in employment(a) in those aged under 25 years and (b) those 25 years and over in the last 12 months. [6148]
  878
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The information is contained in the following table.

  Employment in Great Britain: at summer (not seasonally adjusted)

  Thousands

  Age

  1994

  1995

  Change

  16 to 24

  4,030

  4,042

  12

  25 to retirement age

  20,555

  20,831

  277

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, CSO.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Departmental Staff (Members' Letters)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many officials he employed(a) full time and (b) part time in his Department in each of the last three years to answer letters sent to him from hon. Members; and what was the estimated overall cost of replying to them in each of the last three years. [5607]

  Mr. Willetts
  This answer covers the offices of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister.

  No officials are employed solely to answer letters from hon. Members. Advice is provided to Ministers by the appropriate divisions. Costs are subsumed in the overall costs of the divisions.

  Advisory Committee on Advertising
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the current terms of reference for the Advisory Committee on Advertising. [6579]

  Mr. Willetts
  The terms of reference for the Advisory Committee on Advertising are:

  1. To consider the relevance to Government publicity campaigns of developments in communications media and methods; and in accountability and planning techniques.

  2. To act as a forum for discussion of related topics which might have a bearing upon the cost-effectiveness of Government paid-publicity activity.

  3. To make recommendations, via the Central Office of Information, on which private sector suppliers should he appointed, or invited to compete for appointment, to handle:

  a) Advertising campaigns initiated by central Government Departments, executive agencies and other bodies.

  b) Central negotiation or buying of advertising space or airtime for COI in connection with the above campaigns.

  The criteria for such recommendations should he those of maximum effectiveness and cost efficiency while maintaining a competitive environment.

  4. To require from COI and other Government bodies annual assessments of each of the appointed suppliers, as a basis for considering whether their contracts should be renewed.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consideration he has given to the future of the Advisory Committee on Advertising following the changed arrangements concerning the Central Office of Information's role in Government advertising. [6592]
  879
  Dr. Willetts
  The Advisory Committee on Advertising continues to have an important role. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be meeting the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Advertising early in January.

  Government Offices for the Regions
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what was the status and outcome of the recent seminar he attended with the regional directors of the integrated regional offices. [6700]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  On 22 November 1995, together with Ministers from other Departments, I met the directors of the Government offices for the English regions to discuss how they are taking forward the competitiveness agenda in their regions. The purpose of the meeting was to exchange ideas.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Deputy Minister if he will list his responsibilities in respect of the integrated regional offices. [6701]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I chair the Cabinet Committee which discusses the work of the Government offices for the regions. They report to the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment, for the Environment, for Trade and Industry, and for Transport.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what has been the outcome of his Department's review of measures taken to facilitate small firms' access to appropriate areas of Government procurement in the light of best practice. [6673]

  Mr. Willetts
  Guidance, including the implications of dealing with, and the needs of, small and medium-sized enterprises, is to be issued shortly to purchasing staff in my Department.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Divorce Law
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received about proposed changes in divorce law and their implications for traditional families. [4667]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have received a number of representations relating to the proposed changes in divorce law.

  Unlawful Goods
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will issue guidelines to the courts on the procedures to he adopted in considering cases where unlawful goods are sold on the basis that they are to be consumed or used in other parts of the European Union. [4668]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No; guidance is not necessary. The courts follow the relevant legislation when cases are brought before them.

  Land Registry
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will introduce measures requiring the Land Registry not to record cross-deeds in its records; and if he will make a statement. [4669]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  A joint working party of the Law Commission, Her Majesty's Land Registry and the Lord Chancellor's Department is currently considering possible reform of the Land Registration Act 1925 and will look in particular at the treatment of easements and overriding interests in the land registration system—this will encompass the situation to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The joint working party hopes to report by the summer of next year.

  Pensions Act 1995
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking in respect of court consideration of divorce petitions which have been lodged prior to the implementation date he has set for the Pensions Act 1995 in order for one of the parties to gain a financial advantage; and if he will make a statement. [4670]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Courts currently have a duty to give full consideration to all of a divorcing couple's assets and income on divorce, including pension rights. They also have a wide discretion to ensure that an equitable solution is reached between the parties. This will continue to be the case.

  Law Centres
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has for a national network of law centres. [4672]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Lord Chancellor recognises the importance and great value of the work which is done by law centres and other advice agencies. In his Green Paper on legal aid, he has proposed that such agencies should be able to bid for legal aid contracts to provide advice and assistance in their areas of expertise. The Lord Chancellor intends to make an announcement on the future of the Green Paper proposals next year.

  Work on the regulations which will bring into force section 166 of the Pensions Act 1995 has highlighted certain complex issues requiring further thought. To ensure that these issues are fully considered and that consultees have sufficient time to comment on the proposals, the Government are now aiming to bring into force section 166 on 1 July 1996.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received about the size of the legal aid budget. [4673]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Lord Chancellor and I have received many representations about the legal aid scheme. some of which touch on the size of the legal aid budget.
  881
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what new proposals he has to improve the legal aid system. [4675]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Lord Chancellor published a Green Paper on the future of legal aid in May. Over 180 responses have been received. These are being analysed. Discussions are being held with some of the major respondents to allow them to expand on their views. The Lord Chancellor intends to make an announcement on the outcome of the consultation process next year.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the extension of legal aid. [4671]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Government's plans for reform of the legal aid scheme were outlined in the Green Paper "Legal Aid—Targeting Need". The responses to that paper are being considered.

  Fraud Investigation
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many investigations the fraud investigation department has carried out in the last five years.[4674]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The number of investigations carried out by the fraud investigation section of the Legal Aid Board in the last five years to March 1995 is 4,600.

  In addition, the Benefits Agency, which deals with means assessment for civil legal aid, carried out 29,108 investigations in the last five years between November 1990 and March 1995.

  Bailiff Service, Cumbria
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the operation of the bailiff service in the county of Cumbria. [4662]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Court Service is responsible only for county court bailiffs and monitors their performance through a series of targets and objectives. All are currently met by bailiffs in Cumbria.

  Departmental Staff (Members' Letters)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many officials he employed(a) full time and (b) part time in his Department in each of the last three years to answer letters sent to him from hon. Members; and what was the estimated overall cost of replying to them in each of the last three years. [5622]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Lord Chancellor's Department comprises two next steps agencies—the Court Service, established as an agency in April 1995, and the Public Trust Office, established in July 1994—the departmental headquarters and associated offices. Hon. Members' letters about the operation of the agencies are referred to the respective chief executives for reply and I have accordingly asked them to write direct setting out their arrangements for dealing with this correspondence. In LCD headquarters and associated offices, and throughout the Department before the establishment of the agencies, Members' correspondence is allocated to individual divisions according to subject matter. Detailed 882
  breakdowns of the amount of time spent by officials on this work and its cost are not available and the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Letter for Julia C. Lomas to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 18 December 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to respond to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 8 December 1995, regarding the number of officials employed to answer letters sent from Honourable Members and the estimated overall cost of replying to them over the last three years.The Public Trust Office does not employ any officials to specifically deal with ministerial cases, however, all officials will spend a proportion of their time dealing with them. The estimated cost of replying to letters sent from Honourable Members could only be supplied at disproportionate cost.
  Letter from Mr. Michael Huebner to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 18 December 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of staff employed in the Court Service to deal with letters from Members.The Customer Service Unit of the Court Service, established in April 1995, currently contains 12 full-time members of staff who are involved in the preparation of replies to letters sent from Members of Parliament. This figure can be broken down as follows:

  1 x Grade 7

  2 x HEO

  9 x EO.

  Approximately 50 per cent. of their time is devoted to the preparation of these replies. This has an estimated cost, for the period 1 April 1995 to 1 December 1995, of £140,035.

  Immigration Appellate Authorities
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost of the administration of the immigration appellate authorities in the past year; how many cases were considered; what were the equivalent figures in real terms in the year to May 1979; and if he will make a statement. [4664]

  Mr. Johnathan Evans
  Excluding accommodation, the cost of the administration of the immigration appellate authorities was £5,632,624 in the financial year 1994–95. The equivalent figure in real terms for 1978–79 was £2,255,569.

  The appellate authorities determined 25,446 cases in 1994–95 and 9,527 in 1979.

  Asylum Appeals
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he as to issue new procedure rules in respect of appeals under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993; and when he expects they will he published. [6166]

  Mr. Johnathan Evans
  Following the recommendations in the report by the consultants, KPMG Peat Marwick, a copy of which was placed in the Library in February this year, changes are being considered to the Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1993. The Lord Chancellor expects to consult interested organisations about his proposals early in the new year.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary, Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects that procedure
  883
  rules governing appeals under clause 3 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill will be published.[6167]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Any changes to the Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1993 arising from the Asylum and Immigration Bill will be considered once the Bill has been enacted.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the outcome of his Department's review of measures taken to facilitate small firms' access to appropriate areas of Government procurement in the light of best practice. [6656]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The review is not yet complete. The report is expected by the end of January 1996.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  War Pension Awards (Immunisation)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of war pension awards made as a result of conditions arising out of immunisation since 1990; and, in each case, what was the immunisation procedure concerned. [5477]

  Mr. Heald
  Records show that, since 1990, in one case a war pension award has been made for a condition related to immunisation. The condition involved a possible general anaphylactic reaction to vaccine, which is not vaccine specific.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the average lapse in time between a war pension being(a) applied for and (b) refused and the subsequent appeal being dealt with by a tribunal; [5079]

  (2) what proportion of war pension applications which have been refused are (a) the subject of appeals to tribunals and (b) are subsequently granted following appeals to tribunals. [5080]

  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 Mr. John Sheppard to Mr. Brian Wilson, dated 18 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about War Pension appeals.I should first explain that 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. As you have asked about claims that are refused. I will limit my reply to entitlement appeals.You have asked about the average time lapse between a War Pension claim being made and a subsequent appeal being dealt with by a Tribunal. I am unable to give you that information in the way you requested because there are no time limits for lodging entitlement appeals. It does not follow, therefore, that the appeals received in any period are related to the decisions made in any specific earlier period. Indeed, some entitlement appeals are lodged 20 or 30 years after the original claim. No information is available which measures the average time between notification of a rejected claim and an appeal being lodged.884 I can, however, tell you that the average time taken to clear a first claim to War Pension so far in 1995–96 is 157.12 working days (31.42 weeks). If rejection of a claim leads to an appeal, the War Pension Agency (WPA) is responsible for preparing the Statement of Case for the independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal (PAT), who consider all War Pension appeals and are responsible for arranging appeal hearings. The average time taken by WPA to review the evidence and prepare an entitlement appeal Statement of Case, including any comments from the appellant, is 326 working days (65.2 weeks).The average times taken to deal with appeals are longer than would normally be the case and are a reflection of the considerable increase in appeals that occurred in 1994. As I explained in my letter to you on 7 November, the introduction of our new computer system and the re-structuring of the Agency has also had an effect on our achievements so far this year.As I have said, the arrangement of appeal hearings is a matter for the PAT who come under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor's Department. They have told me that the average time taken since April this year for the PAT to schedule a hearing following receipt of the Statement of Case from WPA is 42.35 weeks.I am aware that the PAT have addressed the problem of large numbers of appeals awaiting hearing 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.You have also asked the proportion of rejected claims that go to appeal and are subsequently granted. Again, I am unable to provide that exact information you have asked for because of the time limits I explained earlier. I can, however, give you the following information on the number of rejected first claims and entitlement appeals, as well as those allowed by the PAT during the last three financial years. Not all appeals proceed to the Tribunal because we are sometimes able to review the decision and allow the claim, or the appellant withdraws the appeal after it has been lodged. I must stress that because of the time lapse, there is no direct correlation between the figures shown.

  Year

  Rejections

  Ent. appeals lodged

  Ent. appeals sent to PAT

  Ent. appeals allowed at PAT

  1992–93

  14,850

  8,451

  2,209

  555

  1993–94

  19,889

  10,001

  4,754

  994

  1994–95

  14,156

  15,158

  5,074

  1,242

  1 From 5 April 1994 an appeal is classed as lodged from the date that appeal forms are returned to the War Pensions Agency. Previously, an intention to appeal was classed as a lodged appeal.

  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Benefits Smart Card
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the cost of introducing a benefits smart card system. [4729]

  Mr. Heald
  The feasibility studies estimated set up costs for a magnetic stripe card system and supporting technology to he £135 million. The same studies estimate that when fully implemented the system would save approximately £140 billion a year in benefits fraud. Competitive proposals are being considered now. under the private finance initiative, from the three short-listed potential service providers. The cost will not he known until the procurement process has been completed.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the numbers and amounts
  885
  of housing benefit backdated payments under regulation 72(15); and what percentage this was of each local authority's housing benefit expenditure in each year since 1991–92. [5053]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Uprating
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) for each benefit and each capital or income limit which is not to be increased in April 1996, the reasons for not going so and (b) the current value of

  Benefit/Limit

  Current value

  Date from which current value applied

  April 1996 rate if increased by rise in earnings since date at column 3

  April 1996 rate if increased by rise in prices since date at column 3

  Basis of calculation for figure in column (5)

  Widows Payment

  1,000

  April 1988

  1,632.10

  1,473.20

  RPI

  Capital Limits in

  3,000

  April 1988

  4,896.10

  4,297.15

  Rossi

  IS and FC

  8,000

  April 1990

  10,929.20

  10,403.60

  Capital Limits in

  3,000

  April 1988

  4,896.10

  4,297.15

  Rossi

  HB

  16,000

  April 1990

  21,858.35

  20,807.25

  UB Earnings Limit

  2 per day

  March 1982

  5.20

  4.00

  RPI

  UB Earnings Limit (full extent normal)

  12

  December 1989

  17.90

  16.75

  RPI

  IS Earnings

  5

  April 1988

  8.15

  7.15

  Rossi

  Disregards

  15

  24,50

  21.50

  HB/CTB Earnings

  5

  April 1988

  8.15

  7.15

  Rossi

  Disregards

  10

  April 1988

  16.40

  14.30

  15

  April 1988

  24.50

  21.50

  25

  October 1990

  34.10

  32.50

  War Pension disregard for income-related benefits (irbs)

  10

  April 1990

  13.65

  12.95

  Rossi

  Income from a boarder (irbs)

  20

  April 1990

  27.30

  26.00

  Rossi

  Disregard of income from a sub-tenant

  4

  April 1988

  6.45

  5.75

  Rossi

  Disregard of Training Bonus (irbs)

  200

  September 1988

  326,45

  294.60

  RPI

  Maintenance disregard (HB, CTB, FC, DWA)

  15

  April 1992

  17.35

  16.90

  Rossi

  Student Loan disregard (irbs)

  10

  September 1990

  13.65

  12.95

  Rossi

  Occupational Pension Disregard (UB)

  35

  April 1981

  101.80

  77.10

  RPI

  Lower savings limit for Voluntary Unemployment Deduction (UB and IS)

  200

  April 1988

  326.45

  286.45

  Rossi

  Protected earnings limit where IS recovered after Trade Dispute

  27

  April

  1988

  44.05

  38.65

  SF Maternity Payment

  100

  April 1990

  136.65

  130.05

  Rossi

  SF Capital Limits

  500

  April 1987

  879.65

  739.15

  Rossi

  (Maternity and Funeral Payments)

  (Under 60) 1000 (60 years and over)

  April 1990

  1,366.15

  1,300.45

  Additional Expenses limit for SF Funeral Payment

  75

  April 1987

  132.00

  110.90

  Rossi

  Over 80 Age Addition to RP

  25p

  September 1971

  3,65

  1.65

  RPI

  Christmas Bonus

  10

  December 1972

  110.55

  66.95

  RPI

  Limit for recovery of benefit from Compensation payments

  2,500

  September 1990

  3,415.40

  3,232.10

  RPI

  ICA Earnings Limit

  50

  April 1993

  55.10

  54.05

  RPI

  Lone Parent

  (IS)5.20

  April 1995

  15.35

  5.35

  Rossi

  Premium

  11.50(HB/CTB)

  111.85

  111.85

  886
  each such benefit or limit and the value which would have resulted from increasing it in line with prices and average earnings since it was last increased or since it was introduced. [4084]

  Mr. Burt
  The figures requested for the existing social security benefits and capital or income limits which will not be uprated in April 1996 are in the table. In deciding whether or not to increase those benefits and limits which are not required to be uprated by statute, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State takes into account many factors, including the national economic situation and whether increasing these items is in accordance with his general policy.
  887

  Benefit/Limit

  Current value

  Date from which current value applied

  April 1996 rate if increased by rise in earnings since date at column 3

  April 1996 rate if increased by rise in prices since date at column 3

  Basis of calculation for figure in column (5)

  One Parent Benefit

  6.30

  April 1995

  6.50

  6.55

  RPI

  Community Care

  500

  April 1988

  815.95

  716.15

  Rossi

  Grants and Budgeting loans

  (Under 60) 1,000 (60 years and over)

  1,632.10

  1,432.35

  IS Amount for

  1.10

  April 1988

  1.70

  1.60

  Rossi

  meals

  1.55

  2.50

  2.20

  IS: Personal

  17.35

  April 1995

  17.85

  17.85

  Rossi

  Expenses for Claimant and Partner

  15.55

  April 1995

  16.00

  16.00

  Rossi

  Dependant Child aged 18, Polish Home, Ilford Park Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Scheme Maximum Death Benefit

  300

  1952

  12,697.50

  4,475.00

  RPI

  Notes:

  1No difference between Earnings/Rossi calculations due to effect of rounding to nearest 5p.

  The uprating of each benefit in column 5 has been carried out using price indices in the same way as for actual upratings since 1971. "RPI" in column 6 indicates that the Retail Price Index (all items) has been used throughout. "Rossi" refers to the RPI less all housing costs up to the 1991 uprating; the RPI less rent, mortgage payments and 80 per cent. of community charge for the 1992 uprating; and the RPI less rent, mortgage payments and council tax thereafter. It is assumed that benefits would have been uprated before 1971 in line with the RPI at the dates of uprating of Retirement Pension.

  The uprating of benefits by earnings in column 4 is based on the average earnings of full-time adult male manual employees before 1963, the old series index of earnings from 1963 to 1976 and the average earnings index (whole economy) unadjusted since 1976. The same uprating dates have been used as for the calculations at column 5. The index for September 1995, used for the 1996 calculation, is provisional and subject to change.

  All calculations are rounded to the nearest 5p at each uprating date. Where the current value of a benefit was set at a date between upratings the calculation has started from the previous uprating date.

  Abbreviations:

  IS = Income Support; FC = Family Credit: HB = Housing Benefit; UB = Unemployment Benefit; CTB = Council Tax Benefit; DWA = Disability Working Allowance; SF = Social Fund; RP = Retirement Pension; ICA = Invalid Care Allowance.

  Availability For Work
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State Social Security if he will make it his policy to exempt Territorial Army reserve duties from eligibility for availability for work rules in consideration of unemployment benefit. [5248]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Benefit rules already give specific help to members of the reserve forces. We have no plans to relax the current requirement to be available for work.

  Motability
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social security (1) when his Department ceased to audit the accounts of Motability Finance Limited; and if he will make a statement about the subsequent arrangements to ensure full public accountability for the use of public funds;[5141]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the level of profits made by Motability Finance Limited.[5093]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 19 July 1995,Official Report column 1489.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what examination his Department has made of the level of contingency reserves in the Motability car hire and leasing schemes; and if he will make a statement. [5143]
  888
  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 19 June 1995,Official Report, column 99.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment he has made of possible conflicts of interests amongst the boards of the Motability group of companies and partnerships; [5139]

  (2) when he was informed about the letter sent by the deputy chairman of Motability Finance Limited to the director of Motability, on 23 June 1993, setting out his concerns about the relationship between Motability. the charity and Motability Finance Limited; [5097]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the Bircham report on Motability. [5140]

  Mr. Burt
  I am aware of the correspondence to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The governance of Motability is the responsibility of its governors. They must ensure there arc no harmful conflicts of interest and that Motability acts in accordance with charity law and the article of its own association.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what requirements his Department has imposed for windfall profits in the Motability programme to he returned to those whose disability living allowance benefits were paying for the lease or hire purchase agreements. [5120]
  889
  Mr. Burt
  None. Motability regularly reviews the level of contingency reserves held by Motability Finance Limited to ensure that they are set at the appropriate level. Those reserves held in excess of the scheme's requirements are transferred by way of gift aid into the Motability Tenth Anniversary trust. Payments from the tenth anniversary trust are transferred into Motability's charitable funds.

  The Department receives reports from Motability on how these charitable funds are used.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received with regard to reducing employers' national insurance contributions to stimulate employment; and if he will make a statement. [5108]

  Mr. Heald
  We occasionally receive representations from business about the level of national insurance contributions. To improve employment prospects, the Government have substantially reduced employers' contribution rates in recent years, particularly in respect of lower paid employees. The lowest rate for employers is now 3 per cent. compared with 13.5 per cent., including the national insurance surcharge, in 1979. We have already announced our intention to further reduce the main rate of employers' contributions by 0.2 per cent., some £500 million, from April 1997.

  Britain's non-wage labour costs are amongst the lowest in Europe.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent on furnishing and decorating ministerial offices in his Department in each of the last three years. [5563]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department's Ministers are housed in Richmond house where all facilities are provided by the Department of Health. Expenditure on furnishing and decorating DSS Ministers offices in each of the last three years is therefore included in the running cost expenditure of the Department of Health which is published in its annual report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Departmental Staff (Members' Letters)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many officials he employed(a) full-time and (b) part-time in his Department in each of the last three years to answer letters sent to him from hon. Members; and what was the estimated overall cost of replying to them in each of the last three years. [5616]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Departmental Ministers receive, on average, over 20,000 letters a year from hon. Members. Depending upon the subject matter, the responsibility for preparing the reply is spread across the Department and its agencies.

  Persons From Abroad
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions have been held with the Department of the Environment on the local government cost implications of the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [6477]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Regular discussions about the proposed Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations have occurred between the Departments of Social Security and the Environment at both ministerial and official level in the normal course of business.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of housing benefit, were aged under 25 years, by region, in the latest available year. [6535]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The figures are set out in the table.

  Housing benefit recipients by region May 1994

  000s

  Region

  Claimant aged less than 25 years

  Total all cases

  North

  30

  318

  Yorks and Humberside

  44

  429

  East Midlands

  32

  281

  East Anglia

  14

  136

  Greater London

  75

  754

  Rest of South East

  68

  638

  South West

  36

  311

  West Midland

  40

  420

  North West

  61

  579

  Wales

  26

  233

  Scotland

  41

  549

  Great Britain

  467

  4,650

  Although the figures are for 1994 analysis of the trends indicates that the claims figures for the current year will be at a similar level.

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what resources have been allocated to each district, metropolitan and London borough authority for the detection and prevention of housing benefit fraud; what information his Department has on the number of fraud officers employed by each local authority responsible for housing benefit; and if he will list each local authority responsible for housing benefit according to the number of housing benefit fraud officers employed. [5843]

  Mr. Heald
  Information is not held centrally in the format requested.
  Local authorities are responsible for the efficient payment of the benefits that they administer. It is for each of them to decide what resources to apply to the detection and prevention of housing benefit fraud, whether from the administration subsidy paid by this Department or from other sources. Local authorities can, however, earn additional subsidy for successful detection of fraud.
  891
  Information on the number of designated fraud officers employed by local authorities is currently being processed and should be available in January 1996 in the form of an estimate for total numbers for Great Britain as a whole. I will write to the hon. Member when the information becomes available.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide information for all other tribunals in Britain along the lines referred to in his answer of 8 November,Official Report, column 1018, on the number of appeals against the disallowance of income support under the habitual residence test which were heard in the most recent period of a month or more for which information can be obtained; and how many succeeded, failed, were adjourned or were withdrawn. [7017]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Child Support Agency cases have been referred to the independent tribunal service since April 1993; and if he will list for each month(a) the number of appeals against assessments by absent parents, (b) the number of appeals against assessments by persons with care and (c) the number of appeals against reduced benefit directives. [4171]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Dudley

  Good cause accepted

  Absent parent named

  Good cause not accepted

  Reduced benefit direction implemented

  Investigations completed

  April

  335

  63

  580

  311

  978

  May

  503

  98

  617

  306

  1,218

  June

  450

  243

  820

  389

  1,513

  July

  493

  354

  548

  265

  1,395

  August

  576

  371

  749

  531

  1,696

  September

  541

  370

  599

  464

  1,510

  Total

  2,898

  1,499

  3,913

  1,649

  8,310

  Hastings

  Good cause accepted

  Absent parent named

  Good cause not accepted

  Reduced benefit direction implemented

  Investigations completed

  April

  321

  n/a

  522

  721

  843

  May

  460

  111

  790

  785

  1,361

  June

  469

  222

  723

  631

  1,414

  July

  544

  219

  679

  466

  1,442

  August

  472

  207

  687

  361

  1,366

  September

  495

  273

  582

  532

  1,350

  Total

  2,761

  1,032

  3,983

  1,990

  7,776

  Falkirk

  Good cause accepted

  Absent parent named

  Good cause not accepted

  Reduced benefit direction implemented

  Investigations completed

  April

  369

  94

  471

  183

  934

  May

  534

  161

  833

  335

  1,528

  892
  Letter from Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 14 December 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about appeals against assessments.Between April 1993 and September 1995, 11,862 appeals have been received by the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS). ITS do not collect the more detailed information you requested. However. we estimate that of the appeals ITS subsequently sent to the Agency for completion of a submission to the Tribunal, around 70 per cent were made by absent parents and 30 per cent by parents with care. Of those made by parents with care 9 per cent were made against reduced benefit directions.I hope this is helpful.
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the monthly breakdown of requirement to co-operate decisions as set out in his answers of 22 November,Official Report, column 232, and 26 October, Official Report, column 805 for each month since April 1995 for each Child Support Agency centre. [4195]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 14 December 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency requirement to co-operate decisions.You asked for an update of the monthly breakdown of requirement to co-operate decisions, as set out in Answers of 22 November, Official Report 232, and 26 October, Official Report. column 805 for each Child Support Agency Centre for 1995–96. This information is shown in the tables attached,.I hope this is helpful.893

  Falkirk

  Good cause accepted

  Absent parent named

  Good cause not accepted

  Reduced benefit direction implemented

  Investigations completed

  June

  626

  345

  944

  242

  1,915

  July

  589

  331

  645

  219

  1,565

  August

  642

  408

  939

  276

  1,989

  September

  633

  448

  862

  306

  1,943

  Total

  3,393

  1,787

  4,694

  1,043

  9,874

  Plymouth

  Good cause accepted

  Absent parent named

  Good cause not accepted

  Reduced benefit direction implemented

  Investigations completed

  April

  340

  100

  452

  276

  892

  May

  467

  112

  617

  458

  1,196

  June

  508

  216

  684

  389

  1,408

  July

  494

  294

  680

  392

  1,468

  August

  438

  259

  575

  373

  1,272

  September

  508

  267

  490

  274

  1,265

  Total

  2,755

  1,248

  3,498

  1,428

  7,501

  Birkenhead

  Good cause accepted

  Absent parent named

  Good cause not accepted

  Reduced benefit direction implemented

  Investigation completed

  April

  389

  96

  470

  510

  955

  May

  556

  185

  615

  511

  1,356

  June

  592

  287

  713

  445

  1,592

  July

  625

  361

  786

  278

  1,772

  August

  582

  334

  637

  430

  1,553

  September

  678

  428

  686

  455

  1,792

  Total

  3,422

  1,691

  3,907

  1,608

  9,020

  Belfast

  Good cause accepted

  Absent parent named

  Good cause not accepted

  Reduced benefit direction implemented

  Investigation completed

  April

  418

  137

  540

  260

  1,095

  May

  599

  195

  740

  473

  1,534

  June

  488

  271

  689

  250

  1,448

  July

  544

  427

  680

  393

  1,651

  August

  631

  425

  744

  392

  1,800

  September

  668

  526

  805

  336

  1,999

  Total

  3,348

  1,981

  4,198

  1,371

  9,527

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases a deduction from earnings order has been made when at the time of its making (a) a review under section 18 of the Child Support Act 1991 had been requested and not determined and (b) an appeal to a child support appeal tribunal was pending. [4687]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Supoort Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 14 December 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about deduction from earning orders.894 The Agency does not keep information on the number of deductions from earnings orders (DEOs) issued before a section 18 (second tier) review (STR) request has been determined, or an appeal heard by a tribunal. There is no business requirement for the Agency to collect information on the number of cases affected.

  Funeral Expenses
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average cost to public funds of the funeral expenses of a person without means and relatives. [6061]

  Mr. Horam
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not available centrally.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list annual income from(a) fees, (b) charges and (c) fines; what was the total number of staff employed (i) part-time and (ii) full-time; and what contribution his Department has made towards the annual running costs in each of the past three years in respect of (1) the agricultural wages board, (2) the Driving and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland Agency, (3) the Northern Ireland tourist board, (4) the Poisons board, (5) the Regional Medics Physics agency, (6) the Animals (Scientific Procedures) inspectorate, (7) the Agriculture Health and Safety inspectorate, (8) the Fertilisers and Feedstuffs inspectorate, (9) the Pharmaceutical inspectorate, (10) the Plant Health inspectorate, (11) the Potato inspectorate, (12) the Seeds inspectorate, (13) the Trading Standards inspectorate, (14) the Milk and Milk Products quality assurance division, (15) the Health and Safety inspectorate, (16) the Fisheries inspectorate, (17) the Veterinary Service, (18) the Companies Registry, (19) the Transport Licensing and Enforcement division, (20) the Health and Social Services Board inspectorate of registered nursing homes, (21) the Horticultural inspectorate, (22) the Egg Marketing inspectorate and (23) the Drugs inspectorate. [2746]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding reply 28 November 1995]: The information is as follows:

  1. Agriculture wages board

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Annual income from fees, charges and fines

  —

  —

  —

  Part-time staff

  —

  —

  —

  Full-time staff

  —

  —

  —

  Departmental contribution to running costs (£000s)

  13

  18

  15

  2. Driver and vehicle licensing Northern Ireland

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Fees (£000s)

  914

  914

  1,129

  Charges

  —

  —

  —

  Fines (£000s)

  1,350

  1,280

  1,540

  Part-time staff

  2

  2

  2

  Full-time staff

  225

  224

  224

  Departmental contribution to running costs (£000s)

  4,538

  4,627

  4,820

  Fees do not include vehicle excise duty.

  Fines have been interpreted as awards of back duty or mitigated penalties collected by the Agency in lieu of prosecution.

  In 1994–95 DHSS paid DVLNI £1,000 to meet the Agency's cost of amending its stationery to include organ donor information and £4,000 to modify its computer system. In addition, the DVLNI required an extra member of staff to process the information, and DHSS paid the associated cost of £3.000 in 1994–95.

  3. Northern Ireland tourist board

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Fees (£000s)

  229

  724

  230

  Charges (£000s)

  38

  45

  59

  Fines

  —

  —

  —

  Part-time staff

  1

  9

  9

  896

  3. Northern Ireland tourist board

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Full-time staff

  115

  129

  134

  Departmental contribution to running costs (£000s)

  5,021

  5,114

  5,363

  4. Poisons Board The Board has not met in recent years and has given rise to no costs or income.5. Regional Medics Physics Agency (Established 1 April 1994)

  The accounts of the Agency for 1994–95 shows the following:

  Income from Boards: £1,790,006

  Income from HSS Trusts: £373,965

  Income from private sector firms: £78,545

  Income from public bodies: £13,227

  Part-time staff: —

  Full-time staff: 57

  Departmental contribution: to running costs:

  The Agency is funded through contract income and does not receive any direct Departmental funding.

  6. Animals (scientific procedures) inspectorate

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Annual income from fees, charges and fines

  —

  —

  —

  Part-time staff

  1

  1

  1

  Full-time staff

  —

  —

  —

  Departmental contribution to running costs (£000s)

  29

  27

  34

  9. Pharmaceutical inspectorate

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Fees (£000s)

  34

  36

  37

  Charges (£000s)

  —

  —

  —

  Fines (£000s)

  —

  —

  —

  Part-time staff

  —

  —

  —

  Full-time staff

  2

  2

  2

  Departmental contribution to running costs (£000s)

  30

  29

  31

  13. Trading standards branch

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Fees (£000s)

  148

  156

  116

  Charged (£000s)

  —

  —

  —

  Fines

  —

  —

  20

  Part-time staff

  —

  —

  —

  Full-time staff

  52

  54

  56

  Departmental contribution to running costs (£000s)

  1,830

  1,271

  1,252

  14. Milk and milk products quality assurance division

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Annual income from tees, charges and tines (£000s)

  35

  45

  25

  Part-time staff

  —

  —

  —

  Full-time staff

  28

  27

  25

  Departmental contribution to running costs (£000s)

  700

  646

  599

  897

  15. Health and Safety inspectorate

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Fees (£000s)

  4

  1

  6

  Charges

  —

  —

  —

  Fines

  —

  —

  —

  Part-time staff

  —

  —

  —

  Full-time staff

  61

  59

  59

  Departmental contribution to running costs (£000s)

  1,464

  1,410

  1,487

  16. Fisheries inspectorate

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Annual income from fees, charges and fines (£000s)

  196

  243

  206

  Part-time staff

  —

  —

  —

  Full-time staff

  36

  42

  45

  Departmental contribution to running costs (£000s)

  670

  779

  883

  17. Veterinary service1

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Annual income from fees, charges and fines (£000s)

  3,026

  2,919

  2,860

  Part-time staff

  6

  7

  9

  Full-time staff

  556

  561

  548

  Departmental contribution to running costs (£000s)

  22,439

  23,894

  22,337

  1Includes poultry meat inspection income and expenditure figures.

  18. Companies registry

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Fees (£000s)

  402

  404

  431

  Charges

  —

  —

  —

  Fines1 (£000s)

  —

  —

  122

  Part-time staff

  1

  1

  1

  Full-time staff

  25

  26

  27

  Departmental contribution to running costs (£000s)

  355

  369

  383

  1 Late filing penalties introduced 7 April 1994.

  19. Transport licensing and enforcement division

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Fees (£000s)

  165

  192

  223

  Charges

  —

  —

  —

  Fines(£000s)

  —

  —

  —

  Part-time staff

  —

  —

  —

  Full-time staff

  37

  37

  37

  Departmental contribution to running costs (£000s)

  695

  734

  805

  As TLEB is part of the Department of the Environment NI (DOE) its costs are resourced from the Departmental budget for running costs.

  20. Health and social services board inspectorate of registered nursing homes1

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Fees (£000s)

  38

  613

  693

  Charges

  —

  —

  —

  Fines

  —

  —

  —

  Part-time staff

  6

  6

  6

  Full-time staff

  42

  45

  49

  Departmental contribution to running costs (£000s)

  1,144

  663

  672

  1 Covers both residential homes and nursing homes.

  898

  23. Drugs inspectorate

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Fees (£000s)

  6

  6

  8

  Charges

  —

  —

  —

  Fines

  —

  —

  —

  Part-time staff

  —

  —

  —

  Full-time staff

  1

  1

  1

  Departmental contribution to running costs (£000s)

  19

  20

  20

  The following individual inspectorates form part of the AGRI-FOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICE of the Department of Agriculture:

  7. Agriculture Health and Safety Inspectorate

  8. Fertilisers and Feedstuff inspectorate

  10. Plant Health inspectorate

  11. Potato inspectorate

  12. Seeds inspectorate

  21. Horticultural inspectorate

  22. Egg Marketing inspectorate

  As such, the information relating to them cannot be disaggregated into the format requested. However, the aggregate information is as follows.

  Agri-food development service

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Annual income from fees, charges and fines (£000s)

  253

  137

  208

  Part-time staff

  —

  —

  —

  Full-time staff

  61

  46

  45

  Departmental contribution to running costs (£000s)

  1,421

  1,407

  1,369

  Public Expenditure
  Mr Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the per capita cost of public expenditure in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years; what the Great Britain figure is; and if he will make a statement. [3229]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 7 December 1995]: The latest figures for identifiable general Government expenditure per head for Northern Ireland and Great Britain are as follows:

  £ per head

  Northern Ireland

  Great Britain

  1989–90

  3,760

  2,440

  1990–91

  3,870

  2,680

  1991–92

  4,220

  3,050

  1992–93

  4/510

  3,350

  1993–94

  4,780

  3,550

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest £10.

  The higher per capita spending in Northern Ireland reflects the Province's relatively higher needs.

  Homes (Mains Electricity)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many homes there are in Northern Ireland; how many have no mains electricity supply; how many existing homes were connected to the mains electricity in each of the past five years; and what plans there are to connect mains electricity to the remaining homes which have no electricity. [5354]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:
  The 1991 census recorded a total of 530,000 households in Northern Ireland.Figures from the 1994–95 continuous household survey suggest that 99.7 per cent. of households in Northern Ireland are connected to an electricity supply.The information requested on the number of existing homes connected to the mains electricity in each of the last five years is not available;NIE has a duty under the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 to give supply on request and a right to recover any expenses reasonably incurred in providing supply.

  School Milk
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils(a) get milk, (b) get free milk, (c) get subsidised milk and (d) pay the full cost of milk at school; and what assessment he has made of the effects of the Budget proposals for school milk in Northern Ireland. [5124]

  Mr. Ancram
  A total of 74,401 pupils get milk; 4,514 get free milk and 69,887 get subsidised milk. Figures are not available in respect of full cost sales of milk at schools. It is estimated that the removal of the discretionary elements of the EC school milk scheme will reduce expenditure on the scheme in Northern Ireland by £175,000 or 28 per cent.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what quantity of milk is consumed in schools; and what assessment he has made of the effects on the milk industry in Northern Ireland of the budget proposals in respect of the reduction in the availability of subsidised milk in secondary schools. [5122]

  Sir John Wheeler
  A total of 12,950 litres of milk is consumed daily in schools in Northern Ireland. As 72 per cent. is consumed in primary schools, which are not affected by this announcement, there will he minimal effect on the Northern Ireland milk industry.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils attend secondary schools; and what percentage of these pupils presently benefit from school milk.[5123]

  Sir John Wheeler
  There are 150,036 pupils attending secondary schools in Northern Ireland. Information is not available on the percentage of secondary school pupils who presently benefit from school milk.

  Road Bank, Newtownards
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will arrange to remove the bank created by his Department at 114 Crawfordsburn road. Newtownards in order to rectify the sight lines. [5098]
  900
  Mr. Moss
  The Department does not own the bank in question and has no proposals to remove it.

  Security (Discussions)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Government of the Irish Republic in respect of formulating joint security measures to deal with a breakdown in the ceasefire. [5100]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government regularly discuss security matters with the Government of the Republic of Ireland, but it would be inappropriate to reveal the nature and scope of such discussions. However, I can assure the hon. Member that the security forces on both sides of the border have maintained excellent co-operation and will continue to do so.

  Orders in Council
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those Orders in Council that he has brought or proposes to bring before the House in the current Session; and if he will make a statement on those orders which will be subject to public consultation this Session. [5102]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Two Orders in Council have been brought before the House in the current term; the Street Works (NI) Order and the Education (NI) Order.

  Orders to be brought forward in the 1995–96 Session are as detailed in the Secretary of State's letter to the hon. Member of 27 November, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  All draft orders will be subject to public consultation, unless there are compelling reasons of urgency.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at which(a) post offices and (b) other locations in the centre of Armagh city the electoral registers are made available for public inspection, and if he will make a statement about changes in the arrangements for public display of electoral registers. [5125]

  Mr. Ancram
  Arrangements for the public display of electoral registers are a matter for the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland. On publication of the electoral register, the chief electoral officer forwards a copy of each of the registers for the Armagh city wards of Downs, Callan Bridge, Abbey Park, Observatory, the Mall and Demesne, which comprise respectively wards 17 to 22 of the 22 wards in Armagh local government district, to the Armagh Library, Markethill road, for public inspection. Additionally, a copy of the register for ward 17 is forwarded to Ogle Street sub post office and a copy of each of the registers for wards 21 and 22 is sent to Barrack Street post office.

  Occupational Health Workers
  Mr. Roger Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many medical and nursing staff worked in occupational health within the NHS in Northern Ireland for the last three years for which figures are available; and what were the grades of these employees. [5389]

  Nursing staff in occupational health

  1995

  1994

  1993

  Grade title

  Grade number

  WTE

  HC

  WTE

  HC

  WTE

  HC

  Enrolled Nurse E

  5,506

  1.0

  1

  1.0

  1

  —

  —

  Staff Nurse D

  5,508

  1.0

  1

  1.0

  1

  0.5

  1

  Staff Nurse E

  5,509

  13.0

  16

  10.1

  13

  11.1

  14

  Nursing Sister/Charge Nurse G

  5,515

  8.0

  8

  9.0

  9

  2.0

  2

  Senior Nurse/Nursing Officer 1

  5,532

  1.0

  1

  1.0

  1

  1.0

  1

  Ocuppational Health Sister/Charge Nurse G

  5,536

  1.0

  1

  1.0

  1

  2.0

  2

  Senior Nurse Occupational Health H

  5,537

  2.0

  2

  2.0

  2

  2.0

  2

  Senior Nurse Occupational Health 1

  5,538

  1.0

  1

  1.0

  1

  1.0

  1

  Unit SR Manager 2

  5,710

  1.0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Assistant Director Nursing Services 6

  5,468

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.0

  1

  Staff Nurse

  5,400

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.5

  3

  Nursing Sister Charge Nurse 2

  5,211

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5.0

  5

  N I total in Department

  29.0

  32

  26.1

  29

  28.1

  32

  Medical staff in occupational medicine

  1995

  1994

  1993

  Grade Title

  Grade Number

  WTE

  HC

  WTE

  HC

  WTE

  HC

  Clinical Medical Officer

  8016

  1.0

  1

  0.5

  1

  —

  —

  Senior Clinical Medical Officer

  8018

  1.6

  2

  2.0

  3

  2.3

  4

  Consultant

  8022

  4.0

  4

  2.0

  2

  2.0

  2

  Senior Registrar

  8029

  —

  —

  1.0

  1

  1.0

  1

  General Medical Practitioner/Hospital

  8037

  0.5

  2

  0.5

  2

  0.5

  2

  General Medical Practitioner/GP

  8038

  1.9

  4

  1.9

  4

  —

  —

  Medical Officer

  8044

  0.9

  5

  1.2

  7

  1.6

  7

  Part-time Medical Practitioner

  8078

  0.5

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  N I Total in Department

  10.4

  20

  9.1

  20

  7.4

  16

  GRADE WTE=Whole Time Equivalent

  HC=Staff-in-Post.

  Child Minders
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his Department's policy in respect of family credit regulations and child minders who are family members; and if he will make it his policy to treat unregistered family member child minders as registered child minders for family credit purposes. [5099]

  Mr. Moss
  When calculating family credit entitlement, charges paid by a claimant to a partner or by a partner to a claimant for any child for whom either of them is responsible are not allowed. Charges paid to other members of a family may be allowed providing the care is given on premises registered under the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (c.34 (NI)). There are no plans at present to change this policy.

  Orlit Dwellings
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to amend the Housing Defects (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 to provide adequate compensation for the owners of Orlit
  902
  Mr. Moss:
  The information requested is contained in the following tables. Figures are quoted for both actual numbers of staff and whole time equivalents for both nursing and medical staff, working within occupational Health Departments of the Northern Ireland health and personal social services, as at 30 June of each year.

  built dwellings houses; and if owners of such houses are presently being treated in equal legislative and procedural terms to those in Scotland, England and Wales. [5101]

  Mr. Moss
  I have no plans to amend the Housing Defects (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

  The housing defects scheme introduced under the order provides compensation for the owners of Orlit dwellings who purchased in good faith from public sector landlords before the defects became generally known. The compensation arrangements for such owners in Northern Ireland is essentially the same as those applying in the rest of the United Kingdom save in two minor respects. First, due to lower house values in Northern Ireland it was decided that repurchase provided better value for money than the reinstatement grant offered to eligible Orlit owners in Great Britain. Secondly, the scheme of assistance for Orlits ended in Great Britain on 30 November 1994 whereas the scheme in Northern Ireland continues until September 1996.

  Devolution
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will specify those powers and functions the Government have proposed to devolve to local councils in Scotland which his Department has assessed could be appropriately devolved in Northern Ireland; and what plans he has to act on these. [5103]

  Mr. Ancram
  Our aim is to strengthen local democracy by establishing institutions which enable all Northern Ireland political representatives to have proper local responsibility and accountability. Agreement is the key and any question of increasing or adjusting the responsibilities of district councils in a way which is acceptable right across the community in Northern Ireland is one for discussion within the context of the political talks process.

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many plastic bullets have been fired in Northern Ireland during each month since August 1993, to date; how many people have been injured by plastic bullets over the same period; and if he will make a statement.[4619]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 11 December 1995]: The number of plastic baton rounds fired in Northern Ireland during each month from August 1993 to 30 November 1995 and the number of people injured over this period are as follows:

  Month

  Total number fired

  Number of alleged injuries

  1993

  September

  3

  0

  October

  303

  7

  November

  8

  0

  December

  0

  0

  1994

  January

  1

  0

  February

  2

  0

  March

  10

  1

  April

  0

  0

  May

  142

  7

  June

  9

  1

  July

  23

  0

  August

  37

  0

  September

  5

  2

  October

  20

  2

  November

  0

  0

  December

  0

  0

  1995

  January

  0

  0

  February

  0

  0

  March

  3

  0

  April

  0

  0

  May

  0

  0

  June

  2

  1

  July

  154

  5

  August

  114

  1

  September

  0

  0

  October

  0

  0

  November

  0

  0

  Total

  836

  27

  Badger Setts, Carnmoney Hill
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what measures he intends to adopt to preserve the badger setts affected by the development proposals for Carnmoney hill, Newtownabbey, County Antrim; [5451]

  (2) if he will call in the development proposals for Carnmoney hill, Newtownabbey, County Antrim; and if he will make a statement. [5450]

  Mr. Moss
  There are no "call in" powers in Northern Ireland planning law. Outline planning permission for a new golf club at Carnmoney hill, Newtownabbey was granted on 21 November 1995. The developer's agent has been advised of the requirements of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 with regard to the protection of badger setts and a detailed badger survey, commissioned by the developer, has been received by the Department of the Environment.

  Teachers
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what review has been undertaken by the Fair Employment Commission or its predecessor of the exception contained in section 37(1)(c) of the Fair Employment Act 1976 relating to the employment of teachers in schools, as required in that Act. [5433]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The exception relating to the employment of teachers in schools was reviewed by the Fair Employment Agency in 1981 and 1987. No changes to the exception were recommended.

  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ask the Fair Employment Commission to report to him upon the exercise of its functions under section 38 of the Fair Employment Act 1976 with recommendations on action which might be taken to further equality of opportunity in the employment of teachers or on removing the exception of teachers in schools from the fair employment laws. [5454]

  Mr. Ancram
  It is not my right hon. and learned Friend's intention, at the present time, to ask the Fair Employment Commission to undertake such an exercise.

  Colin Glen Trust
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what public moneys have been made available each year to the Colin Glen trust since 1 January 1990; and how many cases alleging religious discrimination have been brought to the attention of the Fair Employment Commission in relation to the trust. [6455]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The following public funding has been given to the Colin Glen trust:

  1990 (January to March): £38,714

  1990–91: £285,071

  1991–92: £453,981

  1992–93: £544,749

  1993–94: £393,949

  1994–95: £408,378

  1995–96 (to end October) £281,684.

  905
  A total of four cases alleging religious discrimination have been brought to the attention of the Fair Employment Commission in relation to the Colin Glen trust.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent on furnishing and decorating ministerial offices in his Department in each of the last three years. [5569]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Expenditure on furnishing and decorating ministerial offices in 1993–94 and 1994–95 are included in the running cost expenditure of the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland departments, which are published in departmental reports. Figures prior to 1993–94 are not available.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [5586]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information in respect of the Northern Ireland Office, Northern Ireland departments and agencies is as follows:

  1994–95: £479,834

  1995–96 (estimated): £560,000

  1995–96 (actual to 30 November 1995): £342,939.

  Rathgael Road, Bangor
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to enhance the rural nature of the Rathgael road in Bangor with particular reference to its complement of trees; and what plans he has for new traffic arrangements to diminish the number of heavy goods vehicles entering the road. [5456]

  Mr. Moss
  Rathgael road, which is within the development limits of Bangor, is identified in the North Down and Ards area plan 1984–1995 as a relief to the existing ring road, and there are no plans to enhance the rural nature of this road or to diminish the number of heavy goods vehicles using it.

  Graduates
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of school children subsequently graduate; what proportion of jobs filled in the last three years in the Northern Ireland civil service required a degree; and how many graduates were recruited to jobs for which a degree was not required. [5458]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The percentage of school children who subsequently graduate and the number of graduates recruited by the Northern Ireland civil service in the last three years is as follows:

  It is estimated that 25 per cent. of school children in Northern Ireland graduate by the age of 25.
  906

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Proportion of NI Civil Service jobs filled which required a degree1

  8.5 per cent. (132 out of 1554)

  5.7 per cent.(36 out of 633)

  7.4 per cent. (40 out of 540)

  Number of graduates recruited where a degree was not required 2

  145

  66

  59

  Note:

  1 Non-industrial permanent recruits.

  2 Non-industrial permanent recruits including recruits who obtained a degree since appointment. The figures for the years 1992–93 and 1994–95 correct those I gave in response to a question from the hon. Gentleman on 3 November, Official Report column 500–2.

  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
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: Departments are required to provide details of their performance in their departmental reports.

  In 1994–95, 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.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide a breakdown of administration costs incurred to date and forecast for the future on PFI work. [5749]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The Department of Finance currently employs an adviser to promote the private finance initiative across all Northern Ireland departments and the Northern Ireland Office at a cost of some £60,000 per annum. The Department of the Environment also incurs some £120,000 per annum on units dedicated to work on the initiative.

  The administration costs incurred in relation to other work on the PFI are part of the normal work of Departments and are not separately identified.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide revenue forecasts for the current year and the next five years of expenditure on schemes provided under the PFI. [5750]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: No schemes under the private finance initiative, announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in November 1992, have been approved to date. A range of projects across all Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office are under consideration. It is too early, however, to estimate what the revenue costs are likely to be.

  Departmental Staff (Member's Letters)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many officials he employed(a) full-time and (b) part-time in his Department in each of the last three years to answer letters sent to him from hon. Members; and what was the estimated overall cost of replying to them in each of the last three years. [5615]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the outcome of his Department's review of measures taken to facilitate small firms' access to appropriate areas of Government procurement in the light of best practice. [6661]

  Sir John Wheeler
  As part of the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Government purchasing service has oversight of £800 million worth of procurement in NI each years. As I am sure the hon. Member appreciates, the majority of Northern Ireland firms are small and medium-sized enterprises and as such we have a fundamental objective to help these businesses prosper. In fact a key objective of the Government purchasing service is to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises are given maximum effective encouragement and opportunity to compete for public sector contracts in Northern Ireland. To this end, the Department, in conjunction with the CBI has promoted several "Meet the Buyer" events in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland at which public sector buyers and representatives of small and medium-sized enterprises have been facilitated to do business together and to forge long term relationships.

  The suppliers charter published late last year by the Government purchasing service is a declaration of its commitment to the principles of the citizens charter which aims to

  improve the quality of all public services

  make services more responsive to the needs of users

  ensure value for money.

  It also emphasises the commitment to provide all small and medium-sized enterprises with the opportunity to compete for the provision of goods and services in fair, open and equal competition.

ENVIRONMENT

  Fur Imports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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. [3180]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr Oppenheim), on Thursday 14 December,Official Report, column 778.

  Social Lettings
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many new social lettings(a) were made by housing associations in the last year and (b) are expected to be made next year, and what is his Department's lowest estimate for housing need on Merseyside; [5382]

  (2) how many new homes will be built by housing associations on Merseyside during the next 12 months; and what estimate his Department made of the number to be built in that period (a) at the start of 1995–96 and (b) currently. [5360]

  Mr. Clappison
  Housing associations provided around 70,700 new social lettings in 1994–95 through Housing Corporation and local authority funding together with the private finance attracted. In 1996–97 it is estimated that the equivalent figure will be around 53,400 with a further 7,200 new social lettings being provided from other sources. In addition, some 250,000 housing association and local authority dwellings become available for reletting each year.

  The Department's estimates of newly arising need for social lettings are made at national level and are not disaggregated regionally.

  The Housing Corporation will be publishing details of its capital funding allocations in each local authority area in the new year after it has assessed housing associations' bids for 1996–97 projects and finalised the approved development programme. Earlier years' estimates of 1996–97 output were national and not disaggregated regionally.

  London Governance
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many conference lectures and seminars he has attended on the subject of the governance of London since he assumed responsibility for the capital city. [5449]

  Mr. Gummer
  I have attended many conferences and seminars in London since I became Minister with responsibility for London. When I am invited, with reasonable notice, to suitable occasions of this kind, I try to attend. When the governance of London is mentioned, it is widely acknowledged that our decision to abolish the Greater London council was right.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent on furnishing and decorating ministerial offices in his Department in each of the last three years. [5573]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Expenditure on furnishing and decorating ministerial offices in each of the last three years is included in the running cost expenditure of my Department, which is published in the annual report.

  Local Authority Trading
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what review the Government have carried out on the issues of cross-boundary tendering and
  909
  municipal trading by local authorities; and when he plans to circulate guidance on this matter. [5594]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We have considered the powers of local authorities to trade under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970. My officials wrote to the local authority associations last week informing them that we remain of the view that the limited powers of the 1970 Act are the right basis for local authority trading activities, but accepting that these powers do not restrict these activities simply to the deployment by an authority of temporarily surplus capacity in its work force.

  Water Companies (Profits)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Office of Water Services in respect of changes to the regulatory regime to take account of recent profit and dividend announcements by the water companies; and if he will make a statement. [5679]

  Mr. Clappison
  The functioning of the regulatory regime frequently arises in day-to-day contacts between officials and the Director General of Water Services and his staff. The present system of price cap regulation provides powerful incentives for companies to reduce their costs and improve their performance, and enables the Director General of Water Services to take account of company profitability at the next price review. The director general has said that the benefits of improved efficiency should be shared between customers and shareholders.

  Visual Display Units
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has undertaken to establish whether there is a link between eye disease and visual display screens; and if he will make a statement. [5674]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Extensive research has found no evidence that work with visual display units either causes any permanent damage to eyes or eyesight or makes existing defects worse. The scientific and medical consensus is such that further research would not be justified.

  Some people using visual display units experience temporary visual fatigue, leading to symptoms like sore eyes or headaches. Under the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992, employees who habitually use a display screen as a significant part of their normal work can ask their employer to provide them with eye and eyesight tests, and special spectacles if required. Employers can also help minimise eyestrain by providing satisfactory lighting and taking steps to avoid reflections and glare on the screen. The Health and Safety Executive has explained these points in its guidance publications.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many visual display unit operators undertook a subsidised eye test as provided by European Union regulations in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [5673]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information on provision of eye tests under the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 is not yet available. There 910
  is no requirement for employers to report the number of tests they have provided. However, the Health and Safety Executive has started work to evaluate the regulations by means of surveys of employers and employees. The evaluation is due for completion in 1996 and should produce estimates of the extent of awareness of the regulations and what actions employers have taken to comply, including information on the extent of provision of eye tests.

  Municipal Waste Incinerators
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the municipal waste incinerators currently operating in the United Kingdom separately identifying those burning(a) more and (b) less than six tonnes per hour; which of them meet the relevant dust and dioxin emission standards; and which are the subject of enforcement action by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. [5683]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 13 December 1995]: I have listed all the municipal waste incinerators currently operating in the UK. All except the incinerator at Chinglebraes in Orkney have capacities in excess of six tonnes per hour.

  Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution authorises these plants in England and Wales and Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate authorises those in Scotland. These incinerators must be operated in accordance with all the conditions set in their authorisation including those for dust and dioxins; failure to comply with these standards can lead to enforcement action.

  HMIPI has issued an enforcement notice with regard to meeting these standards for the Orkney incinerator.

  HMIP has not undertaken any enforcement action at municipal waste incinerators this year.

  Municipal Waste Incinerators in the UK:

  Portrack, Stockton

  Vine Street, Huddersfield

  Bernard Road, Sheffield

  Eastcroft, Nottingham

  Edmonton, London

  Raikes Lane, Bolton

  Barr Road, Coventry

  Tyseley, Birmingham

  Lister Road, Dudley

  Crown Street, Wolverhampton

  Rainesway, Derby

  Sideway, Stoke

  SELCHP, London

  Harts Farm Way, Havant

  Bury Road, Marchwood

  Pooles Lane, Otterbourne

  Chineham, Basingstoke

  Avonmouth

  Exeter

  Baldovie, Dundee

  Alloca, Clackmannon

  Rova Head, Shetland

  Chinglebraes, Orkney.

  Chauffeur-driven Cars
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the cost of chauffeur-driven cars used by his Department was in each of the past five years. [5858]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is provided in respect of all Department of the Environment Ministers.

  1990–91: £270,000

  1991–92: £265,000

  1992–93: £254,000

  1993–94: £258,000

  1994–95: £258,000.

  All figures are exclusive of VAT.

  Company

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995

  Prosecutions

  North-west

  —

  1

  2

  5

  10

  12

  1

  Southern

  —

  1

  4

  1

  1

  1

  —

  South-west

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Wessex

  —

  2

  —

  3

  3

  1

  —

  Thames

  —

  3

  7

  5

  7

  4

  1

  Welsh

  —

  6

  15

  9

  1

  1

  1

  Anglian

  —

  3

  6

  5

  1

  2

  —

  Northumbrian

  1

  4

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire

  1

  1

  6

  1

  12

  1

  —

  Severn Trent

  —

  2

  8

  2

  5

  3

  4

  Convictions

  North-west

  —

  1

  2

  5

  8

  11

  1

  Southern

  —

  1

  4

  1

  1

  1

  —

  South-west

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Wessex

  —

  2

  —

  3

  3

  1

  —

  Thames

  —

  3

  7

  5

  7

  4

  1

  Welsh

  —

  6

  15

  9

  1

  1

  1

  Anglian

  —

  3

  6

  5

  1

  2

  —

  Northumbrian

  1

  4

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire

  1

  1

  6

  1

  12

  1

  —

  Severn Trent

  —

  2

  8

  2

  5

  3

  4

  Prosecution dates

  North-west

  —

  13.12.90

  16.10.91

  20.05.92

  23.04.93

  07.04.94

  18.04.95

  29.01.92

  01.10.92

  28.07.93

  25.05.94

  03.02.93

  14.09.93

  07.06.94

  02.03.93

  20.10.93

  21.07.94

  02.03.93

  03.11.93

  26.08.94

  09.11.93

  13.09.94

  25.01.94

  21.09.94

  25.01.94

  21.09.94

  03.02.94

  03.10.94

  25.03.94

  18.11.95

  15.02.95

  17.02.95

  Southern

  —

  10.07.00

  29.10.91

  16.11.92

  26.04.93

  24.06.94

  —

  10.01.90

  11.02.92

  13.02.92

  South-west

  —

  20.11.90

  —

  07.12.92

  —

  —

  —

  30.11.92

  Wessex

  —

  12.11.90

  —

  14.08.92

  10.08.93

  22.09.94

  —

  12.12.90

  22.09.92

  10.08.93

  16.03.93

  13.12.93

  912
  No Department of the Environment Ministers use their own vehicles for official purposes.

  Water Companies (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times and on which dates each of the privatised water companies have been(a) prosecuted and (b) convicted for water pollution offences in (i) the current year and (ii) each of the last five years. [5961]

  Mr. Clappison
  The information requested is set out in the tables. The details attributed to 1995 are for the period since April. This information supersedes that given in my answer of 7 November 1995,Official Report, columns 738–39.
  913

  Company

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995

  Thames

  —

  07.03.91

  23.05.91

  01.10.92

  18.05.93

  11.04.94

  22.05.95

  07.03.91

  24.05.91

  07.10.92

  10.06.93

  13.07.94

  25.03.91

  31.05.91

  07.10.92

  07.10.93

  12.12.94

  15.11.91

  25.11.92

  22.11.93

  20.02.95

  26.11.91

  18.01.93

  8.12.93

  26.11.91

  22.12.93

  10.03.92

  14.01.94

  welsh

  —

  11.04.90

  17.04.91

  03.04.92

  10.11.93

  15.12.94

  17.08.95

  11.04.90

  20.05.91

  14.04.92

  12.04.90

  23.05.91

  15.04.92

  27.04.90

  4.06.91

  14.05.92

  28.01.91

  07.06.91

  19.05.92

  25.03.91

  21.06.91

  05.10.92

  09.07.91

  18.12.92

  29.08.91

  30.12.92

  29.08.91

  15.03.93

  29.08.91

  06.09.91

  22.01.92

  06.03.92

  13.03.92

  19.03.92

  Anglian

  —

  16.11.90

  02.07.91

  15.05.92

  28.07.93

  15.07.94

  —

  19.12.90

  23.07.91

  20.05.92

  28.07.94

  25.03.91

  25.11.91

  07.07.92

  25.11.91

  24.07.92

  25.02.92

  22.10.92

  06.03.92

  Northumbrian

  05.02.90

  31.10.90

  06.12.91

  21.09.92

  —

  —

  —

  19.12.90

  12.02.91

  10.11.92

  08.03.91

  08.03.91

  Yorkshire

  28.12.89

  13.07.90

  19.04.91

  02.04.92

  19.04.93

  23.08.94

  —

  19.04.91

  07.06.93

  19.04.91

  16.06.93

  15.05.91

  16.06.93

  25.06.91

  02.07.93

  04.09.91

  17.08.93

  19.08.93

  19.08.93

  19.08.93

  19.08.93

  19.08.93

  16.11.93

  Severn Trent

  —

  29.06.90

  21.05.91

  21.09.92

  27.04.93

  23.08.94

  22.05.95

  20.11.90

  03.06.91

  02.03.93

  11.06.93

  03.03.95

  07.06.95

  18.07.91

  10.08.93

  26.03.95

  12.09.95

  16.09.91

  21.09.93

  25.09.95

  18.09.91

  06.01.94

  19.09.91

  08.10.91

  27.11.91

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money the Building Research Establishment has received in each of the last five years from public,funds; and what budget it is likely to receive for research next year. [5965]

  Year

  11990–91

  11991–92

  11992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  21995–96

  31996–97

  Cash income—from research etc

  27.4

  32.9

  34.6

  35.6

  35.4

  35.3

  31.9

  Capital funding

  0.8

  1.6

  1.2

  2.5

  2.9

  3.9

  2.0

  Total money received from public funds

  28.2

  34.5

  35.8

  38.1

  38.3

  39.2

  33.9

  Notes:

  1 Form unaudited accounts.

  2 Forecast outturn.

  3Estimate. Budgets still under discussion.
  914
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Building Research Establishment receives income from public funds through undertaking research and other commissions for various Government customers. In addition, it has annual allocation of capital funds for investment in buildings and facilities. The table provides details of both.

  Local Authorities (Political Propaganda)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the restrictions currently placed on local authorities to prevent expenditure on political propaganda; and what tests are applied in determining if a particular item is beyond or within the rules. [5953]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Local Government Act 1986 prohibits local authorities from publishing, or assisting others to publish, material which, in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party. The code of recommended practice on local authority publicity, issued by my Department under that Act, states that any publicity used to comment on the proposals or policies of central or local government must be accurate and objective and not appear to be prejudiced, unreasoning or a political attack on any of the policies or proposals in question.

  Housing (Mundic Problem)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has commissioned or evaluated into the Mundic problem with special reference to houses in Cornwall. [5964]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department funds a continuing research programme at the Building Research Establishment, with industry support, into these problems.

  This work has led directly to the publication of revised guidance from the Mundic committee of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The application of which has resulted in an estimated 70 per cent of previously blighted properties now being classified as suitable for lending purposes.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide, for the 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. [5692]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The capital and financing costs of a PFI project are a matter for the private sector. The Department's responsibility is to ensure that it, and its sponsored bodies, get value for money for any payments they make. Value

  Title

  objectives

  Fieldwork start date

  Location

  Researchers

  Number of respondents

  Community Identity Research

  Ascertain public perceptions

  January 1993

  Derbyshire Cleveland North Yorkshire Linconshire Avon Glou s, Somerset

  MORI

  10.000

  The Children's Initiative

  To establish knowledge of. attitudes towards and involvement in Environmental action

  January 1993

  England

  Millward Brown

  1.090

  916
  for money appraisals are not required to include a notional public sector comparator for projects where no public funding is available.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide revenue forecasts for the current year and the next five years of expenditure on schemes provided under the PFI. [5755]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The Department of the Environment and its sponsored bodies attracted around £4 billion in private investment in support of its programmes in 1994–95 and expects to increase that figure in 1995–f96. This will assist the delivery of a very large number of projects, most notably ones relating to housing, inner cities and regeneration. Secondary legislation to encourage and facilitate private finance initiative schemes in the local authority sector came into effect from I April 1995 and the Government aim to implement further measures, announced on 31 October Official Report. columns 181–83, by I April 1996. It is not practicable for the Department to collect detailed information on each project being advanced under private financing arrangements.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a breakdown of administration costs incurred to date and forecast for the future of PFI work. [57441]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The Department of the Environment and its sponsored bodies seek to attract maximum private finance in support of departmental programmes. The administrative costs of this activity arc not separately identified.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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 times scale and (vi) which individuals and organisations have been given access to the findings. [5987]

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The information available about surveys carried out by my Department in the past three years, which include questions to individuals about their opinions. is given.
  917

  Title

  Objectives

  Fieldwork start date

  Location

  Researchers

  Number of respondents

  Customer Survey; Study of Appellants' Experience of the Written Representations Appeals System

  To access customer satisfaction with the written representation appeals procedures

  February 1993

  South East, North West and West Midlands Regions of DoE

  W.S. Atkins Planning Consultants

  1,575

  Evaluation of Rebuilding Grants

  To evaluate and examine the wider applicability of rebuilding grants

  February 1993

  Birmingham

  University of Salford

  150

  Owner-Occupiers who are Cavity Wall Insulation Enthusiasts

  To encourage uptake of insulation

  February 1993

  UK

  NBA Tectronics

  420

  Evaluation of the Rough Sleepers Initiative

  To evaluate policy

  March 1993

  Central London

  Research and Information services

  300

  Applicant's Perceptions of the Planning Appeals System

  Customer's views on the planning appeals system

  March 1993

  South East. North West and West Midlands Regions of DoE

  W.S. Atkins

  1,575

  Evaluation of 'Right to Buy' Publicity Campaign

  To evaluate publicity campaign

  April 1993

  England

  MORI

  1.575

  'Right To Buy' Campaign Evaluation—follow-up stage

  Follow-up to above survey

  May 1993

  England

  MORI

  1.000

  Landlords Research

  To inform policy making

  July 1993

  SCPR

  Public Attitudes to the Environment

  To inform policy

  July 1993

  England and Wales

  NOP

  3.200

  Helping the Earth—Literature Evaluation

  To evaluate literature campaign

  September 1993

  UK

  MAI

  518

  Customer Survey: Study of Appellants' and Local Authorities' Experience of the Hearings System

  To assess customer satisfaction with hearings of appeals procedures

  September 1993

  England

  W.S. Atkins Planning Consultants

  1.569

  Helping the Earth Campaign Evaluation Research 1993-94—Waves 4 and 5

  To evaluate the 'Helping the Earth' campaign

  September to November 1993

  GB

  BMRB

  1,200

  Ventilation in Homes

  To evaluate the effectiveness of Building Regulations

  October 1993

  Eight Regions across UK

  PAS

  250

  Helping the Earth Radio Campaign

  To assess the effectiveness of campaign

  October 1993

  GB

  RSGB

  2,000

  Rent Policies of LAs in England

  To monitor and inform policy

  November 1993

  England

  Inlogov

  920

  The Nature of Demand for Housing in Rural Areas

  To investigate people's housing experiences in rural areas

  December 1993

  Allerdale, Vale of White Horse and Newbury Birmingham University

  550

  Flat Service Charges and Right to Buy

  To monitor and inform policy

  December 1993

  UK

  MORI

  936

  Monitoring the Actions of Failed Grant Applicants

  To monitor and inform policy

  January 1994

  England

  PAS

  2,000

  Rent to Mortgage leaflet follow-up

  To establish tenants opinion and action taken towards buying their home

  February 1994

  GB

  NOP

  2,000

  Public Attitudes to Planning (and Development)

  To inform policy and promote the planning system

  February 1994

  England and Wales

  Prism Research

  3,000

  Helping the Earth Campaign, Pre and Post Monitor

  To assess campaign effectiveness

  February 1994

  GB

  COL

  4,000

  Study of Lodgers Scheme

  To inform Policy making on Lodgers scheme

  March 1994

  England

  The London Research Centre

  50

  Recreational Cycling Market Research

  To assess customer satisfaction

  April 1994

  England

  COL

  636

  918 919

  Title

  Objectives

  Fieldwork start date

  Location

  Researchers

  Numbers of respondents

  Albert Dock Visitor Survey

  To assess number, origins and method of travel and spend per head

  April 1994

  Area bounded by Dukes Dock. Mersey River Frontage. Canning Dock and Strand Street

  Allott and Lomax Consultants

  1,858

  Ventilation in Homes

  To evaluate the effectiveness of Building Regulations

  April 94

  GB (except Scotland)

  Public Attitudes Surveys

  3,000

  The Environmental Effects of Dust from Surface Mineral Workings—pilot survey

  To define reasonable dust levels

  May 94

  England and Wales

  Ove Arup & Partners

  60

  Vacant Dwellings in the private Sector

  To determine the scope for bring vacant dwellings back into use

  May 94

  England

  University of Wales + MORI

  500

  London Docklands Development Corporation Residents survey

  To assess residents views of area, local facilities, priorities for change and perceptions of the LDDC

  June 94

  LDUD Area

  MORI

  508

  Home Improvement Agency Client Survey

  To review the work of Home Improvement Agencies

  Juen94

  England

  SCPR

  600

  Research into the Role and Operation Of Homes

  To evaluate Policy

  August 94

  England, Wales and Scotland

  MORI

  1,250

  1994 London Docklands Visitor Survey

  To assess visitor levels and experiences

  September 94

  Travel and Tourism Research

  "Wasting Energy Costs the Earth" Campaign Evaluation

  To establish attitudes to and action on energy use in the home

  September 94

  UK

  NOP

  1,000

  The Environmental Effects of Production Blasting from Surface Mineral Workings (Pilot Survey)

  To define reasonable working levels for production blasting

  September 94

  Ammanford(S. Wales)

  Vibrock Ltd

  50

  Customer Survey: Study of Customer's experience of the inquiry procedure

  To assess customer satisfaction

  October 94

  England and Wales

  W S Atkins Planning Consultants

  1,250

  Review of Council's Tenants Charter

  To assess customer awareness, Views on contents and usefulness of the Councils Tenant's Charter

  November 94

  10 selected local authorities in England

  MORI

  80

  Houses in Multiple Occupation: Establishing Effective Local Authority Strategies

  To assess customer satisfaction

  December 94

  England

  Public Attitudes Surveys Ltd

  60

  Testing the Planetary Caretaker Pack

  To explore childrens reactions to Environmental Information Packs

  March 95

  GB

  NOP

  1,000

  Review of LAs charging for Public Path Orders

  To assess customer satisfaction

  April 95

  England and Wales

  Countryside and Community Research Unit

  220

  Residents Attitude Survey (North Hull Housing Action Trust)

  To assess views of tenants

  April 95

  North Hull HAT Designated Area

  Market Researchers (CWA) Consultancy Ltd

  510

  Planning Inspectorate Customer Survey (Pilot)

  Opinion of the Inspectors and administrative handling of appeals

  June/July 95

  England

  N/A

  900

  Personal Exposure to Atmospheric Particles

  To assess background on lifestyle and living conditions

  July/August 95

  Birmingham

  National Environment Technology Centre

  30

  Air Quality Awareness Omnibus Survey

  To assess awareness of Air Pollution issues

  August 95

  UK

  BMRB International Ltd

  1,050

  Wall Insulation and Development

  To assess attitudes towards use of cavity wall insulation

  August 95

  England

  Cragg. Ross. Dawson

  80

  920 921

  Title

  Objectives

  Fieldwork start date

  Location

  Researchers

  Number of respondents

  Experiences of Enforcement Provision of the Leasehold Reform Act 1993

  To assess the effects of the recent legislation

  September 95

  England and Wales

  Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research—Sheffield Hallam University

  1,350

  The use of Accelerated Possession Proceedings

  To assess awareness, knowledge and whether procedure is working effectively

  November 95

  England

  London Research Centre

  50

  Evaluation of Tune your Car Campaign

  To assess perceptions of impact of cars on the Environment and attitudes to greener motoring

  December 95

  Leeds, Middlesborough, Sheffield, Oxford and Bristol

  NOP

  2,500

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what bids for resources he has received from authorities that(a) have been and (b) are to be reorganised on I April 1995, 1996, 1997 or 1998 for estimated reorganisation costs in (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97; and to what extent these bids have been successful. [6098]

  Sir Paul Bereford
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: For authorities for which structural change orders have been made, the bids received and allocations made to date under the local government reorganisation costs schemes for 1995–96 and 1996–97 are as follows:

  Authorities reorganised on

  1 April 1995 £

  1 April 1996 £

  1 April 1997 £

  1995–96 Scheme

  Bid

  1,910,000

  113,913,000

  10,706,500

  Allocation

  1,750,000

  47,760,000

  0

  1996–97 scheme

  Bid

  1,029,000

  120,921,000

  98,480,700

  Authorities initial bids under the 1996–97 reorganisation costs scheme were requested by 1 December. Initial allocations will be made shortly. No orders have been made which provide for reorganisation in 1998.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources will be available to cover the transitional costs of local government re-organisation in(a)1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [6100]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: Resources of £100 million in the form of supplementary credit approvals are available to cover the transitional costs of local government re-organisation in 1996–97. The provision for 1997–98 and 1998–99 will be decided during the public expenditure survey for those years.

  Council House Rents
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines he has issued in respect of council house rent increases; and what subsidies he will be providing in respect of rebates. [6271]
  922
  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) on 21 November,Official Report, columns 96–97. We are currently considering the responses received during consultation on our proposals and hope to he in a position to make an announcement shortly.

  Departmental Staff (Members' Letters)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many officials he employed(a) full time and (b) part time in his Department in each of the last three years to answer letters sent to him from hon. Members; and what was the estimated overall cost of replying to them in each of the last three years. [5617]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Officials in my Department provide Ministers with draft replies to departmental correspondence as part of their normal duties. No information is available on what proportion of officials' time is spent on this work.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce regulations to require the controlled safe disposal of all containers used to store toxic materials and harmful chemicals. [5429]

  Mr. Clappison
  Containers classified as controlled waste must be managed and disposed of in accordance with sections 33 and 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In some circumstances, the containers may be "Special Waste" and subject to the additional controls in the 1980 Control of pollution (Special Waste) Regulations. These regulations are being revised following public consultation earlier in the year.

  New Housing
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provision is currently made for the delivery of social and economic infrastructure facilities when applications are made for new housing development. [6576]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The provision of infrastructure is important in all major new developments. It has always been an important purpose of the planning system to co-ordinate new development with the infrastructure it demands.
  923
  The fact that development plans look forward over a number of years means that those responsible for infrastructure provision influence the pattern of new development so that it takes account of likely infrastructure limitations. When it comes to an individual planning application, the adequacy of infrastructure can be a material consideration in deciding whether permission should be granted.

  In certain circumstances, it may be appropriate for a local planning authority to impose a condition or seek to enter into a planning obligation with a developer to help towards the provision of social and economic infrastructure facilities where this is necessary for the granting of planning permission.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new houses are to be built by(a) 2005 and (b) 2011 to fulfil projected household needs forecast by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in (i) Devon, (ii) Somerset, (iii) Birmingham, (iv) Kent, (v) Sussex and (vi) Hampshire. [6588]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Department of the Environment published "Projections of Households in England to 2016" in March 1995. These projections suggest the likely number and type of households that would materialise by county, metropolitan district and London borough by 2016, if current social and demographic trends continue.

  New figures, for which these 1992-based projections will be an input, will be produced for each region and county for the next review of the relevant regional planning guidance. The next step, therefore, is for the regional conference of local authorities for each region to consider these projections and a wide range of other supply and demand factors before advising the Secretary of State on revised figures for additional housing requirements for their region and for each county, metropolitan district or London borough. The process of assessing the implications of the latest household projections is just starting.

  The current figures for the authorities requested were produced with input from the 1989-based household projections, published in 1992. The current annual average number of additional dwellings proposed in current regional planning guidance for the authorities requested are:

  Devon: 4,950 (1991–2011) RPG for the South West (July 1994)

  Somerset: 2.500 (1991–2011) RPG for the South West (July 1994)

  Birmingham: 2.050 (1991–2011) Draft RPG for West Midlands (September 1995)

  Kent: 5.800 (1991–2006) RPG for the South East (March 1994)

  East Sussex: 2.333 (1991–2006) RPG for the South East (March 1994)

  West Sussex: 2.933 (1991–2006) RPG for the South East (March 1994)

  Surrey: 2.400 (1991–2006) RPG for the South East (March 1994)

  Hampshire: 6.133 (1991–2006) RPG for the South East (March 1994).

  These figures are being "tested" in the preparation of the structure plan or unitary development plan for the relevant area.

  Industrial Sites
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate his Department has made of the future requirement for new industrial sites in(a) the south-west and (b) South Hams and the number of jobs these will generate. [6589]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department has not made any estimate of the future requirement for industrial sites in the region, but the regional planning guidance for the south-west advises that development plans should make adequate provision for land employment-related development.

  The third alteration to the Devon structure plan. as approved in March 1994, provides for about 774 hectares of employment land in the county between 1989 and 2001, of which 115 hectares arc allocated to South Hams district. The structure plan does not make any estimate of the number of jobs this will generate.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date his officials discussed the local government implications of the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations with the Department of Social Security; what evidence was offered; and what information has been sought from local authorities. [6480]

  Mr. Clappison
  My officials have had regular discussions with their counterparts in the Department of Social Security about the implications 14 the housing of homeless persons of the proposed Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations. Those discussions have taken account of information about homelessness supplied to the Department by local authorities. We have also discussed the matter with the Association of London Government.

  Local Partnerships
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will specify the role and remit of local partnerships. [6578]

  Mr. Curry
  Local partnerships play a key role in promoting economic, environmental and social regeneration. A range of Government policies and programmes is specifically directed to support local partnerships. These programmes include the single regeneration budget challenge fund. Over 370 schemes involving local partnerships have been approved under rounds 1 and 2 of the challenge fund. These schemes stand to attract sonic £2 billion in challenge fund support and £5 billion in private investment over their lifetime of up to seven years. Rounds 3 and 4 of the challenge fund. for schemes starting in 1997 and 1998 respectively, were announced in the Budget statement. Apart from the challenge fund. the partnership approach is central to, for example. initiatives supported by training and enterprise councils. English Partnerships and European structural funds.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider establishing a statistical user group made up of representatives from the Central Statistical Office, local authorities and bodies such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England in order to improve the accuracy of population statistics and need for homes in the south west of England. [6577]

  Mr. Robert B Jones
  Arrangements are already in place for consulting local authorities and other interested parties during the production of population projections.

  Population estimates and subnational population projections are the responsibility of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. One of the key assumptions that has to be made in preparing the subnational population projections concerns the pattern of migration within England. This is decided following extensive consultation with the relevant local authorities, a task which is undertaken by the Department of the Environment. This consultation relates to past and present trends and the projections assume a continuation of these trends.

  In addition, OPCS chairs a separate liaison group for representatives from both central and local government for consideration of the methodology and timing of population statistics.

  My Department produced household projections from the subnational population projections. Both of these are trend-based projections, based on the best evidence available at the time. They are not forecasts of what we expect to happen, nor do they represent DOE's expectation of the number of houses needed in any particular area. Rather, they are one item of information taken into account in setting guidance for housing provision, along with other information such as housing stock and vacant dwellings. The weight to be given to these and other factors is considered by a working group in each region comprising representatives from local authorities, statisticians and planners from my Department and interested parties such as the House Builders Federation and the Council for the Protection of Rural England. The Secretary of State's figures for housing provision in regional planning guidance is a result of these considerations.

  Regional Regeneration Strategies
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which of the integrated regional offices published regional regeneration strategies; and which local partners have been consulted in the process. [6695]

  Mr. Curry
  None. The Government offices for the regions do, however, all take an active role in developing effective co-operation with and between a wide range of local partners to ensure that Government programmes, including the single regeneration budget, provide a coherent and effective contribution to regional and local regeneration.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to give compensation to British-owned fishing vessels prevented from fishing by lack of getting similar compensation to that claimed by Spanish-owned British-registered vessels for stopping fishing under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. [4326]

  Mr. Baldry
  British-owned fishing vessels were not affected by the nationality provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. The question of compensation does not, therefore, arise.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for requiring all British registered fishing vessels to land a specified proportion of the catch into the United Kingdom. [6008]

  Mr. Baldry
  British fishing vessels are already required to land into the UK at least 50 per cent. by weight of total landings of all stocks subject to EC quota. If they fail to do this they must visit a United Kingdom port at least four times in every six month period. The visits must each be of at least eight hours duration and there must he an interval of at least 10 days between them. Notice must be given at least 24 hours in advance of a visit.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food how many applications were received for funding under the EC grant schemes prior to 28 November for(a) fisheries processing and marketing, (b) port facilities and (c) aquaculture production for each country of the United Kingdom. [5991]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The number of applications and provisional applications for financial instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG) funding under the Structures Regulation—EC Reg. 3699/93—prior to 28 November 1995 for fisheries marketing and processing, port facilities and aquaculture for each country of the United Kingdom is as follows:

  Country

  Fisheries processing Procession and marketing

  Post facilities

  Aquaculture

  England1

  35

  2

  4

  Northern Ireland2

  0

  0

  0

  Scotland

  93

  20

  35

  Wales1

  2

  0

  2

  Total

  130

  22

  41

  1As schemes were not open in England and Wales it was not possible for formal applications to he made. Provisional applications were acknowledged on a "without prejudice- basis.

  2 No formal applications have been received in Northern Ireland hut provisional approval to start work has been given to 11 processing and marketing and 4 aquaculture projects without guarantee of grant.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ban the sale of beef offal until such time as his Department has evaluated scientific proof that there is no link between
  927
  bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. [5129]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government have based all their measures to protect public health from any remote possible risk from BSE on scientific evidence and advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee and its predecessors. The controls on bovine offals contained in the Specified Bovine Offal Order 1995 are designed to ensure that tissues potentially harbouring BSE infectivity are removed from all cattle at slaughter and do not enter any food chain. Other offals, not covered by these regulations, have been tested and shown not to harbour BSE infectivity, even when taken from clinically affected cattle. The controls in force therefore provide a safeguard against the possibility, for which there is no scientific evidence, that CJD is caused by BSE. Further details of the scientific experiments underpinning these controls were given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in reply to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) on 22 November,Official Report, columns 192-93.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [5584]

  Mr. Boswell
  In 1994–95 the cost of hospitality, which is included in the running cost budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, excluding its agencies, was £64,092.62. The figure for the financial year to date (30 November 1995) is £37,077.65.

  The projected budget for 1995–96 is £57,000.

  EU Grants
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications were received for funding under the EC processing and marketing grants schemes in each year in which the schemes have been in operation in the United Kingdom, for each country of the United Kingdom. [5990]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The following information, for the years 1990 to 1995, is available. Applications for grants under both the agriculture and fisheries schemes are included. Information for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  EC processing and marketing grant applications in the United Kingdom 1990–95

  Year

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  1990

  10

  72

  4

  30

  1991

  153

  66

  8

  45

  1992

  232

  102

  11

  39

  1993

  0

  15

  0

  0

  1994

  195

  65

  13

  0

  1995 to date

  225

  91

  13

  17

  Orange Juice
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what EU regulations have affected the price of orange juice in the last six months. [6536]

  Mr. Baldry
  Several EU regulations may have affected the recent price of orange juice. Commission regulation (EC) No. 3223/94 introduced entry price arrangements for oranges; Council regulation (EC) No. 3290/94 applied reductions in tariffs and levies for imported orange juice; Commission regulation (EC) No. 1921/95 introduced less onerous import licence arrangements for orange juice; and Commission regulation (EC No. 2803/95 provided aid to Community processors of oranges.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress his Department is making with the deregulation of food law, and if he will make a statement. [7117]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have today laid before Parliament the last of a set of regulations due to come into force on 1 January 1996, which will do much to simplify food law and remove outdated restrictions.

  Eighteen food composition regulations, dating back to 1944, have been revoked and replaced by greatly simplified regulations, in just three areas, covering bread and flour, spreadable fats and cheese and cream.

  Fourteen food additive regulations, dating back to 1967, have been revoked and replaced by three sets of regulations, which introduce new EC requirements for colours, sweeteners and other additives. We are also allowing the use of cyclamates as food additives, since they have now been given a clean bill of health by the Government's expert advisors.

  We are planning to streamline the food labelling regulations in the same way. Certain changes will be made on 1 January but more extensive revision has had to be deferred until later in 1996, while some issues of detail are resolved.

  Our aim is to keep the essential parts of food law which protect the health of the general public and make sure that they have the information they need, but to dispense where we can with the elaborate rules which have built up over the years. Because simpler law is easier to understand and easier to obey, it gives better protection. Removing arbitrary restrictions gives industry greater freedom to develop new products to meet changing consumer tastes.

  Arable Area Payments
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about progress with making arable area payments in England. [7118]
  929
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There were 46,874 applications for arable area aid in 1995. We met the 30 September deadline for advance payment of 98 per cent. of those claims which included an oilseed element. The 2 per cent. which were unpaid were all subject to unresolved queries.

  Payments under the main scheme started on 17 October and, as at 13 December, 27,209 claims—58 per cent. of the total—had been paid. Regional service centres are making every effort to clear outstanding cases by the deadline of 31 December. However, the burden of validating claims to the exacting standards required under the Community rules has proved greater than originally estimated and it now seems likely that some claims will not he paid until after the deadline. I regret this delay, but hope nevertheless that all valid claims will have been paid by the end of January.

HEALTH

  Residential Care Homes, Coventry
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients from the Coventry health authority and Coventry social services department have been referred(a) to non-profit and (b) to other residential and nursing homes in Coventry for each year since 1985. [4799]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of the Coventry social services committee for this information.

  Expenditure on medical staff salaries and wages by health authorities and NHS Trusts by region in England

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Northern

  103,491,666

  113,081,220

  133,338,052

  142,248,854

  Yorkshire

  115,335,698

  129,867,812

  155,079,374

  161,836,272

  Trent

  139,725,190

  159,639,814

  184,208,211

  201,501,132

  East Anglian

  62,126,723

  69,902,365

  80,680,879

  84,893,173

  North-west Thames

  120,721,842

  137,031,673

  156,317,128

  158,966,090

  North-east Thames

  148,854,384

  168,155,019

  193,219,977

  194,668,053

  South-east Thames

  127,686,214

  141,992,686

  161,892,714

  169,264,669

  South-west Thames

  93,518,290

  107,712,593

  122,531,226

  126,786,587

  Wessex

  82,274,077

  94,300,110

  110,619,223

  116,101,553

  Oxford

  72,106,360

  80,557,248

  93,198,452

  98,431,021

  South Western

  92,926,704

  107,828,936

  123,438,491

  128,216,606

  West Midlands

  160,645,391

  194,020,618

  225,292,868

  228,309,669

  Mersey

  83,382,258

  107,228,536

  129,735,951

  113,792,162

  North Western

  142,292,413

  162,661,024

  184,633,753

  189,761,324

  Special health authorities

  40,263,288

  43,909,979

  49,997,935

  51,284,715

  Total

  1,585,350,498

  1,817,889,633

  2,104,184,244

  2,166,151,879

  Source:

  1. The annual financial returns of district and regional health authorities and the special health authorities of the London postgraduate teaching hospitals, 1991–92 to 1993–94

  2. The annual financial returns of NHS trusts.

  3. The annual accounts of district and regional health authorities and the special health authorities of the London postgraduate teaching hospitals, 1990–91.

  Note:

  l. The figures are based upon pay costs including employers national insurance and superannuation contributions.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on furnishing and decorating ministerial offices in his Department in each of the last three years. [5564]

  Mr. Horam
  Expenditure on furnishing and decorating ministerial offices in each of the last three years is included in the running cost expenditure of my Department, which is published in the annual report.

  Worcester District General Hospital
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the completion date of the new Worcester district general hospital; and if he will make a statement. [5482]

  Mr. Horam
  An advertisement has been placed in the Official Journal of the European Union inviting private sector partnership in the development of a new Worcester district general hospital. I understand that Worcester Royal Infirmary national health service trust is currently having preliminary discussions with a number of interested parties and an intended target date of the year 2000 has been set for completion of the development.

  Health Service Staff Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total revenue bill to the NHS of employing(a) medical and (b) nursing and midwifery staff in each region in each year since 1990. [4184]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the tables. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 3 November 1994,Official Report, column 1269, for nursing and midwifery data prior to 1993–94.
  931

  Expenditure on medical staff salaries and wages by health authorities and NHS Trusts by region in England 1994–95

  Expenditure £

  Northern and Yorkshire

  309,568,608

  Trent

  213,741,406

  Anglian and Oxford

  212,217,253

  North Thames

  395,960,787

  South Thames

  319,377,569

  South and Western

  262,959,641

  West Midlands

  229,986,427

  North Western

  325,433,452

  Special health authorities

  5,153,728

  Total

  2,274,398,871

  Source:

  1. The annual financial returns of district and regional health authorities and the special health authorities of the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  2. The annual financial returns of NHS trusts.

  Notes:

  1. The figures are provisional.

  2. The figures are based upon pay costs including employers national insurance and superannuation contributions.

  Expenditure on nurses and midwives salaries and wages by health authorities and NHS Trusts in England by region 1993–94

  Expenditure £

  Northern

  413,134,272

  Yorkshire

  450,659,381

  Trent

  584,875,324

  East Anglian

  245,502,969

  North-west Thames

  423,533,053

  North-east Thames

  531,039,453

  South-east Thames

  453,885,371

  South-west Thames

  387,123,939

  Wessex

  357,085,742

  Oxford

  282,770,792

  South Western

  430,190,725

  West Midlands

  617,172,328

  Mersey

  302,964,999

  North Western

  562,107,724

  Special health authorities

  91,967,680

  Total

  6,134,013,752

  Source:

  1. The annual financial returns of district and regional health authorities and the special health authorities of the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  2. The annual financial returns of NHS trusts.

  Note:

  1. The figures are based upon pay costs including employers national insurance and superannuation contributions.

  Expenditure on nurses and midwives salaries and wages by health authorities and NHS Trusts by region in England 1994–95

  Expenditure £

  Northern and Yorkshire

  856,848,600

  Trent

  598,343,184

  Anglian and Oxford

  586,047,908

  North Thames

  974,093,120

  South Thames

  843,464,893

  South and Western

  807,829,246

  West Midlands

  624,968,890

  932

  Expenditure on nurses and midwives salaries and wages by health authorities and NHS Trusts by region in England 1994–95

  Expenditure £

  North Western

  885,259.306

  Special health authorities

  6,268.346

  Total

  6,183,123.493

  Source:

  1. The annual financial returns of district and regional health authorities and the special health authorities of the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  2. The annual financial returns of NHS trusts.

  Notes:

  1. The figures are provisional.

  2. The figures are based upon pay costs including employers national insurance and superannuation contributions.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost to the NHS of employing non-NHS staff in each region in each year since 1990. [4183]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the tables.

  Expenditure on non-NHS staff 1990–91 to 1993–94 (England)

  1990-91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Northern

  2,736,772

  3,502,870

  4,555,193

  5,175,235

  Yorkshire

  8,012,619

  8,938,035

  11,814,196

  12,055,330

  Trent

  7,528,236

  7,066,494

  10,278,082

  11,352,333

  East Anglian

  8,678,114

  7,379,732

  8,408,467

  7,812,732

  North-west Thames

  49,446,428

  41.251,884

  39,442,561

  39,649,521

  North-east Thames

  59,049,130

  46,705,439

  42,045,540

  51,463,197

  South-east Thames

  32,399,659

  25,020,793

  30,912,252

  28,136,097

  South-west Thames

  28,471,196

  21,428,960

  20,395,876

  18,189,325

  Wessex

  10,181,817

  9.345,128

  9,704,799

  11,716,646

  Oxford

  8,254,692

  6,524,320

  7,788,610

  7,697,788

  South Western

  9,537,148

  6,501,718

  7,537,561

  8,568,361

  West Midlands

  17,428,639

  18,528,830

  19,266,092

  23,446,188

  Mersey

  5,644,042

  7,013,053

  3,592,664

  4,415,339

  North Western

  7,695,389

  8,081,628

  8,747,479

  9,379,745

  Special health authorities

  19,861,202

  16,429,818

  16,463,330

  14,352,898

  Total

  274,925,083

  233,718,702

  240,952,702

  253,410,735

  Source:

  1. Annual financial returns of district and regional health authorities and the special health authorities of the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  2. Annual financial returns of NHS trusts 1991–92 to 1993–94.

  Expenditure on non-NHS Staff 1994–95 (England)

  Expenditure £

  Northern and Yorkshire

  21,061,841

  Trent

  17,566,270

  Anglian and Oxford

  22,675,477

  North Thames

  122,044,374

  South Thames

  64,389,932

  South and Western

  25,429,543

  West Midlands

  31,786,519

  933

  Expenditure on non-NHS Staff 1994–95 (England)

  Expenditure £

  North Western

  17,211,015

  Special health authorities

  2,023,622

  Total

  325,188,593

  Source:

  1. Annual financial returns of district and regional health authorities and the special health authorities of the London postgraduate teaching posts.

  2. Annual financial returns of NHS trusts.

  Note:

  The figures arc provisional.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [5581]

  Mr. Horam
  For the amount spent on hospitality expenditure for 1994–95, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave to him on I May 1995,Official Report, column 23. Due to technical changes in the Department's accounting system, the figure given for the Department for 1994–95 covered 13 months' expenditure. In April the procedures for recording hospitality expenditure for the Department were changed so that hospitality expenditure was recorded separately from expenditure on working lunches. The amount of expenditure on hospitality to the end of November this financial years is:

  £

  Department

  49,779

  Agencies

  44,097

  Total

  93,876

  It is expected that hospitality expenditure for the Department will continue at the current rate for the remainder of the year. The agencies are projecting total expenditure for the year of the order of £75,000.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes),Official Report, column 223, what is the total amount permitted to be spent each year by tobacco companies on (i) advertising, (ii) promotion and (iii) sponsorship; what mechanisms are used for establishing how these amounts are distributed amongst the companies; what sanctions exist for companies (1) exceeding these amounts, and (2) breaking the voluntary agreement in other ways; what systems are in place to verify the information provided by the tobacco industry; and if he will make a statement. [5525]

  Mr. Horam
  Under the new voluntary agreements which came into force on 1 January 1995, the tobacco companies have undertaken to reduce their expenditure on advertising on media other than TV and radio (TV and radio advertising are prohibited by virtue of the Broadcasting Act 1990) to 30 per cent. in aggregate of the 934
  level in the year ending 31 March 1980; with due allowance for inflation, not to exceed on sports sponsorship the level of expenditure in their financial year the greater part of which fell in 1985, and not to spend more than 15 per cent. of their total expenditure on sports sponsorship on media advertising and other promotional material directly related to the events.

  The tobacco companies produce annual audited accounts relating to this expenditure so that adherence to the agreements may be monitored. Information contained in these accounts is commercial in confidence.

  The tobacco companies have undertaken voluntarily to comply with these principles and have a good record of doing so.

  Incubators
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what provisions exist to ensure that all babies requiring incubator-based care receive such care within the hospital in which they are being treated. [6031]

  (2) what procedures exist to ensure that incubator-based care can be given in (a) a local hospital and (b) any other hospital. if all incubators in a given hospital are already occupied. [6032]

  (3) what guidelines his Department issues in respect of the priority awarded for the treatment of babies experiencing anaphylactic shock who are deemed to require incubator-based care by their doctors. [6030]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department expects that sufficient incubators will be available in all units which provide care for new-born babies. It is the responsibility of local purchasers to ensure that the needs of their local population are met and that suitable arrangements are in place to provide support should facilities in any particular location be full.

  Babies who are very sick, or are readmitted to hospital after discharge, would normally be expected to be treated in a neonatal or paediatric unit where a full range of services—including specialist cots for very small babies—would be provided.

  Decisions on the treatment of children with anaphylactic shock, including the use of incubators—or specialist cots—if required, are clinical judgments.

  Health Authority Finance
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to FDL (95) 59 issued by the NHS executive on 30 November 1995, what are(a) the further recurrent adjustments referred to in line D 1 of table I, and how they are calculated, (b) the purposes for which regional specific levies are made for each region referred to in line 01 of table 1 and how they are calculated, (c) the elements weightings and data used to calculate the 1996–97 target for each health authority at 1995–96 prices referred to in column B of table 3, and (d) the elements, weightings and data used to calculate the 1996–97 target for each health authority at 1996–97 prices, referred to in column H of table 3. [6184]
  935
  Mr. Horam
  All the information requested is contained in the 1996–97 health authority planned initial cash limits interim exposition booklet which, in accordance with normal practice, has been placed in the Library.

  Hospital Sites, Sheffield
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money is expected to be raised by the sale or development of Middlewood hospital, Sheffield; and how much of this will be directed to the development of mental health services in Sheffield. [5772]

  Mr. Horam
  The Community Health Sheffield national health service trust has not yet determined its, property requirements on the site so the amount of proceeds from any forthcoming sale cannot be determined.

  The authority has invested significantly more money in mental health services in Sheffield than the sale proceeds expected from Middlewood hospital.

  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long Fulwood hospital, Sheffield has been closed; what progress has been made on selling or redeveloping the site; what its intended future use is; and how much of any money raised will be directed into Sheffield health services. [5774]

  Mr. Horam
  Although Fulwood hospital was closed to patients in the early 1980s, it has continued to be used for alternative health care provision until January 1995, when the building was declared surplus to national health service requirements.

  Agents and planning consultants are appointed to progress the planning potential and the subsequent sale of the site. It is expected that the site will be marketed early in 1996.

  Significantly more investment has been directed into health care services than the expected sale proceeds from surplus sites. Future investment will be determined by the competing priorities and the funds available at the time.

  St. Christopher's House, Cornwall
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to investigate services for disabled children in Cornwall, with particular reference to St. Christopher's house. [5848]

  Mr. Bowis
  St. Christopher's house provides respite care services for children with learning disabilities. The responsibilities for providing such services rests with Cornwall county council. The Department of Health has no plans to investigate these services in Cornwall.

  Barnet Health Authority
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital patients were treated through Barnet health authority in(a) 1978–79, (b) 1983–84, (c) 1986–87 and (d) each year since 1989–90 and each subsequent year. [6134]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is shown in the table. The information relates to patients treated by provider units within Barnet district.
  936

  In-patients—all specialities

  Discharges and deaths

  Day cases

  1978

  34,521

  2,321

  1983

  36,623

  4,719

  1986

  35,715

  6,090

  Ordinary admissions

  1989–90

  40,138

  9,534

  1990–91

  39,648

  9,191

  1991–92

  44,611

  10,282

  1992–93

  42,906

  10,627

  1993–94

  42,757

  10,247

  1994–95

  37.115

  10,703

  Source:

  DH returns SH3, SH3A, KP70.

  Infusion Devices
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents reported to the Medical Devices Agency or its predecessor involving(a) infusion devices, (b) over-infusion by infusion devices and (c) fatalities with infusion devices have occurred (i) since the start of 1985, (ii) between August 1993 and November 1994 and (iii) since August 1993. [5962]

  Mr. Horam
  Since January 1988, when the Medical Devices Agency's computerised database started, there have been 705 adverse incident reports involving infusion devices; 236 of these reported possible over-infusion. In the same period, there were 23 reported fatalities involving infusion devices. Between August 1993 and November 1994 there were six reported fatalities involving infusion devices. Since August 1993 there have been 18 reported fatalities involving infusion devices.

  Information prior to January 1988 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Paracetamol
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many self-poisoning episodes with paracetamol occurred in each of the last five years; and how many resulted in death. [6229]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is not possible to identify non-fatal cases of self-poisoning by the toxic substance involved.

  The latest year for which deaths from paracetamol are available is 1992.

  The data are published separately for each year in table 10 of "Mortality statistics: injury and poisoning, England and Wales", series DH4, copies of which are available in the Library.

  GP and Consultant Guidance
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review circular EL (91) 84. [6230]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Research Projects, Sunderland
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all Department of Health funded pilots, trials and research studies which have been conducted since 1989 in(a) the city of Sunderland, (b) Wearside district and (c) Sunderland health authority

  937
  identifying (i) the title, summary and duration of the pilot/trial, (ii) target population and total number of participants and (iii) whether each pilot or research finding was published indicating the date of publication; and if he will give details of all other non-Department of Health research bodies or other organisations involved in each pilot, trial or research scheme. [6307]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. George Bedell, chairman of Sunderland district health authority, for details of any Sunderland district health authority projects.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the reports that he received by 30 November from regional directors of the NHS executive relating to health authorities' purchasing plans for mental health services. [6747]

  Mr. Bowis
  An announcement will be made in due course.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the arrangements for making payments out of the mental health challenge fund. [6746]

  Mr. Bowis
  An announcement will be made in due course.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the London ambulance service. [7357]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have approved the application for national health service trust status from the London ambulance service. It will become operational as an NHS trust from 1 April 1996.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current population of(a) South Hams, (b) the South West, (c) Greater London and (d) Bristol. [6591]

  Mr. Horam
  The latest available resident population estimates relate to mid-1994. The estimated populations of the requested areas are as follows:

  Thousands

  Greater London

  6,966.8

  South—west (standard region)

  4,795.7

  Bristol (local authority)

  399.2

  South Hams (local authority)

  78.8

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the accuracy of the population figures produced for(a) the South west and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole, produced as part of the last census. [6587]

  Mr. Horam
  Research into the accuracy of the population figures from the 1991 census in Great Britain were carried out as the results became available. Details are given in the 1991 census validation survey coverage 938
  report, copies of which are available in the Library. The published population estimates for 1991 and later years for local and health authorities are based on the 1991 census but include adjustments for estimated coverage error in the census. The 1991 census in Northern Ireland and the population estimates based on it arc the responsibility of my hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population is(a) male and (b) female. [6808]

  Mr. Horam
  The latest available population estimates relate to mid-1994. The estimated percentage are: male 49 per cent. female 51 per cent.

  Census Questions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which areas he has chosen for the proposed new census forms pilot study; when the pilot study will take place; and if there is to be an Irish category in the ethnic origin question. [4705]

  Mr. Horam
  A thorough operational trial of various options being considered, for the conduct and content of the census being planned for 2001, will be held in 1997. The areas to be included have not yet been decided.

  Prior to that, some small-scale tests of particular aspects are being held in various areas according to the questions being tested.

  Questions to be asked in 2001 will not be decided until 1998. The feasibility of a number of suggestions is being considered, including that of an Irish category in an ethnic origin question.

  Children's Refuges
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many refuges exist across the country for children who have run away from home or care; and if he will make a statement. [5332]

  Mr. Bowis
  There are three refuges certified by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health under section 51 of the Children Act 1989 for young people who have run away from home or care.

  Departmental Staff (Members' Letters)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many officials he employed(a) full time and (b) part time in his Department in each of the last three years to answer letters sent to him from hon. Members; and what was the estimated overall cost of replying to them in each of the last three years. [5611]

  Mr. Horam
  Ministers receive a large number of letters from hon. Members each year on a range of health issues. Officials are responsible for contributing to replies relating to areas of their responsibility. Due to the large volume of letters received, and the wide variety of subjects raised, it is not possible to quantify the involvement of officials or the overall cost of replying to letters from hon. Members.

  Residential Property
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual cost of maintaining the Queen Mary's nurses home, Page street, Westminster. [5878]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir William Staveley, chairman of North Thames regional health authority, for details.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many residential properties are owned by(a) the national health service and (b) national health service trusts; and how many are currently vacant; [5881]

  (2) what plans he has to publish the NHS estates survey into residential property held by the national health service and national health service trusts. 5946]

  Mr. Horam
  The national health service residential estate has in its ownership approximately 12,000 houses and flats.

  A survey undertaken in December 1992 identified that approximately 1,800 NHS houses and flats were vacant. The survey did not separately identify those properties in ownership of NHS trusts and other NHS authorities.

  A further survey is now being undertaken. It is expected that the results will be available early in 1996.

  Mixed-sex Wards
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints about mixed-sex wards his Department has received in each of the last five years. [6584]

  Mr. Horam
  We have no accurate records of the number of complaints received.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recommendations have been made by his Department and the NHS executive to local health authorities and trust hospitals about the temporary use at a time of bed shortage of single-sex wards as mixed-sex wards in NHS hospital, and what information is gathered from health authorities about such temporary arrangements; [6583]

  (2) what recommendations have been made by his Department and the NHS executive to local health authorities and trust hospitals about mixed sex wards in NHS hospitals; and what information is gathered from health authorities about mixed sex wards in NHS hospitals. [6582]

  Mr. Horam
  Under the patients charter hospitals are expected to treat patients with dignity and respect for their cultural and religious beliefs. In addition a new standard in the revised patients charter issued in January states:
  "Except in emergencies, you have a right to be told before you go into hospital whether it is planned to care for you in a ward for men and women. In all cases, you can expect single sex washing and toilet facilities. If you would prefer to be cared for in single sex accommodation (either in a single sex ward or "bay" area within a larger ward which offers equal privacy) your wishes will be respected whenever possible.There may be some cases, particularly emergencies, where a hospital cannot provide single sex accommodation. This is most likely to arise if you need to be looked after by a specialist nurse in an intensive care ward or in an observation
  940
  space unit. It is also possible that single sex accommodation may not be available at the time proposed for your admission. If this is the case, you have the choice of accepting the immediate admission or of waiting for single sex accommodation to become available."
  Guidance on the revised patients charter was given in HSG(95)13 issued on 3 March 1995. The Department does not collect information centrally on mixed-sex wards.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from medical professionals and patients' representatives regarding mixed-sex wards in NHS hospital. [6581]

  Mr. Horam
  We have received a small number of representations from patients' representatives but are not aware of any from health professionals.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if mixed-sex wards are being installed as part of new hospital facilities in the process of design and installation. [6585]

  Mr. Horam
  No. Modern wards are not designated as mixed-sex wards during design stage.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new mixed-sex wards have been created in NHS hospitals in the last 10 years also expressing the data as a percentage of the total number of (i) new hospital wards and (ii) all hospitals wards. [6586]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Hospital Ward Survey
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the survey undertaken by the NHS on hospital wards; which parties have been consulted as part of this survey; and if he will make a statement. [6580]

  Mr. Horam
  The results of the survey will be published when the final report is received. The survey was voluntary and was sent to all health authorities and trusts in two national health service regions, West Midlands region and North and West region.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to initiate a review of appeals procedures contained in the Food Safety Act 1990 and the 1990 Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations, following the Lanark Blue Cheese case. [6590]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government will consider carefully the implications of this judgment for the procedures for handling such cases in the future and will be taking this into account in the review which has been initiated of the codes of practice, made under section 40 of the Food Safety Act 1990, for enforcement authorities early in 1996.

  Spongiform Encephalopathies
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into (i) methods of

  941
  treatment for spongiform encephalopathy, (ii) human incubation of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, (iii) the public health risks of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and (iv) the risk of transfer of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease arising from blood transfusion; [6951]

  (2) what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the treatment of spongiform encephalopathy. [6958]

  (3) if he will evaluate recent scientific research on BSE, copies of which have been sent to him. [6974]

  (4) if he will list the scientific research evaluated by the Chief Medical Officer in respect of the safety of British beef. [6968]

  (5) what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the infection of humans with asymptomatic bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [6962]

  (6) what support his Department proposes to give to the spongiform encephalopathy research compaign to expand its work. [6945]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government receive independent expert advice on all matters relating to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, including bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, from the spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee, chaired by Professor John Pattison.

  The committee has advised that there is currently no scientific evidence that BSE can be transmitted to humans or that eating beef causes CJD. Equally, the available evidence does not suggest that CJD can be transmitted via blood.

  In February, as part of its continuing work to maintain an overview of research into TSEs, the committee produced a report, "A Summary of Present Knowledge and Research". Copies of the report are available in the Library.

  SEAC, at its next meeting, will be considering the priorities for additional research into spongiform encephalopathies and the agents which cause them.

  The Department has not received a formal approach from the spongiform encephalopathy research campaign, but will consider detailed proposals and any new evidence that are presented.

  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council. The MRC is an independent body which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  In 1994–95 the MRC spent approximately £800,000 on research aimed at unravelling the nature of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. It is hoped that the research will not only increase understanding of some of the basic biological processes involved in dementing diseases in man, but will also provide pointers to preventative public health measures.
  942
  A series of studies also funded by the Department have recently been completed at the Institute for Animal Health, Edinburgh into time-temperature combinations required to inactivate BSE and related agents.

  The Department and the Scottish Office jointly fund the national CJD surveillance unit in Edinburgh. The unit monitors and investigates the epidemiology of the disease, paying particular attention to occupation and eating habits, so that any change in the pattern of CJD can he detected. The unit produces annual reports, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department is conducting strain typing studies on all human cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. [7215]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department is not currently conducting strain typing studies on all human cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the blood of patients inoculated with growth hormone is used in transfusions. [6793]

  Mr. Horam
  No. Those who have received pituitary derived human growth hormone are excluded from giving blood.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account was taken of the advisory committee on dangerous pathogens recommendations on the handling of the liver of cattle that may he infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the Chief Medical Officer's advice on eating bovine liver. [6956]

  Mr. Horam
  The advisory committee on dangerous pathogens guidance relates to the handling of tissue which is known or suspected to be infected with any transmissible spongiform encephalopathy agent in specific experimental or laboratory situations. Any infectivity if present in these circumstances could pose a potential risk and the ACDP advice, based on studies with scrapie, is a sensible precautionary measure.

  This is distinct from the issue of liver for human consumption because affected cattle do not enter the food chain. In addition, all evidence supports the view that liver does not transmit the infective agent.

  Access Committee for England
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will outline the consultation process that has been carried out in the review of the access committee for England, listing details of organisations and Government Departments that have been or will be formally consulted; [3011]

  (2) if he will make a statement about his Department's plans for the continued funding of the access committee for England. [2915]

  Mr. Burt
  I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health.
  943
  A working party comprising officials from the Department of Social Security, Department of Health and Department of the Environment is reviewing the committee's future. It is working closely with the committee itself and is also seeking the views of other Government Departments and interested organisations. The working party is expected to report shortly where upon Ministers will decide how to proceed.

  Care Programme Approach
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 1995,Official Report, column 527, how many health authorities and trusts have adopted the care programme approach to date; and how many have not. [6916]

  Mr. Bowis
  The care programme approach has been adopted in all districts.

  GP Prescribing
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of patient compliance on the cost-effectiveness of general practitioner prescribing. [6733]

  Mr. Malone
  My Department has recently begun to commission studies on prescribing. One of the priority areas is patient adherence or compliance.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a full copy of the protocols on which the Prodigy prescribing trial is based, indicating the medicines listed by Prodigy. [6735]

  Mr. Malone
  The guidelines used in the trials will be published with the first interim report which is due in mid-year 1996.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the results of the Prodigy evaluation, including changes in health care delivery and health outcomes before any decision is taken on whether to extend it; and if he will list those responsible for evaluating the project, indicating what expert advice will he taken. [6737]

  Mr. Malone
  Prodigy is a research and development project, which is being independently evaluated by the Sowerby unit for primary care informatics at Newcastle university. Findings and expert references will be published along with the evaluation report. Future decisions on the project will be taken in the light of the research findings.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the GP practices in which the Prodigy prescribing system is being piloted. [6732]

  Mr. Malone
  It is considered inappropriate, at this stage of the research project, to make public the names of the general practitioners who have volunteered to participate.
  944
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the cost of the Prodigy pilot; and if he will estimate the cost of installing such a system for all GPs.[6736]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department of Health is investing an estimated £1.5 million in the project. In addition, some development costs are being met by the participating information technology software companies. Future implementation costs will depend on the findings of the evaluation and subsequent decisions.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent health outcomes will form part of the evaluation of the Prodigy pilot prescribing system. [6734]

  Mr. Malone
  The initial phase of Prodigy is designed to test the concept of computer-aided prescribing decision support, the acceptability of such systems to general practitioners, and the impact on their prescribing and patient consultations.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medicines(a) are listed in the British national formulary, (b) have product licences in the UK and (c) are listed in the choice options in the pilot prescribing system, Prodigy. [6738]

  Mr. Malone
  Approximately 900 medical substances and 4,000 individual preparations are listed in the British national formulary. There are currently around 17,000 granted marketing authorisations or product licences in the United Kingdom. The Prodigy system currently provides around 600 drug choices, plus an option to access all drugs within GPs' existing computerised systems.

  Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department established the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy; and how much money was(a) allocated to and (b) spent on the enquiry in each year since it was established, showing separately the sums (i) for central organisation and analysis, (ii) allocated to NHS regions and districts, by region and (iii) allocated for other purposes. [5275]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 11 December 1995]: The confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy was established in 1992. The financial information requested is not available for 1992–93. Information for the following years is as follows:
  Amounts allocated to the inquiry, which do not include accommodation, postage and telephones for the central secretariat are:

  1993–94 = £1.886 million

  1994–95 = £2.107 million

  1995–96 = £2.317 million.

  945 Initial allocations to regions for 1993–94 and 1994–95 are not available. Allocations by regions to districts for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 are also not available centrally. Initial allocations for 1995–96 arc:

  £000

  1995–96

  Central Organisation, reports, special projects, and special inquiries

  1,107

  Northern and Yorkshire

  169

  Trent

  121

  Anglia and Oxford

  137

  North Thames

  164

  South Thames

  165

  South and West

  135

  West Midlands

  150

  North West

  169

  Amounts spent on the Inquiry:

  1993–94 £000

  1994–95 £000

  Total

  1,761

  2,107

  Central organisation, reports, special projects and special inquiries

  71

  177

  Northern

  113

  Yorkshire

  186

  288

  Trent

  153

  225

  East Anglia

  80

  215

  Oxford

  88

  North-west Thames

  101

  North-west Thames

  109

  244

  South-east Thames

  125

  South-west Thames

  93

  137

  Wessex

  90

  South Western

  181

  379

  West Midlands

  175

  248

  Mersey

  87

  North Western

  109

  194

  1. Total may not exactly add due to rounding.

  2. Total Expenditure for 1995–96 is not yet available.

  NHS hospital and community health services qualified and unqualified nursing and midwifery staff, excluding agency staff and learners, and general medical service practice nurses, by region

  Whole-time equivalents

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  19931

  1994

  Total

  341,130

  344,260

  353,630

  353,170

  350,020

  346,700

  Northern

  24,040

  23,850

  24,530

  23,670

  24,300

  23,380

  Yorkshire

  25,530

  25,710

  26,450

  25,310

  26,060

  25,770

  Trent

  32,640

  33,650

  34,780

  34,220

  35,000

  35,150

  East Anglia

  14,220

  14,520

  14,540

  14,600

  14,750

  14,890

  North-west Thames

  22,170

  22,020

  23,560

  23,250

  21,450

  21,090

  North-east Thames

  26,410

  26,910

  27,650

  27,220

  25,720

  25,710

  South-east Thames

  25,650

  25,480

  25,120

  26,110

  23.260

  24.100

  South-west Thames

  19,940

  19.740

  20,180

  21,340

  20,530

  19,770

  Wessex

  20,420

  21,480

  22,050

  21,240

  23,140

  22,170

  Oxford

  15,120

  15,400

  16,030

  16,120

  16,960

  15,990

  South Western

  23,960

  24,750

  25,280

  25,410

  25,980

  26,350

  West Midlands

  35,860

  36,320

  36,330

  37,800

  36,960

  36,230

  Mersey

  18,750

  18,360

  18,030

  18.050

  17,460

  16,910

  Assaults on NHS staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many assaults on national health service staff have been reported to his Department in each of the last five years. [6915]

  (2) what information his Department collects on assaults against staff. [6917]

  Mr. Horam
  Only a very small number of assaults on national health service staff are reported to the Department each year, as this is primarily a local management matter.

  Government Procurement
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the outcome of his Department's review of measures taken to facilitate small firms' access to appropriate areas of Government procurement in the light of best practice. [6663]

  Mr. Horam
  It is not the Department's policy to discriminate in favour of large or small companies when letting contracts. The Department's tendering process includes an invitation to all companies, no matter what their size, to bid for departmental contracts. Their bids are subjected to an objective evaluation and the firm offering the best value for money is awarded the contract. A review of these procedures is not, therefore, necessary.

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State For Health (1)if he will list for September 1994 the whole-time equivalent numbers of nurses and midwives in the NHS by each of the Former regional health authority areas; [2009]

  (2) if he will list the whole-time equivalent numbers of nurses and midwives in the NHS by each of the Former regional health authority areas for each year since 1989 to 1993 inclusive.

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 23 November 1995]: The information is shown in the table.
  947

  NHS hospital and community health services qualified and unqualified nursing and midwifery staff excluding agency staff and learners, and general medical service practice nurses, by region

  Whole-time equivalents

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  19931

  1994

  North Western

  32,200

  32,150

  32,640

  32,470

  32,230

  32,400

  SHAs and others2

  4,210

  3,930

  6,460

  6,350

  6,230

  6,810

  Not included Or the above:

  HCHS learners3

  62,100

  58,840

  47,340

  34,740

  21,040

  11,080

  Project 2000 students4

  n/a

  3,000

  10,500

  18,300

  28,000

  32,000

  Notes:

  1 Comparisons between 1993 and other years at sub-national level should be treated with caution. Changes over a longer period of time are likely to provide more reliable comparisons.

  2 "SHAs and others" include staff in SHAs, FHSAs and other special authorities.

  3 Learners are nursers on traditional nurse training courses, spending the majority of their time on patient care, and are directly employed by NHS HCHS. Project 2000 training was introduced in 1989 and has gradually replaced traditional pre-registration nurse training. Project 2000 training is predominantly college based, and students are funded by bursaries. Figures for Project 2000 students are headcounts and should not he added to figures which are whole-time equivalents.

  1. All HCHS figures are at 30 September of each year, and GMS figures as at 1 October of each year.

  All figures arc whole-time equivalents, rounded to the nearest 10.

  'n/a' denotes not applicable.

  Sources:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce census.

  Department of Health bi-annual census of General Medical Practitioners.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prevention of Terrorism Legislation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many exclusion orders under the Prevention of Terrorism legislation are still operative; and how many apply to(a) matters concerned with the Irish troubles and (b) other. [5040]

  Mr. Howard
  Thirty-five exclusion orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act remain in force. The power to make exclusion orders contained in that Act applies only to terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will repeal the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 following the recent European Court of Justice ruling and the ceasefires. [4808]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 11 December 1995]: No. The recent European Court of Justice ruling was confined to procedural matters and did not question the continued need for the powers in the Prevention of Terrorism Act. We will maintain powers to deal with terrorism —from whatever source—for as long as the threat remains.

  Legislative Repeals
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legislation from his Department passed in the last five years contains provision for statutory repeal or review. [2033]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: None.

  Missing Children
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an estimate of the number of children and young people under 18 years who have been reported missing this year and the estimated statistics of missing children for every year over the last 15 years; and if he will make a statement. [5333]

  Mr. Maclean
  Statistics are not collated centrally of the number of missing children reported to the police, the majority of whom are found within a few days. A National Missing Persons Bureau was established in New Scotland Yard in April 1994 in order to provide a central register and matching facility for vulnerable missing persons, including juveniles, missing for more than 28 days or otherwise of special concern. The following numbers have been referred to the bureau since its opening.

  1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995

  1 April 1995 to 30 November 1995

  Males under 14

  50

  24

  Males 14 to 17

  118

  60

  Females under 14

  48

  23

  Females 14 to 17

  227

  137

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what co-operation and co-ordinated action his 950
  Department has undertaken with local authorities and the National Missing Persons Bureau to locate missing children; and if he will make a statement. [5334]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government established and fund the National Missing Persons Bureau as a clearing house of information on vulnerable missing persons. Tracing missing persons, including children, remains an operational matter for the police service.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current method of categorising missing children; and if he will make a statement. [5335]

  Mr. Maclean
  Recording missing persons is an operational matter for police forces. A range of information may be kept concerning missing children, including their age, appearance, the circumstances in which they are missing and any particular cause for concern.

  Dangerous Substances (Notification)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what regulations govern(a) the holding by fire brigades of lists of premises where significant quantities of pesticides and related chemicals such as sheep dips are stored and (b) procedures for not using large volumes of water in the event of fires at such premises; and if he will make a statement. [5430]

  Mr. Sackville
  Fire authorities have arrangements, under section 1(1)(d) of the Fire Services Act 1947, for obtaining, by inspection or otherwise, information required for firefighting purposes with respect to the character of premises in their areas. Where premises contain significant quantities of any dangerous substance, the occupier has to inform the local authority under the Notification of Dangerous Substances (Notification and Marking of Sites) Regulations 1990.

  The Home Office has issued detailed guidance to the fire service on procedures for using water in the event of fires at such premises.

  Departmental Staff (Members' Letters)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officials he employed(a) full time and (b) part time in his Department in each of the last three years to answer letters sent to him from hon. Members; and what was the estimated overall cost of replying to them in each of the last three years. [5620]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department employs no staff exclusively to answer letters from hon. Members. Answers are prepared by a large number of officials as part of their normal duties. No estimate is readily available of the current overall cost of replies. However, in 1994, Home Office Ministers received more than 21,000 letters from hon. Members.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the national lottery's effect on leading United Kingdom charities; and if he will make a statement. [4777]
  951
  Mr. Sackville
  The Government made a commitment during the passage of the National Lottery Act 1993 that they would monitor the income of charitable organisations before and after the introduction of the national lottery. This will have two main elements.

  First, the Home Office will be obtaining information from the family expenditure survey to look at trends in individual giving to charity. Early results should be available in spring 1996.

  Secondly, the Home Office has announced a research programme which has been developed in consultation with the voluntary sector. It will look in detail at all the main sources of charitable income, and will monitor changes over the three years before the introduction of the national lottery, the year of its introduction and the following two years. Detailed analysis of earlier years and the first full, post-lottery year will be available in spring 1997.

  It is still too early to make a definitive assessment of the effect of the national lottery on charitable income, but two things can be said with confidence. First, the national lottery could make available to the National Lottery Charities Board up to £300 million every year to support the charitable, benevolent and philanthropic sector throughout the United Kingdom—in addition to the hundreds of millions of pounds of awards to charitable organisations in the arts, sport and heritage sectors made by the other lottery distributors. Secondly, if people wish to give to charity, the most effective way is to give directly to their favoured cause.

  Mr. Abiodum Igbindu
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) who in his Department or the immigration service authorised the disclosure of information concerning the refusal to grant asylum in the United Kingdom to Mr. Abiodum Igbindu; [4851]

  (2) what is the policy of his Department in respect of disclosure of information about individual cases, concerning immigration and asylum, to third parties, and what action he is taking in respect of the disclosure of information concerning Mr. Abiodum Igbindu; [4852]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the source of the disclosure to third parties of personal details relating to Mr. Abiodum Igbindu. [4856]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 8 December 1995]: Details of individual cases are not disclosed unless applicants—or someone acting on their behalf—have chosen to make public details of their cases and allegations about their consideration. In those circumstances, it is the well-established practice of the Home Office to give information in response to inquiries.

  In the case of Mr. Igbindu, the applicant chose to release information to the press. In accordance with normal practice, the Home Office press office responded to media inquiries.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the contacts his Department has with the Prince's Trust in 952
  respect of assistance to young people to avoid crime; and if he will make a statement. [5684]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 13 December 1995]: Officials from the Home Office meet representatives from the Prince's Trust from time to time to discuss issues of common interest, including means of preventing young people from involvement in crime.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what practical and financial arrangements he intends to make to facilitate the return to the United Kingdom of asylum seekers whose appeals against removal to a third country are allowed. [6169]

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is not our practice to provide financial assistance to enable successful appellants from abroad to travel to this country. Other practical issues such as documentation are under consideration.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for(a) arranging for legal advice and (b) allowing instructions to be given to legal representatives in respect of asylum seekers removed to a third country who are appealing against the decision. [6173]

  Miss Wisddecombe
  Asylum seekers will be advised of their appeal rights before they are removed and how to seek assistance. Arrangements for instructing legal representatives after removal will be a matter for appellants, as is already the case in relation to appeals from abroad under the Immigration Act 1971.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's assessment of the German Government's procedures in respect of a white list of countries in relation to asylum and immigration. [6177]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Our understanding is that under asylum legislation in Germany selected countries have been designated as "safe states of origin". Designation leads to a presumption that there is in general no risk of persecution and claims by nationals of designated countries may be treated as manifestly unfounded unless the facts presented in individual cases outweigh the presumption. Claims are examined under a shortened procedure with restricted appeal opportunities. Countries which are currently designated as "safe states of origin" are Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Ghana, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Senegal and the Slovak Republic.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those third countries which his Department regards as safe for the purposes of clause 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill; and to what extent the decision on the safety of third countries will be left to immigration officials. [6191]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We treat each case on its merits in the light of our information about the asylum procedures of the third country concerned. Over 80 per cent. of removals are to France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. Decisions are taken by a unit within the asylum division specialising in safe third country cases.
  953
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has proposed to comply with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recommendations of August 1994 on readmission agreements covering refugees sent to third countries. [6193]

  Miss Widdecombe
  There is no obligation to consult the authorities of a third country before removing someone there on safe third country grounds. The Government support the early implementation of the Dublin convention, which they ratified in 1992, which sets out criteria for determining which European Union member state has responsibility for considering a particular asylum application.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what special procedures will apply in respect of applicants for asylum who have immediate family resident in the United Kingdom. [6170]

  Miss Widdecombe
  An asylum applicant is not normally returned to a safe third country if his spouse or minor dependent children are already lawfully present here. In such a case, the asylum claim is considered substantively. We have no plans to change this arrangement.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for ensuring that asylum seekers removed to a third country under his certificate will have access to legal advice prior to their removal. [6175]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Asylum seekers refused leave to enter at a port are advised how to contact the refugee legal centre.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he intends to take in cases where asylum seekers sent to a third country are(a) refused admission by that country and (b) returned by the third country to Britain. [6171]

  Miss Widdecombe
  In such cases the asylum claim will, as now, normally be considered substantively by my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a person appealing from a third country against a decision by him to send him to that country will he eligible for legal aid for legal advice and for assistance in the preparation and conduct of the appeal. [6174]

  Miss Widdecombe
  He will be eligible for assistance and representation from the refugee legal centre, which is grant aided by the Home Office, and, subject to a means test, for advice and assistance under the legal aid green form scheme.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to ensure the safety of those asylum seekers who are removed to third countries. [6192]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We will return asylum seekers to a safe third country only in cases where the proposed requirements in clause 2(1) of the Asylum and Immigration Bill are met. Our practice already complies with those requirements.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what means he expects an asylum seeker 954
  removed to a third country to lodge an appeal against the certificate issued by the Home Secretary under clause 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill. [6194]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The same arrangements will apply as apply now for appeals from abroad under the Immigration Act 1971. The asylum applicant will be provided with an appeal form prior to removal. It will be open to him to send the form by post from abroad or to have notice of appeal lodged on his behalf after removal by a person in this country.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which categories of appellants bringing appeals under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 will be affected by changes in respect of giving and calling oral evidence at their appeals; and how. [6168]

  Miss Widdecombe
  No such proposals have been made, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor intends to bring forward shortly proposals for amending the Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1993 in a number of respects.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has in respect of the appeals procedure for asylum seekers removed to third countries in relation to certificates issued by him under the terms of clause 3 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill. [6172]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We will indicate during the passage of the Bill what adjustments to appeal procedures will be proposed for appeals under clause 3.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account was taken of the provisions of article 3 of the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees in drawing up measures contained in the Asylum and Immigration Bill. [6176]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We are satisfied that our proposals are compatible with article 3.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what views were sought from representatives of local government bodies on the implications for them of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. [6478]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 14 December,Official Report column 733.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the consultancy report into asylum appeals commissioned by the Home Office last year to which he referred in his oral statement of 20 November,Official Report, column 337. [6332]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  A copy of the report by KPMG Peat Marwick on the operation of the asylum appeals procedures was placed in the Library on 8 February this year.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants seeking political asylum arrived(a) on direct flights from their home

  955
  countries and (b) on flights that landed beforehand in safe third countries in each of the last three years. [5897]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is not available.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of administration costs incurred to date and forecast for the future on PFI work.[5745]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The direct cost of staffing and professional advice for administration of the private finance initiative policy generally is estimated at £230,000 per annum.

  Administration costs are also incurred on development of every capital project, whether financed directly or through PFI. These costs are not recorded separately.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide revenue forecasts for the current year and the next five years of expenditure on schemes provided under the PFI. [5746]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 7 December, column 356.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [5739]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The information is not available in the form requested. It is a fundamental principle when considering schemes under the private finance initiative that what is assessed is the best value for money in providing a specified service, taking into account all aspects of design, building, finance and operation as a unified whole.

  Missing Persons
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment the Missing Persons Bureau has made of the benefits of holding data in respect of missing persons before they have been missing for 28 days. [5995]

  Mr. Maclean
  Details may be notified to the bureau before 28 days where the circumstances in which a person is missing are of particular concern to the notifying police force. It would not be practicable for the bureau to be notified of all such cases, as the majority of missing persons are found within a few days.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for providing the national missing persons helpline with funding for the work it carries out at the request of the police service. [6041]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The Government received an application for funding the
  956
  helpline when it formed part of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, and has received a number of other representations suggesting public funding should be provided. There are no plans to provide public funding for the organisation. The helpline may apply to the National Lottery Charities Board and to other sources of funding available to voluntary organisations.

  Police Service Strength
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the number of police officers per 1,000 of the population per authority area and the average number of police officers per 1,000 of the population per authority area for each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; [6244]

  (2) what was the number of police officers per 1,000 of the population for each year since 1979 for each police authority area. [6274]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on police to population ratios can be found in the appendix to the annual reports of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary. Copies of these are in the Library.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the manpower of each police force in respect of(a) numbers of police officers and (b) numbers of civilian support staff on 1 November for each of the last five years for which figures are available. [6273]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on police strength was collected at the end of each month until April this year. Data on police service strength are now provided twice a year. Information for the last five years is contained in the tables:

  Police force strength in England and Wales 1991 to 1995

  As at 31 October

  Force

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  11995

  Avon and Somerset

  3,069

  3,068

  3,048

  3,025

  2,986

  Bedfordshire

  1,097

  1,129

  1,157

  1,123

  1,116

  Cambridgeshire

  1,241

  1,262

  1,278

  1,270

  1,254

  Cheshire

  1,880

  1,888

  1,858

  1,913

  1,951

  City of London

  814

  801

  878

  889

  869

  Cleveland

  1,477

  1,490

  1,430

  1,442

  1,430

  Cumbria

  1,180

  1,192

  1,205

  1,179

  1,144

  Derbyshire

  1,711

  1,803

  1,786

  1,803

  1,762

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,871

  2,918

  2,917

  2,885

  2,872

  Dorset

  1,291

  1,317

  1,302

  1,287

  1,272

  Durham

  1,371

  1,390

  1,379

  1,357

  1,377

  Essex

  2,886

  2,923

  2,964

  2,909

  2,897

  Gloucestershire

  1,174

  1,154

  1,144

  1,171

  1,142

  Greater Manchester

  6,985

  7,084

  7,075

  6,980

  7,026

  Hampshire

  3,182

  3,269

  3,272

  3,259

  3,307

  Hertfordshire

  1,662

  1,690

  1,693

  1.691

  1,704

  Humberside

  2,023

  2,027

  2,029

  2,038

  2,025

  Kent

  3,028

  3,099

  3,183

  3,137

  3,100

  Lancashire

  3,211

  3,203

  3,149

  3,196

  3,195

  Leicestershire

  1,823

  1,846

  1,829

  1,835

  1,860

  Lincolnshire

  1,202

  1,188

  1,212

  1,214

  1,164

  Merseyside

  4,616

  4,687

  4,690

  4,688

  4,536

  Metropolitan police

  28,202

  27,804

  27,695

  27,627

  27,395

  Norfolk

  1,416

  1,419

  1,437

  1,419

  1,392

  Northamptonshire

  1,156

  1,197

  1,190

  1,171

  1,161

  Northumbria

  3,467

  3,578

  3,595

  3,593

  3.611

  North Yorkshire

  1,389

  1.411

  1,349

  1,323

  1,311

  Nottinghamshire

  2,334

  2,343

  2,360

  2.345

  2,314

  957

  Police force strength in England and Wales 1991 to 1995

  As at 31 October

  Force

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  11995

  South Yorkshire

  2,996

  3,013

  3,022

  3,030

  3,041

  Staffordshire

  2,198

  2,196

  2,194

  2,207

  2,190

  Suffolk

  1,209

  1,240

  1,224

  1,209

  1,158

  Surrey

  1,672

  1,684

  1,663

  1,673

  1,656

  Sussex

  2,973

  3,007

  2,977

  2,949

  3,020

  Thames Valley

  3,731

  3,843

  3,886

  3,887

  3,760

  Warwickshire

  1,009

  1,007

  1,031

  1,038

  983

  West Mercia

  2,031

  2,061

  2,057

  2,042

  2,008

  West Midlands

  6,867

  6,935

  6,961

  6,991

  7,078

  West Yorkshire

  5,171

  5,095

  5,005

  5,036

  5,122

  Wiltshire

  1,203

  1,257

  1,272

  1,260

  1,236

  Dyfed Powys

  949

  966

  968

  980

  977

  Gwent

  1,004

  1,008

  996

  1,004

  1,006

  North Wales

  1,349

  1,369

  1,359

  1,369

  1,352

  South Wales

  3,152

  3,182

  3,159

  3,048

  2,954

  Total all forces

  125,272

  126,043

  125,878

  125,492

  124,710

  1 As at 30 September 1995. the latest data available.

  Civilian and traffic warden strength in England and Wales for 1991 to 1995

  As at 31 October

  Force

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  11995

  Avon and Somerset

  1,058

  1,254

  1,338

  1,325

  1,294

  Bedfordshire

  419

  420

  439

  477

  519

  Cambridgeshire

  496

  491

  488

  488

  546

  Cheshire

  533

  581

  615

  641

  730

  City of London

  367

  378

  384

  332

  338

  Cleveland

  464

  491

  521

  525

  575

  Cumbria

  427

  446

  459

  484

  462

  Derbyshire

  553

  635

  657

  670

  751

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,162

  1,182

  1,213

  1,224

  1,237

  Dorset

  610

  630

  625

  665

  671

  Durham

  554

  563

  560

  508

  526

  Essex

  1,173

  1,200

  1,279

  1,329

  1,270

  Gloucestershire

  402

  411

  420

  425

  464

  Greater Manchester

  2,460

  2,693

  2,815

  2,880

  2,904

  Hampshire

  1,125

  1,169

  1,212

  1,317

  1,409

  Hertfordshire

  645

  665

  669

  699

  921

  Humberside

  740

  760

  733

  708

  670

  Kent

  1,112

  1,230

  1,228

  1,181

  1,290

  Lancashire

  1,224

  1,190

  1,164

  1,243

  1,419

  Leicestershire

  776

  758

  724

  755

  747

  Lincolnshire

  481

  509

  516

  528

  452

  Merseyside

  1,705

  1,757

  1,781

  1,773

  1,797

  Metropolitan police

  15,723

  16,205

  16,324

  15,767

  16,762

  Norfolk

  480

  499

  531

  548

  553

  Northamptonshire

  450

  467

  518

  500

  492

  Northumbria

  1,356

  1,381

  1,330

  1,397

  1,402

  North Yorkshire

  469

  483

  464

  522

  537

  Nottinghamshire

  869

  802

  871

  934

  1,022

  South Yorkshire

  945

  986

  1,211

  1,283

  1,292

  Staffordshire

  779

  781

  773

  763

  800

  Suffolk

  537

  556

  543

  544

  520

  Surrey

  600

  650

  709

  721

  796

  Sussex

  1,073

  1,131

  1,153

  1,182

  1,219

  Thames Valley

  1,562

  1,603

  1,647

  1,767

  1,913

  Warwickshire

  348

  356

  364

  363

  412

  West Mercia

  914

  967

  969

  995

  1,038

  West Midlands

  2,534

  2,717

  2,729

  2,859

  2,957

  West Yorkshire

  2,023

  2,034

  2,032

  2,092

  2,149

  Wiltshire

  504

  523

  516

  501

  521

  Dyfed Powys

  268

  287

  304

  311

  335

  Gwent

  334

  346

  350

  350

  380

  North Wales

  469

  491

  507

  484

  472

  South Wales

  1,173

  1,180

  1,279

  1,215

  1,240

  Total all forces

  51,916

  53,858

  54,953

  55,275

  57,790

  1 As at 30 September 1995, the latest data available.

  Police Force (Civilianisation)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his targets for civilianisation of the police force. [6279]

  Mr. Maclean
  The allocation of staff within a police force is a matter for the chief constable. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary encourages forces to civilianise posts in appropriate cases, and monitors progress as part of its inspection process.

  Fire Safety Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to introduce new fire safety regulations to comply with the European framework directive and the workplace directive. [6575]

  Mr. Sackville
  We intend to publish new draft regulations as early as possible next year.

  Illegal Immigrants (Employment)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost to employers of implementing the proposed sanctions against the employment of illegal immigrants. [6287]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Asylum and Immigration Bill, published on 29 November.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he plans to introduce to ensure European Community nationals seeking employment in the United Kingdom are not illegally discriminated against as a result of the proposed sanctions in respect of the employment of illegal immigrants. [6289]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Under the proposals set out in the consultation document which we issued on 20 November, a European economic area passport or identity document would be one of the documents regarded as demonstrating entitlement to live and work in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of illegal immigrants working currently in the United Kingdom. [6288]

  Miss Widdecombe
  As my right hon. and learned Friend made clear in the House on 11 December, the precise scale of illegal working is unknown. However, the immigration service detected more than 10,000 people working here illegally in 1994.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he plans to give to employers concerning the proposed sanctions against the employment of illegal immigrants; and what the cost of providing that information will be. [6290]

  Miss Widdecombe
  As explained in the consultation document issued on 20 November, the Home Office will provide full advice to employers about the new offence and its implications for employers, including leaflets and a helpline number to contact if they have any doubts about
  959
  documentation presented to them. It is not possible at this stage to provide estimates of the cost involved, but it is unlikely to he substantial.

  National DNA Database
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects a national DNA database to he established; which police forces throughout the United Kingdom he would expect to have access to this facility; and when this will include Scottish forces. [5785]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The DNA database currently operated by the Forensic Science Service became operational in April 1995, after enabling amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 had come into force. All police forces in England and Wales have access to it.

  Separate legislation has been enacted to allow the establishment of databases in Scotland and Northern Ireland and will come into force in the first half of next year. We intend that police forces throughout the United Kingdom will in due course have access to all the data.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [5984]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The qualitative and quantitative research projects and surveys into aspects of public attitudes and opinions are in the list, together with the relevant policy area. Most research conducted for the Home Office is published and widely disseminated, and therefore, all interested individuals and organisations have access to the results. The exception to this is research commissioned for internal management purposes. The fee paid to successful contractors is not shown as this is regarded by the Central Statistical Office as a matter of commercial confidentiality.

  Specials creative and development research

  Date commissioned/notified: April 1993

  Agency: Cragg, Ross and Dawson

  Sample size: 48

  Location: Great Britain

  Timetable: April—May 1993

  Policy area: Special Constables

  Purpose: Reactions to the new advertising campaign for the Specials.

  960
  Eleven discussion groups plus an interview survey of c1200 women and ethnic minorities in England, Scotland and Wales

  Date commissioned/notified: April 1993

  Agency: Harris Research Centre

  Sample size: 110

  Location: Great Britain

  Timetable: June—July 1993

  Policy area: Fire service

  Purpose: To explore reasons why potentially eligible women and members of ethnic minority groups might wish or not wish to apply for work as fire fighters.

  Telephone survey of drug usage

  Date commissioned/notified May 1993

  Agency: RSL and Sheffield University

  Sample size: 1,500

  Location: Greater Manchester

  Timetable: May 1993–January 1994

  Policy area: Drugs prevention

  Purpose: To explore urban—rural variations in drug use, attitudes to drugs and drugs prevention.

  Car crime advertising

  Date commissioned/notified: August 1993

  Agency: Sample Surveys

  Sample size: 500

  Location: England and Wales

  Timetable: September—October 1993

  Policy area: Car crime prevention

  Purpose: To examine the recall of a car crime campaign and changing attitudes to car crime.

  Smoke alarms home audit

  Date commissioned/notified: June 1993

  Agency: GFK Marketing Services

  Sample size: 20,000

  Location: England and Wales

  Timetable: September 1993–February 1994

  Policy area: Fire prevention

  Purpose: To measure smoke alarm ownership and maintenance procedures.

  Omnibus Survey questions on public experiences of and attitudes towards the police. 2,000 adults in England and Wales

  Date commissioned/notified: September 1993

  Agency: OPCS

  Sample size: 2,000

  Location: England and Wales

  Timetable: October 1993

  Policy area: Attitudes to the Police

  Purpose: To assess public response to the police service Quality of Service Programme.

  Special Constables recruitment advertising research

  Date commissioned/notified: November 1993

  Agency: BMRB

  Sample size: 600

  Location: England and Wales

  Timetable: November—December 1993

  Policy area: Special Constables

  961

  Purpose: To examine awareness of and attitudes towards the Special Constabulary, including the recent recruitment advertising.

  1994 British crime survey

  Date Commissioned/notified: April 1993

  Agency: OPCS

  Sample size: 14,500

  Location: England and Wales

  Timetable: January—March 1994 (fieldwork)

  Policy area: General attitudes to crime and crime related issues

  Purpose: A random sample of the general public were interviewed in relation to their experiences of crime. The interview also collected information on a wide range of public attitudes and opinions on such issues as attitudes to the police, awareness of neighbourhood watch, worries and fear of crime, crime prevention measures, and perceptions of crime.

  Smoke alarms post advertising research

  Date commissioned/notified: January 1994

  Agency: BMRB

  Sample size: 2,000

  Location: England

  Timetable: February—March 1994

  Policy area: Fire prevention

  Purpose: A post advertisement survey of adults in England and Wales regarding smoke alarm ownership, maintenance, fire precautions and knowledge of the effects of fire.

  Specials creative development

  Date commissioned/notified: February 1994

  Agency: Reflexions Market Research Ltd.

  Sample size: 64

  Location: England

  Timetable: February 1994

  Policy area: Special Constables

  Purpose: A survey of a number of adults in England asking their opinions of new advertising executions for the specials; including perceived target audience, communication, motivation potential (to joining the specials) style and tone of voice of advertising.

  Specials advertising evaluation

  Date commissioned/notified: March 1994

  Agency: BMRB

  Sample size: 1320

  Location: Granada TV Region

  Timetable: March-June 1994

  Policy area: Special Constables

  Purpose: Research measuring awareness of advertising, knowledge and awareness of specials.

  International commercial crime survey

  Date commissioned/notified: January 1994

  Agency: BMRB

  Sample size: 4000

  Location: England and Wales

  Timetable: January 1994-December 1995

  Policy area: Retail Crime

  Purpose: Information gathered will help development of national and local government strategies for crime prevention.

  962

  Fifteen discussion groups amongst residents of five areas currently served by 'Parish Special Constables'

  Date commissioned/notified: April 1994

  Agency: Tim Grosvenor Associates

  Sample Size: 150

  Location: Five Villages in Kent, Dorset, Derbys, and North Yorks having "Parish Special Constables".

  Timetable: May-June 1994

  Policy area: Parish Special Constables

  Purpose: To assess public reactions to the Parish Special Constables initiative.

  Immigration and nationality user survey

  Date commissioned/notified: September 1994

  Agency: Public Attitude Surveys Ltd.

  Sample size: 60

  Location: Glasgow, West Midlands, London and the South East Timetable: October-December 1994

  Policy area: Immigration

  Purpose: A qualitative survey of Immigration Department applicants and representatives to establish the most important quality of service aspects from a users prospective. Concentrates on issues such as provision of information, speed of response, clarity of correspondence, etc. if not concerned with users'.

  Survey of 500 persons living in the London area and currently. eligible to apply, for UK citizenship

  Date commissioned/notified: August 1994

  Agency: SCPR

  Sample size: 500

  Location: Greater London

  Timetable: February 1995-April 1995

  Policy area: UK Citizenship

  Purpose: Applicants and non-applicants were questioned about their reasons for applying/not applying. To assist workload planning by B4 Division of Immigration and Nationality Department.

  Smoke alarms post advertising research

  Date commissioned: December 1994

  Agency: BMRB

  Sample size: 600

  Location: England and Wales

  Timetable: January 1995-February 1995

  Policy area: Fire prevention

  Purpose: Survey of adults in England and Wales regarding smoke alarm ownership, maintenance, and awareness and recall of the advertising.

  Knives
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ban the free sale of(a) hunting knives, (b) bayonets, (c) commando knives and (d) other war memorabilia that may be used for illegal purposes; and if he will make a statement. [6010]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: My right hon. and learned Friend will consider adding to the list of knives and other weapons, the sale of which is

  963
  already prohibited, any knife which has no legitimate use and which can be defined in law in a way which satisfactorily distinguishes it from knives which do have a legitimate purpose. So far as war memorabilia are concerned, firearms and ammunition are subject to the normal licensing requirements of the firearms legislation.

  Self-confessed Murderers
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many self-confessed murderers remain at large whose precise location are known to his office, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. [6891]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The statistics the hon. Member seeks are not available.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the family of Anthony Robin Fletcher, murdered in London in 1967, about the consequences of their knowing the identity and whereabouts of the murderer. [6886]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The Home Office has been in contact a number of times with Mr. Fletcher's son. Officials have discussed the case at length with him and are aware of, and sympathetic to, the family's situation.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met his United States counterpart to discuss the extradition of a self-confessed murderer from the United States of America to stand trial in the United Kingdom. [6892]

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

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have been brought or supported by the Commission for Racial Equality in the last year for which figures are available in cases where bias in favour of(a) white applicants by white employers, (b) black applicants by black employers and (c) Asian applicants by Asian employers was alleged; and if he will make a statement. [6942]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  This information is not recorded centrally by the Commission for Racial Equality and could he obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will name the members of the Commission for Racial Equality; if he will indicate in each case the date and duration of appointment and the ethnic background; and if he will make a statement on the qualities, experience or other position which made the individual suitable for such appointment. [6940]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The posts of commissioner at the Commission for Racial Equality are the personal appointment of my right hon. and learned Friend. They are initially appointed for a two-year period with the possibility of further extensions up to a total of five years.

  The current commissioners are:

  Name

  Appointed

  Until

  Mr. Herman Ouseley

  19 April 1993

  18 April 1998

  Dr. Raj Chandran

  1 January 1993

  31 December 1996

  Mr. Michael Hastings

  1 May 1993

  30 April 1997

  964

  Name

  Appointed

  Until

  Mr. Bob Purkiss

  1 May 1993

  30 April 1997

  Dr. Dwain Neil

  1 May 1993

  30 April 1997

  Mrs. Marie Cunnigham

  1 May 1993

  30 April 1997

  Dr. Zaka Khan

  1 May 1993

  30 April 1997

  Mrs. Zahida Manzoor

  22 November 1993

  31 March 1997

  Mr. Moussa Jogee

  1 September 1994

  31 August 1997

  Mrs. Julie Mellor

  31 October 1995

  30 October 1997

  Mr. Hugh Hams

  1 January 1995

  31 December 1996

  Mrs. Jaslien Singh

  1 January 1995

  31 December 1996

  Details of commissioners' backgrounds are set out in the Commission for Racial Equality's annual report, the most recent copy of which was published on 6 June 1995; a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 November,Official Report, column 215, about the ethnic profile of employees of the Commission for Racial Equality, what assessment he has made of the consistency of that profile with a policy of appointment by merit in the context of statistical likelihood. [6943]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I have no reason to think that the current profile is inconsistent with the commission's equal opportunities policy towards the job applications it receives.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have been brought or supported by the Commission for Racial Equality in the last year for which figures are available against employers on the basis that the ethnic profile of their employees was such as to be inconsistent with the appointments made purely on merit; in how many other cases such a profile was a significant factor in the commission's case; and if he will make a statement. [6941]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  None of the cases brought or supported by the commission against employers in the last year was on the basis that the ethnic profile of their employees was such as to be inconsistent with appointments made purely on merit.

  Information on whether such a profile has been a significant factor in other cases could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 9 November, ref 2120/95. [6691]

  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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. David Winnick, dated 18 December 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about when you will receive a reply to your letter of 9 November.965 Your letter was passed to the Director General for reply as he has operational responsibility for the Prison Service. Richard Tilt sent a reply on 11 December.

  Choi Chang Hun
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reasons for refusing the application for entry into the United Kingdom of Choi Chang Hun from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. [6816]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Mr. Choi's visa application was refused on the ground that his exclusion from the United Kingdom was conducive to the public good for reasons of national security.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the main responsibilities and duties of inspectors working under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [6063]

  Mr. Sackville
  The duties are set out in section 18 of the Act.

  Mrs. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many project licences were granted in each severity banding in 1994 under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and how the bandings arc defined. [6067]

  Mr. Sackville
  Severity limits are allocated to individual procedures within project licences. Each severity limit is an agreed assessment of the maximum level of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm likely to be associated with the procedure, taking into account any action planned to mitigate these adverse effects. Limits are selected from a three-band scale of mild, moderate and substantial severity. Procedures in which the animal is unconscious throughout are regarded as unclassified.

  The assessment of the overall severity of a project uses the same three-band scale but takes into account the cumulative effect of each procedure; the number of animals to he used in each procedure; the proportion of animals expected to be exposed to the upper limits of severity in each procedure and the length of time that the animals might be exposed to the upper limits of severity.

  The overall severity of project licences granted in 1994 was:

  substantial: 9

  moderate: 513

  mild: 395

  unclassified: 38

  Mrs. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of Stae for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce the current number of inspectors working under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [6065]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Mrs. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits by inspectors working under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were(a) announced and (b) unannounced in each year since 1990. [6064]
  966
  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is as follows:

  Total visits to establishments

  Visits to inspection to establishments

  Visits to departments within establishments (a) announced (b) unannounced (a)

  (b)

  1990

  2,829

  2,533

  1,744

  4,703

  1991

  2,933

  2,533

  1,809

  4,920

  1992

  3,299

  2,784

  2,302

  4,638

  1993

  2,984

  2,507

  2.082

  4,157

  I 994

  2,726

  2,319

  1,535

  4,348

  1995 (January—October)

  2,390

  2,063

  1,122

  3,877

  1. The difference between Columns A and B reflects the fact that some visits may be unconnected with inspection per se—for example for the maintenance of scientific or professional skills.

  2. The term "departments" at C includes the various units within each establishment visited.

  Mrs. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how consistency is ensured throughout the inspectorate when assessing the costs and benefits of animal research procedures. [6066]

  Mr. Sackville
  The report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1993 sets out in the appendix II a note by the chief inspector, animals (scientific procedures) inspectorate, indicating how the assessment of benefit and severity is made. A small group chaired by the chief inspector also reviews licences for consistency.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent on furnishing and decorating ministerial offices in his Department in each of the last three years. [5572]

  Mr. Howard
  Expenditure on furnishing and decorating ministerial offices in each of the last three years is included in the running cost expenditure of my Department, which is published in the annual report.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since 1979 he has imposed a freeze on police recruitment; and what was the duration in each case. [5423]

  Mr. Maclean
  Recruitment of police officers is a local matter for each police authority and the chief officer of police. Police force establishment levels, set by my right hon. and learned Friend, were not increased in the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95. From 1 April 1995, my right hon. and learned Friend has not set establishment levels, and it is now for each police authority to set the strength of its force.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department spent on
  967
  official hospitality in 1994–95 and the financial year to date; and what is the 1995–96 projected budget for official hospitality. [5590]

  Mr. Howard
  In 1994–95, the cost of hospitality in my Department, including its executive agencies, was £27,468. This differs from the provisional figure given in my answer of 1 May,Official Report, column 94. That figure—£48,293—has been revised on the basis of subsequent further analysis which revealed that some expenditure originally, and provisionally, classified as hospitality should have been classified as other administrative costs. Expenditure on hospitality for the financial year to date is £27,558.

  The projected budget for 1995–96 is £60,570.

  Hong Kong (Key Persons Scheme)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used to determine the granting of right of abode status to Hong Kong citizens under the 50,000 key persons scheme; who determines such applications; and what right of appeal exists against refusal. [5846]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Applications under the scheme are assessed in accordance with the criteria set out in the British Nationality (Hong Kong) (Selection Scheme) Order 1990—statutory instrument No. 2292—and Hong Kong (British Nationality) (Amendment) Order 1993—statutory instrument No. 1789. Points are scored for age, experience, education and training, proficiency in the English language, connections with the United Kingdom, public and community service, and special circumstances. Applications are considered by the governor, who makes recommendations to my right hon. and learned Friend. The Secretary of State is obliged to register as British citizens those recommended by the governor unless he has reason to believe that the person concerned is not of good character. There is no right of appeal but the Governor is always willing to consider any representations made about his decisions.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 5 December,Official Report, column 213, how many of the applicants for right of abode status in the United Kingdom under the key persons scheme have been approved.[5867]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  As at 9 December, 48,119 principal applicants had been registered as British citizens under the scheme.

  Operation Charm
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will give details of animal products seized by the Metropolitan police in Operation Charm; and how many people were arrested; [5446]

  (2) if he will give details of those premises raided by the Metropolitan police in Operation Charm and the names and nationalities of people arrested. [5452]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that, in the most recent phase of Operation Charm, a property in west London was 968
  searched on 30 November and over 1,000 items believed to contain derivatives of species protected under the convention on international trade in endangered species were seized. The species protected under CITES include tiger, bear, rhinoceros, saiga antelope, tortoise, cobra and pangolin. It is not normal practice to identify any individuals concerned at this stage in proceedings.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the cloning of mobile telephones. [5472]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations from hon. Members, the telecommunications industry and members of the public about both the cloning of mobile telephones and mobile telephone fraud in general.

  In order to help combat the problem of cloning, the industry and government study group on mobile phone fraud, which was set up by my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology in June and reported in October, recommended that the range of offences under section 42 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 should be extended. This recommendation is currently receiving careful consideration.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many responses he received in relation to his Green Paper concerning identity cards; if he will provide a statistical breakdown of respondents and views in a similar form to that published by the Data Protection Registrar; when he expects to introduce proposals on the introduction of an identity card; and if he will make a statement. [5344]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) on 13 December at columns 659–60.

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the White Paper on improving the system of disclosing police criminal records. [5135]

  Mr. Maclean
  We expect to publish the White Paper within the next few months.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many responses he received in relation to his Green Paper, Cm. 2319; when he expects to introduce proposals to allow the wider disclosure of criminal records; and if he will make a statement. [5343]

  Mr. Maclean
  Some 180 responses were received to the Green Paper "Disclosure of Criminal Records for Employment Vetting Purposes", Cm. 2319. We expect to publish a White Paper within the next few months, which will set out proposals for new arrangements.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what data are held by his Department in
  969
  respect of the number of enforced subject access requests to criminal records; what plans he has to introduce legislation to cover the practice of enforced subject access to criminal records; if he will list the risks his Department has assessed in respect of reliance on enforced subject access; what plans he has to notify foreign embassies based in the United Kingdom in respect of these risks; and if he will make a statement. [5347]

  Mr. Maclean
  Applicants exercising their right under the Data Protection Act 1984 to access to criminal records are not required to give reasons. It is not therefore possible to estimate the number of requests which are "enforced", whether by employers, foreign embassies or others. The Government will he publishing a White Paper within the next few months which will propose new arrangements for access to criminal records.

  Fingerprint Computer System
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fingerprint records will eventually be stored in the Lockheed Martin fingerprint computer system based in Florida; what steps he has taken to ensure that the United States authorities cannot use their powers to access the fingerprints of Untied Kingdom citizens stored on the system; by what means he would be informed if such actions took place; and if he will make a statement.[5345]

  Mr. Maclean
  The computer system in question is controlled by the AFR Consortium of 33 police forces, and it is for the member forces to administer it in accordance with the relevant legal provisions, including the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Data Protection Acts. I understand from the AFR Consortium that there are now about 2.7 million sets of fingerprint images on the system, and that it is expected that about 3 million sets will eventfully be stored on the system, which is located in Tacoma, Washington State, not Florida. It is believed that there are no powers under which the fingerprints stored on the system could be accessed by the United States authorities. If the United States authorities require access to images of fingerprints held by the police service in the United Kingdom, reciprocal arrangements exist under which they may apply to the national identification service for copies.

  Knife-related Assaults
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many knife-related assaults were recorded in nightclubs in the last year; and how many of those assaults caused fatal injury. [4779]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Operation Whitewash
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive a report by the 970
  Hampshire police inquiry Operation Whitewash; and if he will make a statement. [5358]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have not requested any such report.

  Criminal Offences
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of recorded criminal offences in(a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c) the latest year for which figures are available. [5136]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is published in table 2.2 of "Criminal statistics, England and Wales 1994", Cm 3010. The latest information for the 12 months to June 1995 is published in Home Office statistical bulletin 19/95. Copies of both these publications are available in the Library.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers of 7 December,Official Report, column 362, what discussions he plans with the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Social Security before the publication of his Department's review of the Office of Data Protection Registrar. [5892]

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no problems at present for discussions on the review with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Social Security. Should such discussions be needed, I shall have them. All Departments will be involved in discussions on the implementation of the European Union data protection directive.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Student Loans
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer on 7 December,Official Report, column 396, if she will provide a breakdown of how the provisional assumptions as to net savings arising from the introduction of subsidised private sector loans have been calculated, indicating (a) the annual number of eligible students taking out subsidised private sector loans and (b) the level of public sector subsidy per annual loan. [5776]

  Mr. Forth
  As I made clear in my answer of 7 December, the figures for the net savings that would arise from the introduction of subsidised private sector loans to students were provisional. However, they were based on the assumption that by 1998–99 some 25 per cent. of eligible students would be taking out private sector loans.

  Colleges (VAT)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much VAT has been paid by(a) sixth form colleges and (b) further education colleges in each year since 1991. [4536]
  971
  Mr. Paice
  Information on the payment of VAT by colleges in the further education sector is not held centrally.

  Chauffeur-driven Cars
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the cost of chauffeur-driven cars used by her Department was in each of the past five years. [5851]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested in respect of the former Department for Education and the former Employment Department is contained in the following table:

  Year

  Employment Department £

  Department for Education £

  1990–91

  201,910

  134,191

  1991–92

  222,886

  241,215

  1992–93

  261,151

  217,197

  1993–94

  287,476

  288,121

  1994–95

  282,851

  274,377

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total expenditure on(a) buildings, (b) furniture and (c) uniforms by the former Department of Employment since 1979 for each region. [5356]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No information is available before the 1991–92 financial year. The following table gives total expenditure on(a) buildings, (b) furniture and (c) uniforms for the former Department of Employment group from 1991–92.

  Total expenditure for the financial years from 1991–92 to 1995–96

  (£000)

  Buildings

  Furniture

  Uniforms

  Employment Service Regions

  Northern

  33,257,821

  4,108,025

  n/a

  Yorkshire and Humberside (including HO)

  87,234,044

  7,858,553

  n/a

  East Midlands

  49,565,846

  5,237,058

  n/a

  London and South East

  256,432,427

  25,083,915

  n/a

  South West

  52,445,990

  5,650,311

  n/a

  Wales

  36,073,758

  3,198,818

  n/a

  West Midlands

  61,346,176

  3,250,969

  n/a

  North West

  66,733,432

  6,677,156

  n/a

  Scotland

  68,526,970

  4,111,674

  n/a

  (Total for all regions)

  711,616,464

  65,176,479

  n/a

  Remainder of the De Group

  ACAS1

  15,627,938

  884,350

  n/a

  Employment Department (including TEEd) 2

  202,114,723

  8,115,771

  118,051

  Health and Safety Executive

  113,865

  6,191

  931

  Dc Group Total

  929,492,990

  74,182,791

  118,982

  Notes:

  1 ACAS—Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

  2 TEED—Training Enterprise and Education Directorate.
  n/a = Not available.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) special advisers and (b) press or public relations officers are employed by her Department; and what is the total annual salary bill for (a) and (b) above.[5291]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department employs two special advisers and 18 press officers. The 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–£67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable and the salary spine reflects this. The annual salary bill for the press officers is some £532,000.

  Teachers Redundancies
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has had regarding teacher redundancies for the year 1995. [7010]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Several letters on this subject have been received in the Department.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will provide revenue forecasts for the current year and the next five years of expenditure on schemes provided under the PFI; [5712]

  (2) if she will provide for schemes so far agreed under the PFI the level of financing costs above the current costs of Government borrowing for the scheme with (a) the highest financing costs and (b) the lowest costs. [5713]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: Decisions on spending in education are for the institutions of local authorities concerned. That information, therefore, is not held centrally. For PFI in the Employment Service, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 6 December, Official Report, column 311. It is a fundamental principle when considering schemes under the private finance initiative that what is assessed is the overall best value for money over the whole life of the project. It is not possible, therefore to provide information about the financing costs of any scheme in the form requested.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will provide a breakdown of administration costs incurred to date and forecast for the future on PFI work.[5711]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The Department has a dedicated private finance division employing six staff full-time. Costs to date for the division, which was established as a separate unit in June, have amounted to some £106,000 and are budgeted to amount to £223,000 for 1995–96 in total. The budget, both for 1995–96 and for future years, will be kept under review in line with the work load. In addition, staff in the further and higher education and youth training and schools directorates and the Employment Service work on a part-time basis to encourage private finance in their

  973
  specialist areas. The information directorate also includes the private finance initiative within its portfolio. Costs for such part-time work are not accounted for separately.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for the academic year 1994–95 for each school covered by the assisted places scheme in descending order what sums the school received from the scheme, how many pupils were covered by the scheme at each school, the total numbers of pupils on the school's roll and the proportion of the school's roll made up of pupils covered by the scheme; what level of fees was charged for pupils covered by the scheme at each school; and what sums were received by each school under the scheme. [5871]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The information is contained in a number of tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Universities (Staff:Student Ratio)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average staff:student ratio in the United Kingdom university system(a) in the current year, and (b) in each of the past 15 years. [6551]

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the student:staff ratio in higher education institutions in England for the years 1990–91 to 1993–94 are as follows:

  1990–91: 13:4

  1991–92: 14:6

  1992–93: 15:6

  1993–94: 16:5

  Information on the same basis for earlier years is not available.

  Postgraduate Students
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many postgraduate students in United Kingdom universities are(a) from the United Kingdom, (b) from other European Union countries, and (c) from other countries. [6549]

  Mr. Forth
  Figures for the academic year 1994–95 show that as at 31 December 1994 there were 290,000 full-time and part-time postgraduate students in UK higher education institutions—including the Open University—of whom 80 per cent. were domiciled in the United Kingdom, 6 per cent. were from other European Union countries and 14 per cent. were from other countries.

  Nursery Schools
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many staff work in maintained nursery schools; and how many have qualified teacher status; [6526]

  (2) what is the current ratio of staff to children in state nursery schools. [6525]
  974
  Mr. Robin Squire
  In January 1995, the latest date for which information is available, the pupil: teacher ratio in maintained nursery schools in England was 19.41:1; the pupil:staff ratio was 8.8:1. There were 1,596 full-time equivalent teaching staff, of whom 1,577 were qualified and, in addition, there were 1,901 full-time equivalent nursery assistants.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what circumstances local education authorities may institute a system of charging for nursery provision in(a) nursery classes in schools (b) and nursery schools; which local education authorities currently do this; and what are the scales of charges. [6432]

  Mr. Squire
  Education, including nursery provision, offered by any grant-maintained or local education authority maintained school must by law be free of charge if it takes place wholly or mainly during school hours. Independent and privately run nursery schools may set whatever level of charges they consider to be appropriate.

  Undergraduate Students
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many United Kingdom undergraduate students there are in United Kingdom universities in the current academic year; and how many she forecasts will be studying at United Kingdom universities in each of the next three years. [6550]

  Mr. Forth
  We do not yet have comprehensive figures on the number of undergraduate students in the United Kingdom in the current academic year. Our best estimate is based on the November 1995 Budget projection, which took account of latest data available from the universities and colleges admissions services—UCAS—and from local education authorities. This projects 1.119 million full-time equivalent United Kingdom domiciled undergraduate students, both full-time and part-time, in United Kingdom institutions in the current academic year.

  The projected numbers for the three subsequent academic years are 1.112 million, 1.116 million and 1.138 million.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many undergraduate students in United Kingdom universities are(a) from the United Kingdom, (b) from other European Union countries, and (c) from other countries. [6548]

  Mr. Forth
  Figures for the academic year 1994–95 show that as at 31 December 1994 there were 1,213,000 full-time and part-time undergraduate students in UK higher education institutions, including the Open University, of whom 92 per cent. were domiciled in the UK, 4 per cent. were from other European Union countries and 4 per cent. were from other countries.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her policy in respect of the role for Capita Managed Services Ltd. in the inspection of the nursery voucher scheme. [6044]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Capita Managed Services Ltd. has a contract to administer the issue and redemption of vouchers in phase one of the nursery education voucher
  975
  scheme. The company will not exercise any judgment about the quality of provision in institutions which apply to redeem vouchers.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if nursery vouchers will be issued on a termly basis. [6280]

  Mr. Squire
  Nursery vouchers will be issued termly.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of how children with special needs will be affected by the nursery voucher scheme. [6281]

  Mr. Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) on 13 December,Official Report, columns 978–79.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the cost has been of promoting and explaining the nursery voucher scheme. [6282]

  Mr. Squire
  The cost to date for publicising and explaining the nursery voucher scheme to parents and providers is some £150,000.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many extra nursery places she expects the nursery voucher scheme to create. [6283]

  Mr. Squire
  The number of additional places created through the nursery voucher scheme will depend on the response of providers to parental demand. I am confident that providers of all types, either alone or in partnership with each other, will satisfy parental demand over time, given the extra funding which the voucher scheme provides.

  Academic Standards
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the academic standard of(a) five GCSE passes at grades a—c and (b) the French Baccalaureat. [6045]

  Mr. Paice
  Even if such comparisons could reliably be made, there would be little to be gained by trying to compare standards in an examination taken by 16-year-olds in England with an examination taken by 18-year-olds in France.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to raise the level of the potential schools' budget from 85 per cent. to 100 per cent. for(a) all schools and (b) by category of school. [6124]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government have no plans at present to raise the proportion of the potential schools budget which must be delegated to schools by local education authorities. This was, however, one of the several options in respect of voluntary aided schools identified in the consultation paper issues on 27 October, the responses to which are still being considered.

  Captial Spending
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what amounts have been requested by way of capital spending in 1996–97(a) by each local education authority and (b) in England as a whole. [6476]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The following table shows the size of 1996–97 bids for annual capital guidelines by each local education authority in England.

  I shall be making an announcement on 1996–97 education ACG totals for each LEA in England shortly.

  ACG Bids 1996–97

  £000

  Barking

  3,435

  Barnet

  8,003

  Bexley

  4,680

  Brent

  8,573

  Bromley

  4,841

  Croydon

  9,562

  Ealing

  9,338

  Enfield

  17,666

  Haringey

  18,516

  Harrow

  16,375

  Havering

  10,297

  Hillingdon

  8,471

  Hounslow

  8,448

  Kingston

  4,178

  Merton

  6,673

  Newham

  17,083

  Redbridge

  7,371

  Richmond

  7,403

  Sutton

  8,673

  Waltham

  14,150

  City

  0

  Camden

  6,510

  Westminster

  4,238

  Greenwich

  7,095

  Hackney

  7,940

  Hammersmith

  6,400

  Islington

  10,600

  Kensington

  2,287

  Lambeth

  15,642

  Lewisham

  28,266

  Southwark

  4,504

  Wandsworth

  7,052

  Tower Hamlets

  14,442

  Birmingham

  59,837

  Coventry

  6,701

  Dudley

  6,138

  Sandwell

  10,422

  Solihull

  4,642

  Walsall

  8,123

  Wolverhampton

  13,005

  Knowsley

  4,917

  Liverpool

  24,311

  St. Helens

  7,012

  Sefton

  4,197

  Wirral

  9,464

  Bolton

  5,965

  Bury

  1,997

  Manchester

  50,963

  Oldham

  6,434

  Rochdale

  10,858

  Salford

  35,655

  Stockport

  5,217

  Tameside

  5,259

  Trafford

  7,003

  Wigan

  11,009

  Barnsley

  5,767

  Doncaster

  7,524

  977

  ACG Bids 1996–97

  £000

  Rotherham

  6,534

  Sheffield

  49,913

  Bradford

  48,734

  Calderdale

  6,483

  Kirkless

  9,102

  Leeds

  39,002

  Wakefield

  34,035

  Gateshead

  10,454

  Newcastle

  26,029

  North Tyneside

  8,966

  South Tyneside

  7,019

  Sunderland

  9,586

  Isle of Scilly

  47

  Bath, North East Somerset

  4,382

  Bedfordshire

  6,619

  Berkshire

  10,567

  Bristol

  7,986

  Bucks

  19,114

  Cambridge

  27,991

  Cheshire

  35,182

  Cornwall

  16,045

  Cumbria

  21,470

  Derbyshire

  39,148

  Devon

  36,346

  Dorset

  28,328

  Durham

  55,904

  East Riding

  11,625

  East Sussex

  33,943

  Essex

  79,677

  Gloucester

  37,110

  Hampshire

  1,586

  Hereford, Worcester

  13,935

  Hertford

  29,391

  Hull

  9,401

  Isle of Wight

  10,791

  Kent

  57,365

  Lancashire

  37,227

  Leicester

  7,963

  Lincoln

  15,630

  Middlesbrough

  5,000

  North Lincolnshire

  7,278

  North-east Lincolnshire

  6,546

  North Somerset

  6,501

  Norfolk

  20,678

  North Yorkshire

  25,471

  Northampton

  22,027

  Northumberland

  2,908

  Nottinghamshire

  21,057

  Oxfordshire

  20,430

  Redcar, Cleveland

  2,985

  Shropshire

  8,355

  South Gloucestershire

  7,376

  Somerset

  10,970

  Staffordshire

  26,213

  Stockton

  3,772

  Suffolk

  21,635

  Surrey

  22,359

  Warwick

  20,266

  West Sussex

  10,925

  Wiltshire

  9,507

  York

  3,440

  Total

  1,855,297

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of three and four year-olds currently receive state nursery education; and what are the equivalent figures for France and Germany. [6284]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  International comparisons of participation in education by young children are difficult to make because of the need to ensure consistent definition across countries. The latest available information on three and four-year-olds participating in public and private education is shown in the following table. Separate participation rates for state nursery education only are not available.

  Participation rates of 3 and 4 year-olds1 in education, 1992

  3 and 4 year-olds Per cent.

  France

  100

  Former West Germany

  49

  United Kingdom

  253

  Source:

  Education Statistics for the United Kingdom, 1995 edition, HMSO. Education at a Glance, OECD, 1995.

  Notes:

  1Pupils aged 3 and 4 as a percentage of the population aged 3 and 4.

  2 Fifty seven in 1995.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the educational benefit a child receives from nursery education. [6285]

  Mr. Squire
  There is a widespread acknowledgement, based on evidence from research studies in the United States and this country, that children benefit from good quality nursery education in primary education and beyond.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the cost to the Employment Service of implementing the proposed sanctions against employing illegal immigrants. [6286]

  Mr. Forth
  The provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Bill and the related Home Office consultation document on the prevention of illegal working do not propose additional functions or duties for the Employment Service.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the outcome of her Department's review of measures taken to facilitate small firms' access to appropriate areas of Government procurement in the light of best practice. [6660]

  Mr. Paice
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade today.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make it her policy to abolish the Equal Opportunities Commission. [6807]

  Mrs. Gillan
  No.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many members currently serve on the Equal Opportunities Commission; and how many of these are(a) men and (b) women. [6803]

  Mrs. Gillan
  At present, there are 11 commissioners. Eight are women and three are men.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of the employees of the Equal Opportunities Commission are(a) male and (b) female. [6801]

  Name

  Other relevant positions

  Date appointed

  Appointment expires

  Kamlesh Bahl

  Consultant; Lawyer

  14 June 1993

  13 June 1996

  Diane Brittan

  Chair, Community Industry; Deputy Chair, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  1 January 1988

  31 December 1996

  Joan Stringer

  Assistant Principal, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, member of the Higher Education Quality Council

  18 April 1995

  17 April 1998

  Robert Fleeman

  Director, Fleeman Cooper and Smaller Businesses Advisory Services Ltd; Industrial Tribunal member

  1 December 1994

  30 November 1997

  Richard Grayson

  Retired BP Company Secretary; member CBI Companies Committee

  1 December 1994

  30 November 1997

  Noreen Bray

  Director, Good Relations Ltd

  1 September 1990

  31 August 1996

  Cecilia Wells

  Consultant in Human Resource Management

  1 January 1991

  31 December 1996

  Anne Gibson

  National Officer, Union for Manufacturing, Science and Finance

  1 May 1991

  30 April 1997

  Mary Berg

  Industrial Economist

  13 June 1994

  12 June 1997

  Peter Smith

  General Secretary, Association of Teachers and Lecturers

  13 June 1994

  12 June 1997

  Elizabeth Symons

  General Secretary, Association of First Division Civil Servants; member of the Employment Appeal Tribunal

  1 November 1995

  31 October 1998

  Appointments are made by the Secretary of State on the basis of a candidate's overall fitness to serve a Commissioner.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to what extent the Equal Opportunities Commission operates an equal opportunities policy; and to what extent the employee gender profile is taken into account in this matter. [6802]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Equal Opportunities Commission operates an equal opportunities policy and keeps it under review. An equal opportunity statement is placed in all advertisements for posts. The commission's recruitment practices are designed to ensure that no groups are unfairly excluded from applying for posts and that appointments are made solely on merit.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many cases in the last year for which figures are available were brought or supported by the Equal Opportunities Commission in which discrimination was alleged against(a) women and (b) men. [6806]

  Mrs. Gillan
  In 1995 the Equal Opportunities Commission brought or supported 94 cases, of which 82 alleged discrimination against women and 12 alleged discrimination against men.
  980
  Mrs. Gillan
  A total of 30—17.6 per cent.—of the commission's employees are men and 140—82.4 per cent.—are women.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total level of public funding for the Equal Opportunities Commission in(a) the current and (b) the next financial year. [6805]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Equal Opportunities Commission's grant in aid for 1995–96 is £6,156,000. In 1996–97 grant in aid is £5,820,650.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the individuals who currently serve on the Equal Opportunities Commission, indicating in each case the date and duration of their appointment, together with any other relevant positions which they hold, and the basis of the experience or qualification on which that appointment was made. [6804]

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

DEFENCE

  Boarding School Allowance
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Service Children's Education Authority to complete its review of whether the Quantock school, Taunton, is suitable to remain on the MOD admissible schools list. [6178]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 11 December 1995,Official Report, column 478–79). It is expected that the review of the pastoral care at Quantock school by the Service Children's Education Authority will be completed by 31 March 1996.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 11 December, what plans he has to bring to the attention of parents of children who benefit from the boarding school allowance the observation of the Service Children's Education Authority regarding the pastoral arrangements of Quantock school, Taunton. [6199]

  Mr. Soames
  SCEA provides on request an advisory service to all service parents on boarding school provision
  981
  in the United Kingdom. In the case of Quantock school, Taunton, SCEA will continue to provide a similar service. The final choice of school, however, is a matter of parental choice.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much each school on the MOD admissible schools list received from the service boarding school allowance. [6179]

  Mr. Soames
  The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Batus, Canada
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of(a) fatalities and (b) serious injuries which have occurred at Batus, Suffield, Canada, for each year since 1972; and if he will state the cause in each case. [4932]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 11 December 1995]: The information requested is as follows:

  Fatalities

  Year

  Numbers

  Cause of death

  1972

  1

  1 RTA

  1973

  Nil

  —

  1974

  3

  3 RTAs

  1975

  1

  Drowned on Exercise

  1976

  2

  1 stepped in front of a vehicle, 1 scout car overturned

  1977

  2

  1 inhalation of vomit, 1 RTA

  1978

  2

  1 RTA; 1 accident on adventure training

  1979

  1

  Crushed in Tank

  1980

  3

  1 Collision Tank/scout car; 1 struck by lightning; 1 drowned on adventure training

  1981

  Nil

  —

  1982

  2

  1 GSW on exercise; 1 helicopter crash

  1983

  1

  Training explosion

  1984

  1

  Helicopter crash

  1985

  Nil

  —

  1986

  Nil

  —

  1987

  3

  2 RTAs; 1 killed by debris from helicopter crash

  1988

  1

  RTA

  1989

  Nil

  —

  1990

  Nil

  —

  1991

  Nil

  —

  1992

  1

  Crushed between two vehicles 1993 Accident with warrior armoured fighting vehicle

  1994

  5

  1 Collision with warrior/landrover; 2 buried in trench; 1 run over by warrior; 1 GSW on exercise

  1995

  Nil

  —

  Serious injuries

  Year

  Total injured

  Numbers and details

  1972

  15

  1 eye injury; 14 shrapnel wounds

  1973

  1

  RTA soldier hit by car

  1974

  6

  1 trapped by vehicles; 2 ammo explosions 1 rocket launcher explosion 2 fire in Tank

  1975

  Nil

  1976

  1

  ammo explosion

  1977

  2

  1 smoke grenade explosion; 1 RTA

  982

  Serious injuries

  Year

  Total injured

  Numbers and details

  1978

  Nil

  1979

  1

  ammo explosion

  1980

  1

  breach explosion

  1981

  2

  2 ammo explosion

  1982

  Nil

  1983

  1

  ammo explosion

  1984

  2

  explosion in landrover

  1985

  7

  4 ammo explosions; 2 RTAs; 1 GSW

  1986

  4

  2 RTAs; 1 ammo explosion; 1 back blast

  1987

  4

  3 RTAs; 1 ammo explosion

  1988

  2

  ammo explosions

  1989

  8

  3 GSWs; 1 vehicle fire; 3 ammo explosions 1 laser beam injury

  1990

  Nil

  1991

  1

  ammo explosion

  1992

  5

  4 ammo explosions; 1 mortar incident

  1993

  4

  3 ammo explosions; 1 tank barrel in face

  1994

  2

  2 GSW

  1995

  Nil

  RTA = Road Traffic accident.

  GSW = Gun shot wound.

  Service Housing
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who will be responsible for maintenance, improvements and refurbishments of dwellings privatised by his Department. [5880]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence's answer of 30 November 1995,Official Report, columns 810–11. The specialist housing division within the MOD, the defence housing executive, will retain responsibility for maintenance, improvement, and refurbishment of properties leased back from the purchaser of the married quarters estate in the event that a sale goes ahead. A sale of the married quarters estate to the private sector will, of course, depend on reaching agreement on terms which satisfy the interests of the services and on a price which properly reflects the public interest.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many copies of the corporate plan for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency were(a) printed, (b) distributed to DERA establishments and (c) distributed for the use of staff at the Defence Evaluation and Test Organisation at Boscombe Down; [6811]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the corporate plan for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. [6809]

  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. Robert Key, dated 18 December 1995:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many copies of the Corporate Plan for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) have been printed and distributed to DERA establishments and how many, specifically, have been distributed for the use of the staff at the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation (DTEO) site at Boscombe Down. You also asked if a copy the DERA Corporate

  983
  Plan would be placed in the Library. Your questions have been passed to me, as Chief Executive of DERA, to reply and 1 am dealing with both in this letter.We printed 650 copies of the DERA Corporate Plan of which 420 have been distributed to DERA establishments including 72 which were sent to the DTEO site at Boscombe Down. Copies were also sent to MOD customers. DERA management and staff have been briefed on the content of the Corporate Plan and my management team and I have also given a presentation to the Trade Unions I am afraid that I am unable to place a copy of the Corporate Plan in the Library as it contains information which is commercial-in-confidence. This year, additionally, the document contains classified information. If, however, you would like me to brief you on the main issues contained in the Plan then I should be happy to do so.

  Museum of Army Transport
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had over the possibility of relocating the Museum of Army Transport from Beverley to Ministry of Defence land on Driffield airfield. [6009]

  Mr. Soames
  The Museum of Army Transport and officials within my Department have corresponded on this matter. Driffield airfield is used by the Army as a training area. Although 7.42 hectares of land are to be sold, that property is tenanted and cannot be made available to the museum; no other suitable land has been declared surplus.

  Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the expenditure of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title for each year since 1990–91; and what estimate he has made for 1995–96 based on expenditure to date and existing plans. [6562]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Records of newspaper advertising are not held centrally nor is the cost separately identified. The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Trident
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the Trident D5 missiles that have been purchased from the United States(a) have been test fired and (b) remain to be collected from the United States; [6211]

  (2) what plans his Department has to purchase further Trident D5 missiles from the United States; [6212]

  (3) when he plans to make an announcement on the purchase of further Trident missiles.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Of the Trident II (D5) missiles that have been purchased from the United States, four have been test fired and 12 have yet to be collected. Remaining missile orders are likely to be placed over the next three years as part of a joint US-UK procurement programme and initial funding to that end is being committed. I have no immediate plans to make a further statement regarding future missile orders.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the changes made to the guidance to aircrew 984
  on ship identification and attack manoeuvres following the review of such guidance conducted following the incident off Oban on 29 April 1991.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 12 December 1995]: The guidance issued to aircrew on low-level flight in the vicinity of shipping was reviewed taking into account the findings of the RAF police investigation into the incident on 29 April 1991. No changes were judged to be necessary.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when a qualification in night-time low flying lapses for Tornado GR.1 aircrew; and how many sorties are required to(a) maintain currency and (b) regain a lapsed qualification. [5177]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not my Department's policy to release information relating to combat ready status of aircrew.

  Queen's Flight
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 4 December,Official Report, column 1, regarding the use of the Queen's Flight, if he will list in each case the point of departure of the aircraft and the destination, the sum which was reimbursed and the member of the royal family involved. [5249]

  Mr. Soames
  In accordance with the wishes of Her Majesty the Queen, arrangements agreed by my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence were introduced on 1 April 1995 under which the costs of private flights in aircraft of No 32 (The Royal) Squadron by members of the royal family would be reimbursed to the MOD. The requested details of the six flights since that date are as follows:

  Departure point

  Destination

  Charge £

  Member of Royal Family

  Sandringham

  Kensington

  Kensington

  Sandringham

  2,540

  HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

  Aberdeen

  Northolt

  Heathrow

  Aberdeen

  1,470

  HRH The Prince of Wales

  Aberdeen

  Teeside

  Teeside

  Aberdeen

  3,116

  Her Majesty The Queen

  Home Base (Absence)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of pilots, navigators and other aircrew and of ground staff employed at squadron level have spent more than a total of four months absence from their home base in each of the last three years. [5041]

  Mr. Soames
  The percentage of pilots, navigators, other aircrew and ground crew absent from their home station for more than four months during 1995 is 12.6 per cent., 11.5 per cent., 10 per cent. and 12.9 per cent. respectively. Information for previous years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Staff (Members' Letters)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officials he employed(a) full-time and

  985
  (b) part-time in his Department in each of the last three years to answer letters sent to him from hon. Members; and what was the estimated overall cost of replying to them in each of the last three years. [5612]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No member of staff is employed in my Department exclusively to answer letters sent to my right hon. Friend from hon. Members. Staff throughout the Department are involved in answering letters from hon. Members and others to my right hon. Friend. The overall cost of replying to such correspondence is not held centrally and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Departmental Dwellings
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings his Department currently possesses; and how many are currently occupied. [5947]

  Mr. Soames
  As at 30 September 1995, the latest date for which figures are available, my Department owned 74,064 dwellings, of which 59,966 were occupied.

  Property Refurbishment
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of refurbishing the flats at 49–144 Stillington street, London SW 1 , owned by his Department; and what plans he has to make these homes available to service families. [5879]

  Mr. Soames
  Nos 49-144 Stillington street are blocks of flats providing one of the primary housing sites for the families of service personnel based in central London. A total refurbishment of these blocks is currently being undertaken as part of an on-going upgrade programme.

  The Stillington street project is in two phases. Phase 1, involving 48 units, was completed in May 1994 at a cost of £3.5 million. Phase 2, involving 96 units, is due for completion in May-June 1996 at an estimated cost of £6.6 million.

  The flats, which were completed in May 1994, accommodate families of service personnel posted to Army units in central London. The remainder of the flats, when completed, will house the balance of the families of the Infantry Battalion who are housed at Hounslow.

  Our on-going refurbishment and development plans will enable us to surrender property at Caterham, Uckfield and north London with consequential improvements in operational responsiveness and savings both in travelling time and residence to duty costs.

  RAF Finningley (Houses)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the price paid by the Hodge group to acquire the houses sold at RAF Finningley; and what tendering process was involved.[5882]

  Mr. Soames
  The surplus houses at RAF Finningley were sold by sealed tender and the price achieved is a matter of commercial confidentiality between the Department and the successful purchaser, Hodge and Co.

  Gulf Veterans
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many veterans are planned to be examined 986
  under the Gulf veterans medical assessment programme in the next six months; and, of these, how many are planned to receive examination for the first time. [5319]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 11 December 1995]: The numbers to be seen over the next six months cannot be forecast as this will depend on factors outside my Department's control, such as the rate of new referrals and the need for second and subsequent examinations. However, appointments will be available for the 28 individuals currently waiting for initial assessment to be seen by the end of January.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many veterans have been examined under the Gulf veterans medical assessment programme in the last six months; and, of these, how many received examination for the first time. [5320]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 11 December 1995]: A total of 152 Gulf veterans have been examined under the medical assessment programme in the last six months. Of those, 81 were examined for the first time.

  Married Quarters
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the average level of rent charged for a married quarters housing stock unit in each of the last five years. [6544]

  Mr. Soames
  The average weekly charges for service families accommodation owned by the Ministry of Defence are as follows, and are based on furnished accommodation in England, Scotland and Wales and of the most commonly occupied type of accommodation.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Officers

  37.17

  40.67

  41.30

  43.12

  47.04

  Other ranks

  23.87

  26.04

  26.46

  27.74

  29.68

  Additionally, all service personnel pay a contribution in lieu of council tax. Some of the quarters are occupied by civilians and these charges are based on market rents which are assessed by local defence lands service offices.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what methods are currently used to collect rent on the married quarters housing stock owned by his Department; and what plans he has to review these methods. [6542]

  Mr. Soames
  Accommodation charges for service personnel and entitled MOD personnel are deducted directly from pay accounts, and there are no plans to review this method of payment. With regard to other personnel, various payment methods are employed. The defence housing executive is currently reviewing these methods of payment, with a view to recommending that all should be made by standing order or direct debit.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the marketable value of the married quarters housing stock owned by his Department. [6546]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Our assessment of the value of the married quarters estate under the terms of the proposed sale is commercially confidential.
  987
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people employed by his Department lived in the married quarters housing stock owned by his Department in each of the last five years; and how many do so currently. [6541]

  Mr. Soames
  Total occupancy of the married quarters stock owned by my Department on 31 March in each of the last five years and on 30 September, which is the most recent information available, was as follows:

  31 March 1991: 63,351

  31 March 1992: 62,929

  31 March 1993: 62,687

  31 March 1994: 61,230

  31 March 1995: 59,776

  31 September 1995: 59,549

  Information on the number of these quarters which were occupied by service and civilian personnel employed by my Department is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The figures include a significant number of people not employed by my Department, for example, irregular occupants, foreign service personnel, and contractors' staff.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total rent collected by his Department on the married quarters housing stock in each of the last five years. [6545]

  Mr. Soames
  Information is readily available only for the last four financial years. The total rent collected for married quarters was as follows:

  1991–92: £129.33 million

  1992–93: £132.54 million

  1993–94: £147.08 million

  1994–95: £145.64 million

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the criteria used to set rent levels for the married quarters housing stock owned by his Department. [6543]

  Mr. Soames
  Accommodation charges for service personnel are recommended annually by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. It traditionally bases its recommendations on local authority rents, with an abatement to reflect the disadvantages of living in service accommodation when compared with local authority housing. The subject of service accommodation charges is currently under review by the AFPRB as part of the 1996 programme of work. In addition, some of the quarters are occupied by civilians employed by MOD, and their charges are based on market rents which are assessed by local Defence lands service offices.

  Service Officers (Business Appointments)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 December,Official Report, column 475, what were the restrictions imposed on nine of the applications made under the business appointments procedure; and what period of time elapsed in each case between applications and acceptance. [6596]

  Mr. Soames
  Seven applications were approved subject to waiting periods. The other two applications were approved subject to bans on the involvement of the applicant in particular projects or areas of work. There is 988
  no requirement under the business appointment rules for staff to report to the department whether or not appointments are taken up. It is not possible to say, therefore, what time elapsed between application and acceptance.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 December,Official Report, column 475, how many of the former serving officers listed by rank as making applications under the business appointments procedure were approved (a) immediately and (b) within two years of making such an application. [6595]

  Mr. Soames
  The business appointment rules apply for two years after an individual leaves Crown service. All the officers concerned made their applications within that period of time, and they were informed of the Department's decision as soon as it had been reached. In the shortest case this was within one week of the date of application and in the longest 15 weeks.

  Surplus Explosives
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records his Department holds regarding surplus stocks of conventional explosives brought from RAF Great Orton to Royal Ordnance establishments in Wales for disposal between 1946 and 1948; what current environmental monitoring is conducted by his Department on these disposal sites; and if he will list locations of all land and off-shore sites in and around Wales used for such disposal. [6436]

  Mr. Soames
  Any surviving records on the operation of RAF Great Orton will be held in the Public Records Office. Surplus munition stocks from this unit would have been allocated for sea disposal at Beaufort's dyke or transferred to the Royal Ordnance factory, Pembrey, south Wales for breakdown and reduction to scrap. Land burial was not an authorised final disposal route for surplus munitions or explosives. The only disused sea disposal sites adjacent to the Welsh coast are off Milford Haven. My Department has no plans to monitor disused munition sea dumping grounds.

  Kit Suppliers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which companies provide(a) uniforms and (b) general kit for the armed forces. [5321]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 1I December 1995]: This is a matter for the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency—DCTA—under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DCTA, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Brigadier M. J. Roycroft to Dr. David Clark, dated 18 December 1995:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the companies which provide uniforms and general kit for the armed forces, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility.I enclose a list of those companies which supply uniforms and associated general clothing and textile items to the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency (DCTA) on behalf of the services.If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

WALES

  Community Action Programmes
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of community action programmes and their current costs in operation in(a) Wales, (b) Mid Glamorgan and (c) the Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney constituency. [5424]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information in the form requested is not available centrally.

  Cardiff International Airport
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress is being made in approving a bid by South Glamorgan county council for funding for the proposed link road between Culverhouse Cross and Cardiff international airport. [5516]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The 1996–97 transport grant settlement was announced on 13 December. My right hon. Friend approved the bid for preparation costs for the airport access road in full.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been spent on furnishing and decorating ministerial offices in his Department in each of the last three years. [5571]

  Mr. Hague
  Expenditure on furnishing and decorating ministerial offices in each of the last three years is included in the running cost expenditure of my Department, which is published in the Welsh Office departmental report 1995, Cm 2815.

  Chauffeur-driven Cars
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the cost of chauffeur-driven cars used by his Department was in each of the past five years. [5850]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is as follows:

  1990–91: £155,933

  1991–92: £169,514

  1992–93: £180,281

  1993–94: £189,281

  1994–95: £204,579

  Theatr Clwyd, Mold
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the likely future of(a) ownership, (b) operation and (c) funding of Theatr Clwyd, Mold following local government reorganisation. [6076]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend will receive advice from the residuary body by 31 December 1995 on the future ownership of land and property including Theatr Clwyd. We expect to publish a draft property transfer order by mid-January. This will set out the transfer arrangements for all property owned by the existing councils. If the unitary authorities falling within 990
  the Clwyd county council area decide to set up collaborative arrangements to run Theatr Clwyd, that is a matter for them.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to discuss with Clwyd county council and Flintshire county council the future of Theatr Clwyd, Mold. [6075]

  Mr. Richards
  On 30 November the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), met the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and representatives of Flintshire county council, when the subject of Theatr Clwyd was discussed.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the future of Theatr Clwyd, Mold following local government reorganisation. [6083]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations concerning the future of Theatr Clwyd.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to use his reserve powers in respect of the future organisation and funding of Theatr Clwyd, Mold. [6080]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend will receive advice from the residuary body by 31 December 1995 on the future ownership of land and property, including Theatr Clwyd; we expect to publish a draft property transfer order by mid-January. There are currently no proposals to use reserve powers.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to apply the provisions of the Registered Homes Act 1984 to old people's homes owned by local councils; and if he will make a statement. [5957]

  Mr. Hague
  My hon. Friends the Under-Secretaries of State for Wales and for Health launched on 22 September a review of the regulation and inspection of social services in England and Wales. Views are invited by the end of February 1996 on the range of issues raised in the consultation document, "Moving Forward".

  Planning Application (Gwernymynydd)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations have been made to the local planning authority by the highway section of his Department with regard to the proposed development at Swan lane, Gwernymynydd with particular reference to its impact on the A494.[6079]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A planning application in respect of a development at Minffordd fields, Gwernymynydd near Swan lane was referred to the highways directorate of the Welsh Office in Janaury 1995. Its response in February 1995 directed that the proposed access from the development on the trunk road should be completed in accordance with the details submitted with the application.

  Health Survey
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in establishing a health survey in Wales as undertaken in the departmental report 1995. [5900]

  Mr. Richards
  The Welsh health survey was carried out during May and June 1995. Questionnaires were sent to 50,000 people living in Wales and over 28,000 were completed and returned, in line with the expected response rate. The results will be published early in 1996.

  Breast Cancer
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what targets his Department has set in respect of breast cancer in Wales analogous to those in "The Health of the Nation". [5680]

  Mr. Richards
  A target to reduce death rates from breast cancer among women aged 50 to 64 by at least 20 per cent. by 2002 was included in the "Protocol for Investment in Health Gain: Cancers", issued by the Welsh Office in 1991.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the specialist breast cancer treatment centres(a) in Welsh hospitals and (b) otherwise currently serving Welsh health authority populations; and what plans he has (i) to increase their number and (ii) to upgrade them. [6538]

  Mr. Hague
  There are no designated specialist breast cancer treatment centres in Wales. However, Breast Test Wales refers women with screen-detected breast cancer to the following hospitals for treatment:

  Llandough Hospital, Cardiff

  University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff

  Neath General Hospital, West Glamorgan

  Prince Philip Hospital, Llanelli

  East Glamorgan General Hospital, Church Village

  Llandudno General Hospital, Gwynedd

  Additionally, general practitioners are free to refer patients screened by Breast Test Wales to other hospitals, should they wish.

  An expert group on cancer services has been established to help health authorities implement the report of the chief medical officers of England and Wales, "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services". The group will consider the need to increase the number of or upgrade specialist cancer treatment centres.

  House Building
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of (i) council houses and (ii) housing association homes to be built in 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [6471]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Housing associations are now the main providers of subsidised rented housing. I refer the hon. Member to the statement which my right hon. Friend made to the House on Wednesday 13 December,Official Report, columns 1002–17, which set out our estimate of housing association activity in 1996–97.

  Smoking
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ban smoking in all public buildings in his control. [6464]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department has operated a no-smoking rule for a number of years. Smoking is permitted in designated locations, which are kept under review. I have no plans for an absolute smoking ban.

  Departmental Staff (Members' Letters)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many officials he employed(a) full time and (b) part time in his Department in each of the last three years to answer letters sent to him from hon. Members; and what was the estimated overall cost of replying to them in each of the last three years. [5625]

  Mr. Hague
  Most Welsh Office staff handle correspondence as part of their duties; it is not possible to estimate the proportion of time, or the cost, spent in answering letters from hon. Members.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the public authorities in Wales to which he makes appointments, indicating which were established(a)> by primary legislation, (b) by secondary legislation, (c) by royal charter or warrant, (d) royal prerogative and (e) by other means. [6046]

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

  Waste Disposal, Newport
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what inquiries he made of the United States authorities about the past activities of Browning Ferris environmental services before becoming mindful to grant it a licence for waste disposal at Newport, Gwent. [5883]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales under what powers an inspector holding a planning inquiry may refuse to let a member of the public put questions; and if he will make a statement on the inquiry held into the application by Browning Ferris to operate a waste disposal plant in Newport, Gwent. [5945]

  Mr. Jones
  An inspector's powers when holding a planning inquiry are contained in the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1992, SI 1992 No. 2038, or the Town and Country Planning Appeals (Determination by Inspectors (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1992, SI 1992 No. 2039.

  Medical School Applications
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was(a) the number of people making application to enter medical schools, (b) the number and percentage of applicants who are successful and (c) the proportion of each category estimated to he Welsh speaking in (i) each Welsh county and (ii) Wales for the latest available year. [6047]
  993
  Mr. Hague
  This information is not held centrally. Information on the number of applications and the results may be available from the Universities and College Admissions Service.

  Vaccinations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to publish a report analogous to the recent report from the Secretary of State for Health on the measles and rubella immunisation campaign. [6276]

  Mr. Richards
  The chief medical officer for Wales has recently written to all doctors informing them that the report "Measles Rubella Immunisation Campaign in England 'One Year On'" is available from the Department. Attached to the report is a summary of the measles and rubella campaign undertaken in Wales. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Emergency Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) on how many occasions Welsh district general hospitals have been closed to new medical emergency patients during the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement; [6540]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure the adequacy of provision of emergency medical intake beds during winter months. [6539]

  Mr. Hague
  This information is not held centrally.

  I am committed to ensuring that action is identified to ease the pressure on hospitals as a result of unexpected increases in emergency medical admissions.

  My officials met senior NHS managers and health professionals on 7 December 1995 to measure the true extent and cause of the problem and to identify a response. The meeting resulted in agreement on a range of practical measures to minimise this risk of hospitals closing to emergency patients over the coming months.

  I will be monitoring the position closely over the next few months.

  Child Abuse Report
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of Monday 11 December,Official Report, columns 555–56, what arrangements he made with Nicola Davies QC as regards visiting (a) local authority and (b) private homes and (c) other organisations in her inquiry; how many individuals she met and questioned during the course of the visit to a private organisation referred to in paragraph 11(ii) of her conclusions and recommendations; and if he will make a statement. [6594]

  Mr. Hague
  Miss Davies QC was asked to examine the relevant papers held by the various agencies concerned. The precise arrangements in respect of that examination were a matter for the examining team and the agencies, including the private establishment referred to in paragraph 11(ii). This was an independent investigation and the precise manner in which it was concluded was not a matter in which I or officials of my Department were involved.

  Duffryn House
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South Glamorgan training and enterprise council concerning the taking over of the Duffryn house conference centre and garden in the Vale of Glamorgan. [6537]

  Mr. Hague
  None. However, my officials are being kept informed of developments which are as yet at a very early stage. Any expenditure on this project by the TEC would require prior approval by my Department.

  Youth Training (Accidents)
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) fatal, (b) major and (c) minor accidents took place on youth training schemes in Wales in (i) July to September 1993, (ii) October to December 1993, (iii) January to March 1994, (iv) April to June 1994, (v) July to September 1994, (vi) October to December 1994, (vii) January to March 1995, (viii) April to June 1995 and (ix) July to September 1995; and what were the numbers of accidents on training for work for the same periods. [6482]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  Accidents in Wales from September 1993 to September 1995

  Fatal

  Major

  Minor

  Youth training

  July—September 1993

  0

  5

  45

  October—December 1993

  0

  4

  26

  January—March 1994

  0

  9

  29

  April—June 1994

  0

  0

  6

  July—September 1994

  0

  2

  1

  October—December 1994

  0

  12

  17

  January—March 1995

  0

  2

  11

  April—June 1995

  0

  0

  0

  July—September 1995

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Training for work

  July—September 1993

  0

  1

  8

  October—December 1993

  0

  5

  10

  January—March 1994

  0

  0

  11

  April—June 1994

  0

  1

  2

  July—September 1994

  0

  0

  1

  October—December 1994

  0

  1

  2

  January—March 1995

  0

  1

  3

  April—June 1995

  0

  0

  0

  July—September 1995

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1. Welsh Office figures for trainees have been compiled on a similar basis to those prepared by the Health and Safety Executive for employed persons. However, the Department's figures include a number of accidents to trainees in educational establishments and road traffic accidents which would not have been reportable to the Health and Safety Executive had the individual been employed.

  2. Major injuries are classified according to the severity criteria laid down in the Reporting of Injuries Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 (RIDDOR).

  3. The accident figures for the period July to September 1995 are not yet available.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those projects being considered for private finance initiative funding: and if he will give the names
  995
  of the companies in the consortia bidding for or expressing an interest in each project. [6593]

  Mr. Hague
  Projects being looked at currently, which have been announced, are as follows: M4 relief road; A465 Heads of the Valleys road; eastern bay link of the Cardiff peripheral distributor road; new general hospital at Baglan; staff residential accommodation, district general hospital, Llantrisant; day surgery unit and mental health development, Nevill hall, Abergavenny; cancer treatment centre, Glan Clwyd district general hospital, Rhyl; community hospital, Chepstow; replacement of radiotherapy equipment, Velindre; OSIRIS, office automation system for Welsh Office.

  A £6.5 million plan to build a multistorey car park and an eastbound slip road to the A48 at the University hospital of Wales, was approved by my Department last week. Information on schemes costing less than £1 million is not collected. The names of companies bidding for or expressing an interest in such projects are confidential.

  Council House Building
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much cash he has earmarked for council house building in the next financial year in each of the unitary authorities in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [6683]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  For some years, housing associations have been the main providers of new subsidised rented housing and local authorities are encouraged to work in partnership with them.

  Capital Borrowing Limits
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total capital borrowing limit for each unitary authority in Wales for 1996–97. [6985]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The amounts of unitary authorities' basic credit approvals for 1996–97, which allow borrowing for any capital purpose, are set out in the following table. In addition, authorities will receive supplementary credit approvals directed to specific programmes. Full details of these have not yet been finalised.

  Basic credit approvals 1996–97

  £000s

  Anglesey

  3,417

  caernarfonshire

  7,863

  Aberconwy and Colwyn

  5,000

  Denbighshire

  4,580

  Flintshire

  6,441

  Wrexham

  7,062

  Powys

  10,018

  Cardiganshire

  4,581

  Pembrokeshire

  6,189

  Carmarthenshire

  9,516

  Swansea

  11,559

  Neath and Port Talbot

  7,497

  Bridgend

  6,109

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  5,019

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  11,668

  Merthyr, Tydfil

  3,270

  Caerphilly

  8.984

  Blaenau Gwent

  4,125

  Torfaen

  4,930

  996

  Basic credit approvals 1996–97

  £000s

  Monmouthshire

  3,776

  Newport

  6,373

  Cardiff

  14,116

  All unitary authorities

  152,093

  Small and Medium Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the outcome of his Department's review of measures taken to facilitate small firms access to appropriate areas of Government procurement in light of best practice. [6659]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department is revising its standard tender documentation so that small and medium businesses can identify themselves as such when responding, and has forwarded updated information about contact points for the DTI booklet "Tendering for Government contracts". Written guidance to all departmental staff engaged in procurement includes material specific to the implications of buying from small and medium enterprises. In addition, these staff refer to the DTI publication "Think big, buy small", "Tendering for Government Contracts" and "Your guide to help for small firms". The name of a contact is included in all standard tender documentation.

  My Department also liaises regularly with organisations responsible for the provision of business support services. It has strategic responsibility for the business connect service, through which a variety of those organisations will deliver their services to small and medium-sized companies. Business connect is due to be launched in the new year.

  European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total estimated contribution to the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund projects in the current and the next two financial years by his Department. [6986]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The total contribution from the Welsh Office to projects receiving assistance from the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund under the objective 5b programme for rural Wales will depend on the quality of those projects and the other sources of funding available to them. However, we have set aside £1,000,000 over the next two years to he used as a source of joint financing.

SCOTLAND

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to implement the expansion of the assisted places scheme in Scotland. [7152]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 13 October 1995 that the assisted places scheme is to he doubled in size over time. I am today announcing the plans for achieving that expansion in Scotland.
  997
  At present, just over 3,000 children in Scotland benefit from the assisted places scheme. The first new places under the expansion will be created in the 1996–97 school session. Thereafter, the pace of expansion will depend largely on the parental demand and the rate at which Scottish independent schools can provide additional places for assisted pupils. This expansion will provide greater choice for parents, greater opportunity for their children, and will be warmly welcomed by parents and schools alike.

  In addition to the on-going consultation with the Scottish Council of Independent Schools, my Department is writing to independent schools to seek bids to increase the number of assisted pupils at their schools and the number of aided places at the St. Mary's music school; to invite schools to bid for day places for children below the age of 10 in integral junior departments of independent secondary schools; to invite more independent schools in Scotland to take part in the scheme; and to seek schools' views generally on how the scheme might best be expanded further over time.

  I will he looking in particular to receive bids from schools which increase the number of places for children from families with the lowest incomes and children from deprived areas who would not otherwise have the opportunity of education offered in independent schools.

  I intend to continue the present broad framework of means-tested parental contributions towards approved fees. Arrangements for means testing and fee setting are reviewed annually for the purpose of the regulations, and I shall consider any representations on these matters for the reviews in 1996 and subsequent years.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what considerations led the Lord Advocate to conclude that jurisdiction in the Lockerbie case does not extend to all countries whose nationals were lost. [5399]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has not reached any such conclusion. Criminal jurisdiction is a matter for the domestic laws of particular countries, but Scotland and the United States are the most appropriate jurisdictions for trial of the two accused, as has been recognised by the United Nations Security Council.

  Highland Health Board
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 29 November,Official Report, columns 704–5, what was the cash equivalents of the proportionate value as at 31 March on the equipment transferred to the Computing Sciences Corporation Ltd. from (a) the Highland health board and (b) all other Scottish health boards; and if he will make a statement. [5063]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  (a) The cash equivalent of the proportionate value as at 31 March 1995
  998
  the equipment transferred to the Computing Services Corporation from Highland health hoard was £120.000.

  (b) The cash equivalents and proportionate values percentage for the other NHS data centres involved. showing which health boards they serve, are as follows:

  £

  Per cent.

  Northern Computer Services serving Grampian, Orkney and Shetland Health Boards

  52,000

  2

  Maryfield Computer Services serving Tayside, Fife and Forth Valley Health Boards

  144,000

  6

  Woodburn Informatics serving Lothian Health Board

  82,000

  4

  West Coast Computer Consortium serving Argyll and Clyde, Ayrshire and Arran, Dumfries and Galloway and Western Isles Health Boards

  190,000

  8

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  31,000

  1

  Common Services Agency (CSA) serving CSA Divisions, Lothian, Borders and Lanarkshire Health Boards

  1,360,000

  59

  CSA Prescription Pricing Division

  339,000

  15

  2,318,000

  Dyslexic Prisoners
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the prison population are dyslexic; and what steps are taken to help such persons with difficulties experienced in educational or training courses undertaken. [4835]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 December 1995]: The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mrs. Maria Fyfe, dated 18 December 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question relating to dyslexia and the prison population.I am afraid that the information you seek is not collected centrally. As a learning difficulty, dyslexia is most likely to surface amongst those prisoners taking part in education programmes. but not all prisoners participate in such programmes and even those who believe that they have learning difficulties may not come forward, thereby disguising the true numbers who are dyslexic.In general. where a prisoner is identified (during induction, sentence planning or through educational or other activities) as having special educational needs, attempts will he made to meet those needs, for example, by providing tuition on a one-to-one basis or by calling in specialist support, if the prisoner is willing to cooperate. and subject to resources being available.

  Patient Charges
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was collected within each health hoard area in patient charges in each financial year since 1990–91; and if he will make a statement. [6153]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The information is set out in the table. Figures have been taken from the annual accounts of health boards and from 1992–93 a combination of annual accounts of health boards and NHS trusts.
  999

  £000

  Health board area

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Argyll and Clyde

  5,352

  5,723

  5,546

  5,595

  6,111

  Ayr and Arran

  4,883

  5,280

  4,898

  5,370

  5,375

  Borders

  1,432

  1,601

  1,697

  1,767

  1,963

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,921

  2,095

  2,054

  2,088

  1,239

  Fife

  4,206

  5,454

  4,646

  4,817

  5,535

  Forth Valley

  3,507

  3,828

  3,938

  4,075

  4,581

  Grampian

  6,743

  7,514

  8,756

  9,180

  9,941

  Greater Glasgow

  10,028

  10,779

  10,502

  11,591

  12,312

  Highland

  2,594

  3,515

  3,011

  3,345

  3,061

  Lanarkshire

  6,136

  6,568

  6,446

  6,786

  7,281

  Lothian

  10,356

  11,652

  11,684

  12,696

  14,103

  Orkney

  221

  237

  272

  304

  326

  Shetland

  257

  228

  296

  334

  343

  Tayside

  5,607

  6,008

  6,163

  6,840

  7,160

  Western Isles

  225

  243

  252

  257

  335

  Scotland total

  63,468

  70,725

  70,161

  75,045

  80,666

  Procurators Fiscal
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of business undertaken by the procurators fiscal service in each of the past five years, by location. [6040]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: As the information requested is lengthy, I shall arrange for the details to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received on the operation of the procurators fiscal service in Scotland in each financial year since 1979–90. [6038]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: This information is not available.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many procurators fiscal there are in Scotland, by location. [6037]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: There are 49 procurator fiscal districts in Scotland. In some cases a procurator fiscal has responsibility for more than one district and where this is the case the districts have been grouped together.

  Aberdeen

  Airdrie

  Alloa

  Arbroath

  Ayr

  Banff

  Campbeltown

  Cupar

  Dingwall

  Dornoch and Tain

  Dumbarton

  Dumfries

  Dundee

  Dunfermline

  Dunoon

  1000

  Duns and Jedburgh

  Edinburgh and Peebles

  Elgin

  Falkirk

  Forfar

  Fort William

  Glasgow

  Greenock and Rothesay

  Haddington

  Hamilton

  Inverness

  Kilmarnock

  Kirkcaldy

  Kirkwall and Lerwick

  Lanark

  Linlithgow

  Lochmaddy and Portree

  Oban

  Paisley

  Perth

  Peterhead

  Selkirk

  Stirling

  Stonehaven

  Stornoway

  Stranaer and Kirkcudbright

  Wick

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further changes he intends to make to the number and location of procurators fiscal in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [6039]
  1001
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: A Crown Office steering group has been carrying out a senior management review of the Crown Office and procurator fiscal service. Depending on the outcome of the review any necessary consultations will be undertaken.

  Advertising
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost of advertising by NHS trusts and health boards in each region in each financial year since 1990.[6157]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Health Board

  Level of income £000

  Percentage of total income

  Level of income £000

  Percentage of total income

  Level of income £000

  Percentage of total income

  Argyll and Clyde

  n/a

  n/a

  2

  0.00

  29

  0.02

  Ayrshire and Arran

  105

  0.24

  516

  0.30

  250

  0.14

  Borders

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Dumfries and Galloway

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  39

  0.10

  Fife

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  277

  0.17

  Forth Valley

  n/a

  n/a

  –113

  0.00

  89

  0.07

  Grampian

  642

  0.57

  773

  0.29

  862

  0.30

  Greater Glasgow

  n/a

  n/a

  854

  0.46

  1.092

  0.17

  Highland

  n/a

  n/a

  473

  0.78

  193

  0.16

  Lanarkshire

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  Lothian

  n/a

  n/a

  29

  0.05

  1,837

  0.40

  Orkney

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Shetland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Tayside

  n/a

  n/a

  181

  0.17

  336

  0.12

  Western Isles

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Totals

  747

  0.48

  2,715

  0.27

  5.004

  0.10

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many NHS trusts in Scotland have borrowed money from commercial sources and if he will list the sums involved. [6158]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 December 1995:]: Currently there are no NHS trusts borrowing on a long-term basis from commercial sources within the private sector. However some NHS trusts may require the use of overdrafts to cover very short-term working capital requirements.

  £000

  Health board area

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Argyll and Clyde

  6,290

  7,807

  9,415

  9,276

  8,918

  9,384

  Ayr and Arran

  5,311

  7,082

  8,005

  7,663

  7,453

  7,659

  Borders

  1,130

  1,362

  1,611

  1,724

  1,718

  1,853

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,675

  2,046

  2,447

  2,301

  2,070

  2,180

  Fife

  3,996

  4,803

  5,845

  5,907

  3,483

  6,329

  Forth Valley

  3,406

  4,208

  5,180

  5,354

  5,066

  5,352

  Grampian

  5,668

  6,415

  7,952

  8,104

  7,745

  8,172

  Greater Glasgow

  14,731

  18,731

  22,116

  23,483

  22,051

  23,414

  Highland

  2,435

  3,006

  3,783

  3,675

  3,483

  3,647

  Lanarkshire

  7,062

  8,653

  10,207

  9,795

  9,341

  10,128

  Lothian

  10,010

  11,503

  14,600

  15,759

  14,907

  15,723

  Orkney

  107

  87

  115

  161

  153

  244

  NHS Trusts (Income)
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level and percentage of NHS trust income in each region received from non-national health service sources in each year since 1991–92. [6159]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: Complete information on NHS trust income from non-national health service sources is not held centrally. The table details the level and percentage of total NHS trust income, by health board area, derived from non-national health service sources in respect of their main health care functions. This information has been taken from NHS trust accounts for financial years 1992–93,1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Dental Services
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the net expenditure on general dental services in each health board area in Scotland in each financial year since 1989–90; and if he will make a statement. [6154]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The information is set out in the table. Figures have been taken from the annual accounts of the 15 Scottish health boards.
  1003

  £000

  Health board area

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Shetland

  134

  205

  201

  188

  246

  275

  Tayside

  5,413

  6,636

  7,933

  8,061

  7.850

  8,085

  Western Isles

  241

  272

  344

  376

  394

  424

  Scotland total

  67,609

  82,456

  99,754

  101,827

  94,878

  103,319

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was his Department's net expenditure on administration in each financial year since 1979–80(a) in cash terms and (b) adjusted for inflation. [6160]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The Scottish Office accounts for its running costs on a gross rather than net basis. The figures for the Scottish Office, excluding Scottish Prison Service, are as follows:

  £million

  Year

  Cash

  1995–96 prices

  1995–96

  188.3

  188.3

  1994–95

  185.9

  191.0

  1993–94

  188.3

  197.1

  1992–93

  190.4

  205.1

  1991–92

  175.1

  196.3

  1990–91

  153.1

  182.4

  1989–90

  142.0

  182.7

  1988–89

  115.9

  159.5

  1987–88

  109.3

  160.5

  1986–87

  105.2

  162.7

  1985–86

  100.8

  160.6

  1984–85

  95.0

  159.7

  1983–84

  92.0

  162.4

  1982–83

  77.0

  142.2

  1981–82

  74.0

  146.4

  1980–81

  71.0

  154.1

  1979–80

  58.0

  148.9

  Figures for early years are not comparable to recent figures owing to the introduction of superannuation charges of approximately 13 per cent., which have been taken into account from 1989–90 onwards, the introduction of charges for the occupation of Government offices in 1983–84—which now amount to some £25 million—and various shifts of responsibility from UK Departments to the Scottish Office. The total effect of these changes in accounting practice have increased the figures over the period by an amount estimated in 1995–96 to be approximately £40 million per annum.

  Criminal Justice Services Fund
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was paid by way of the criminal justice services fund to organisations in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland in each of the past three years; what is the amount budgeted for this fund in 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [4631]
  1004
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The funding made available by the Scottish Office under the 100 per cent. funding arrangements for the provision of criminal justice social work services in the financial years 1993–94 to 1995–96 in Strathclyde region and Scotland is set out in the table. Allocations by the Scottish Office are not broken down below regional level, and it is therefore not possible to provide figures for Inverclyde. Allocations to new councils for the 1996–97 financial year have not yet been made.

  Allocation

  Year

  Strathclyde £

  Scotland £

  1993–94

  10,040,122

  25,122,495

  1994–95

  12,209,262

  27,606,816

  1995–96

  12,031,200

  28,969,400

  Dry Stone Walls
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals his Department or its agencies have to institute a national survey of the state of repair of dry stone walls in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [3793]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: I have no proposals to institute such a survey. I am aware from other correspondence on this subject that the Dry Stone Walling Association has indicated to its members that it has asked Scottish Natural Heritage to undertake a national survey. However, Scottish Natural Heritage has no record of any approach from the association.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the funds paid through(a) farming capital grant schemes and (b) agri-environment schemes for the purpose of restoration and repair of dry stone walls in Scotland in each of the last three financial years. [3797]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: The information is as follows:

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Capital grant schemes

  353,557

  356,762

  187,485

  Agri-environment scheme (environmentally sensitive areas scheme)

  389,293

  348,387

  264,278

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

The Post Office: External Finance Limit
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Post Office must remit £925 million to HM Treasury during the next three years, having previously agreed£534 million.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the £534 million to which the noble Lord refers is based on figures which are used for forward planning purposes and which are renewed each year in the public expenditure survey. The cash targets which the Post Office has now been set reflect an appropriate balance between the needs of the business and its ability to contribute to public finances.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on 11th May 1995 the President of the Board of Trade said in another place:
"I am prepared to agree that in future we shall aim to set the EFL at about half the Post Office's forecast post-tax profit. I hope to make progress in that direction this autumn"—[Official Report, Commons, 11/5/95; col. 885.]
Perhaps I should explain what the EFL is to those noble Lords who, like me, do not know what it means. It means external finance limit, which is Whitehall jargon for how much money the Post Office pays over. Does the Minister agree that the Post Office was justified in accepting this statement for budgeting and planning purposes; otherwise, why would the Minister have made that statement? Can the Minister explain why, between May and November 1995, the Government have raised their demand for cash from the Post Office from about half to virtually all of its post-tax profit?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, of course I am aware of the statement made by the previous President of the Board of Trade last May. The position is quite simply that, following on what was undoubtedly a difficult public expenditure round, no public body can be immune from the pressures on public finances. We had to balance the needs of the organisation with those of the public purse. The Post Office did extremely well last year with record profits of about£472 million. We take the view that it will be able to accommodate this additional call on what it has secured in profit.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend say whether or not the rumour is correct that it is the intention of the Post Office to raise the cost of postage stamps?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I understand it, having had imposed on it a strictly negative external finance limit, the Post Office has indicated that it will
1400
want to look at a number of ways in which it can raise the money that it has to pay over. That will not be secured entirely by an increase in prices. It will be open to the Post Office to see what efficiencies it can achieve and what adjustments it can make to capital spending. That is certainly the public position which the Post Office has adopted.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, putting it crudely, is it not right that the Post Office is being required to increase the cost of postage stamps not because of its inefficiency, but merely in order to balance whatever the Treasury requires in order to permit the Chancellor to make tax reductions at some later stage?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords., as I indicated at the outset, we need to balance the needs of the organisation with those of the public purse. It was a difficult financial round and we do not shrink from that: there has never been any attempt to do so. The decision has not yet been taken to raise the cost of stamps, but it is necessary to reflect that the current freeze on stamp prices, which expires at the very earliest in March next year, will have been the longest period of stability in stamp prices since the late 1960s. Given the level of profit that the Post Office secured last year, it seems to the Government that the Post Office is well enough positioned to ensure that the high level of efficiency it has achieved can be secured in the future.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, if it seems to the Government that the Post Office is well enough provided with money for investment in the business, can the Minister give the Post Office's view? Does it agree with the Government's view?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I believe that the Post Office's attitude is fairly well known. Of course it would rather not pay over any money. It would make life very much easier for the Post Office if it had the totality of its profits to expend. However, it is reasonable enough, as others do, to contribute to the public purse. The Post Office has indicated that there are a number of ways in which it will achieve that figure. Some of it may be achieved by efficiency savings and there may be an adjustment a its capital programmes.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not the case that what the Government are prevented from privatising they then pillage?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, my Lords, the Post Office has been required to pay over an additional sum next year and I believe that to be entirely appropriate. If it is being suggested that the Post Office should not have been required to do that and that other arrangements should have been made to secure the needs of the public purse, I should like to hear what they are. I understand that in another place the Opposition did not dispute the idea that we should take 1p off income tax.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that there is grave disquiet throughout the country at the resiting of post offices? For instance, in two towns near me, one post office is

1401
now situated at the back of a haberdasher's and the other at the back of a grocer's shop, making it very difficult for elderly people, and pensioners in particular, to go to the post office.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am, of course, aware that there have been a number of relocations of post offices throughout the country. However, I cannot see that any of those relocations, or the desirability or otherwise of them, is affected by the decision that formed part of the Budget. Although the noble Baroness indicates that she considers that in a number of cases such relocations have disadvantaged old age pensioners, there are other circumstances and other locations in which such changes have been widely welcomed as a significant improvement for such people.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, bearing in mind that we on these Benches opposed the cut in income tax, may I remind the Minister that there are other ways of raising public finances?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not think that I mentioned the party of the noble Baroness.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend as confused as I am as to why the Opposition complain about what is obviously a windfall tax?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my noble friend makes the point more elegantly than I could.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I did not realise that it was a windfall tax. Do we assume, therefore, that it will not be imposed again next year and that the Post Office will be allowed to keep future surpluses? If you believe that, you will believe anything. I also did not realise that the Government had admitted that this was part of the package which led to the cut of 1p in income tax. I thought that the Government had taken the view that these matters had nothing to do with each other, so I was interested to hear what the Minister said.
However, my main question is this: if the Post Office is such a marvellous milch cow—a £1 billion contribution to the Exchequer is quite a large sum of money—may I take it that we can forget about the desire of the previous President of the Board of Trade to privatise the Post Office because it is obviously much better to keep it in the public sector, to pull out those monopoly profits and to use them for tax cuts? Is that now the Government's policy?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord asked first whether this arrangement applies only to next year. The answer is no. I think that the noble Lord will be aware from the statement that has been made that the targets are set not for one year, but always for three years. Those targets are £298 million, £317 million and £310 million over the next three years. I would not adopt the language which the noble Lord is prepared to use in describing the Post Office as a "milch cow". It has made significant profits and
1402
is an extremely efficient organisation. On that basis, it is only reasonable that it should make a significant contribution to the totality of public expenditure.

Legal Aid
2.46 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Who has authority to grant legal aid.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, decisions on the grant of civil legal aid are made by the Legal Aid Board. In criminal cases, the decision is taken by the court hearing the case but can be reviewed by the board where the court has refused legal aid on interests of justice grounds.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the great increase in the cost of legal aid over recent years, would it not be a good thing to restrict the number of people who are entitled to authorise it?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, some time ago I put out to consultation a Green Paper containing new proposals for legal aid among which are proposals about who might grant legal aid. The object would be to ensure that the amount predetermined as the amount to be spent on legal aid was satisfactorily related to the amount actually spent and to have regard to the interests of justice in terms of accessibility for those who would be entitled to legal aid.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, do lawyers have any responsibility to inform their clients if they feel they should have legal aid or to inform them how to go about getting it? Many people never hear of legal aid or how to get it until they find themselves in a difficult situation.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, lawyers have the responsibility to advise their clients on all the circumstances which may be relevant to their particular situation. Although this may not exactly arise out of the noble Lord's question, I should add that lawyers have a responsibility to inform the legal aid authorities if the case moves against their client in a way that is relevant as to whether legal aid should be continued. Lawyers have wide responsibilities in relation to legal aid.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not the suggestion that few people know about legal aid completely contradicted by the very substantial increase in the number of people actually drawing it?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, some 3.4 million people annually are beneficiaries of legal aid, which suggests at least that knowledge of legal aid is fairly widespread. There may be pockets of people who are ignorant of the possibilities, but I think such pockets are very isolated and rather small.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord satisfied with the number and the stringency of the checks currently carried out on

1403
statements of means made by those who apply for legal aid? If he is not, what steps does he propose to take, and when, to ensure that people with the means to pay do not abuse the system at the expense of those who are currently falling through the net and therefore being denied access to justice?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, so far as concerns civil legal aid, the means assessments are done by the Benefits Agency. The detail of what it does in particular cases is something about which I cannot know in view of the confidentiality provisions. In criminal legal aid, the assessment is done by the court. We have had some problems over the years because of the difficulty experienced by those responsible in the courts in examining fully what is required in the way of support for the means statements of applicants for criminal legal aid. Some illustrations we have had recently of those with complicated financial affairs suggest that it would be wise to have a special unit with specialist knowledge and expertise available to try to unravel more fully than is possible at the moment the affairs of such people. As a result of the consultation carried out earlier on legal aid for the apparently wealthy, I have decided to introduce such a unit. I am advancing plans for it as speedily as I can.

Exhibition Space: Millennium Exhibition
2.51 p.m.
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the United Kingdom's future requirement for permanent exhibition space will be taken into account by the Millennium Commission when considering a site for the Millennium Exhibition.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, I understand that the long-term benefits generated by the Millennium Exhibition will be considered by the commission in its assessment of applications for grant towards the costs of the exhibition. If these benefits include the provision of permanent exhibition space, the Millennium Commission will take that into account.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that additional exhibition space would greatly enhance our exporting prospects; and that by having no facility in the UK of 200,000 square metres a real advantage is handed to France and Germany?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, there are those who feel that the country's prospects would be enhanced by having additional exhibition space. However, views vary as to where that space should be or whether it should be free-standing or built in conjunction with conference centre and hotel accommodation.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I declare a directorship of an Andry Montgomery company which has interests in using exhibition space but not in owning it. Does my noble friend realise that there are in Europe no fewer
1404
than eight exhibition centres bigger than the NEC at Birmingham; that the one at Hanover, which is the biggest, could accommodate the whole of the NEC twice over and still have room comfortably to accommodate Olympia, Earls Court and the Scottish Exhibition Centre; and that that represents a considerable competition handicap for UK plc? Does he agree that what is now urgently needed is comparable provision in this capital city of London which would attract immense benefit to it?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, any such project which would be of benefit to London and the country is obviously to be greatly welcomed. But inherent in my noble friend's question are some of the problems which would face anyone bringing forward such a project. The devil lies in the detail with such ideas.
Lord Donoghue: My Lords, I trust that the main consideration in choosing the site would be access for the whole nation. However, while on the question of the lottery, have the Government—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, we are not on the lottery.
Lord Donoghue: My Lords, the millennium is linked directly to the lottery. If noble Lords were to look up the legislation they would find that to be so. Have the Government any Statement to make on any decision they may have made on the position of the regulator of the National Lottery? Whether they have or not—whoever holds that position—will the Minister assure the House that they will firmly inform the regulator that the main purposes of the lottery were to benefit prize winners and good causes and not the fat cats of Camelot?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, that is wholly out of order.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord's question, if not entirely out of order, is very close to being so. My department has received a preliminary report from Mr. Davis. Officials have discussed it with him this morning. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State needs carefully to consider the issues raised. She does not intend to take precipitate action. It would be inappropriate and unfair to say more on the matter today. She will report to the House in due course.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is it intended to have just one Millennium Exhibition Centre, or could there be more than one? Will the Minister consider that it might be desirable, quite apart from establishing a new exhibition centre, to build on a successful on-going centre such as Birmingham which was mentioned a moment ago? I understand that it has space for expansion. In view of the facilities that it has, it would be a good idea for that to be extended as well as developing some new centre.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, decisions about the Millennium Exhibition are for the Millennium Commission. It is intended that there will be a wider millennium festival which will be focused on the exhibition itself.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in relation to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Elton, does my noble

1405
friend agree that those who wish to export British goods would do far better to exhibit at Hanover or other continental centres rather than to ask prospective buyers to travel to Birmingham or elsewhere in the UK?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point because it depends upon who attends the exhibitions, whether they be in Birmingham, Hanover or on the other side of the Atlantic.
Lord Elton: My Lords, would my noble friend find it reasonable to remind my noble friend Lord Beloff that people who attend exhibitions of the scale about which we are talking number in their tens of thousands and come from all over the world particularly to see British goods?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to be able to say to my noble friend that I am delighted to be able to reply to him and to my noble friend that my noble friend is absolutely right.

Podiatry: Relocation of School
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear asked Her Majesty's Government:
Following the answers given by Baroness Cumberlege on 5th December 1994 (H.L. Deb vol. 559, 789–790), whether negotiations have been held to relocate the London Foot Hospital and School of Podiatric Medicine, and what steps have been taken to preserve it as a centre of excellence in the teaching of podiatry.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in so asking, I declare an interest as the president of the Institute of Podiatry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, discussions are continuing. National Health Service managers aim to improve the educational position and remedy the poor accommodation of the London Foot Hospital, while maintaining its high quality services for patients.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I must say that I do not find it very informative. Can we rely upon the fact that the Government realise that it is important to keep the links with University College, which provides theoretical training and is close to the existing foot hospital; that it is essential for the proper training of podiatrists that they should have the best possible mix of theoretical and practical training; and that it is also essential to keep the highly specialist staff together there rather than have them dispersed throughout the country?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes. I always find the noble Baroness a doughty debater. I should like to
1406
say that even more so since I understand that she is this year's joint winner of the Spectator special parliamentarian of the year award. I congratulate her.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I congratulate also my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who I understand shares the award. The answer is yes.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am tempted to say that I do not think that the answer has anything to do with the question.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, to keeping close links with University College London; yes, to trying to keep the staff together; and yes, to trying to keep the standards as high as they are now.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the Minister very much. That is a much better answer.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the word "podiatrist" becoming commonly used in this country? We have normally called people chiropodists. In Australia everyone is now a podiatrist. Is this new terminology widely in use here?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I understand that it is widely in use here, except for my late father-in-law who insisted on calling his chiropodist his corn merchant.

Police Bill [H.L.]
3 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Police Act 1964, Part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Chapter I of Part I of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 and certain other enactments relating to the police. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Arbitration Bill [H.L.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to restate and improve the law relating to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement; to make other provision relating to arbitration and arbitration awards; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Amendment Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, during the past couple of weeks I have been sorely tempted to move a procedural Motion to prevent the House moving itself into a Committee on the Bill. The way in which the House and Parliament have been treated as regards the introduction and first debates on the Bill is quite deplorable. The Bill was printed long before it was ready and before the supporting material necessary for proper debate in your Lordships' House was made available.
I shall deal first with the issue of whether the Bill was ready to be printed. On Second Reading the Minister said that there were three subjects on which the Bill needed to be amended. She properly gave notice that she would be proposing amendments on those three subjects. We now have almost 100 government amendments at the Committee stage of the Bill in the first Chamber. We are used to government departments consulting and producing amendments late in the proceedings of a Bill. We know that that happens and that sometimes there is good reason for it. However, for a Bill to be introduced and printed when almost 100 government amendments are needed immediately following Second Reading is not acceptable.
I deal secondly with the code of practice. On Second Reading many noble Lords, not only from these Benches and the Liberal Democrat Benches but from the Government Benches—the noble Lords, Lord Renton, Lord Alexander of Weedon and Lord Campbell of Alloway—and from the Cross-Benches the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, said that without the code of practice, which is the basis of Part II, it would not be possible to have a sensible debate on Part II. Of course, Part II, which deals with the initial preparation of the disclosure of material by the police and its disclosure to the prosecution, affects Part I, which depends on information that has not already been disclosed.
We wrote immediately to the Government Chief Whip and made it clear that in our view the code of practice should be made available in very good time before the Committee stage. Despite all the Minister's best efforts—I am sure that she used her best efforts and that the same is true of the Government Chief Whip—we received on Wednesday 13th December a document dated llth December which is the code of practice. That is quite inadequate to enable us to put down
1408
amendments to Part II, and therefore to Part I, and the major controversial matters on which the Bill is based. Already our debates on Parts I and II are less effective because we have not been given the material.
I return to the government amendments, which virtually rewrite large parts of the Bill from Part III onwards. We had prepared a number of amendments to those parts of the Bill. They have had to be torn up and thrown away, the Government having written in a large number of new clauses and a complete new schedule, presenting not a fixed target, which we could effectively address, but a moving target. That is not good enough.
Tomorrow we shall debate the code of practice. We have taken the initiative of making it available to your Lordships by writing it into the Marshalled List as a new schedule. However, that code of practice conflicts in a dozen, 20 or 30 places with the text of the Bill in Part II. Whereas the Bill in Part II is acceptable in many ways, the code of practice is much more vague and is not acceptable. In other words, as regards every part of the Bill, proper debate in your Lordships' House has been inhibited by the inefficiency of the Home Office and its unwillingness to delay printing and presenting it to Parliament until it was ready to do so properly. That is not satisfactory. We need at the very least pro found apologies from the Government.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, on behalf of Members on these Benches, I strongly support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. In some 25 years of parliamentary life I can remember no occasion on which a Bill that was not urgent has come forward so ill prepared and carelessly drafted. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, described the events of last week when the Government tabled 102 amendments in a single day. The Minister kindly sent to me copies of the letter which she wrote to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as she had on the previous day when the code of practice became available. However, we are dealing not only with the convenience of this place but, as regards a Bill of this kind, the legitimate interests of outside organisations.
The Bill is not substantially controversial as between the political parties. I wish that we had a procedure by which such a Bill could be considered at leisure upstairs when outside organisations could make their representations. If for whatever reason that were not possible, this House should have been given a full opportunity to consider the amendments, to hear what the Minister had to say about them and to consult widely.
The truth is that the Bill has been rushed forward in a most extraordinary way. The disclosure consultation document was published in May and consultation continued until the end of July, which was entirely proper. However, those Members of your Lordships' House, and there are many, who have experienced these things, know that if consultation is completed at the end of July there must be interdepartmental discussions and decisions by Ministers before the Bill goes for drafting. On that timetable the Bill should not have received its Second Reading three weeks ago but should have been in the pipeline for Second Reading early in 1996.

1409
If for whatever reason the Government believed that the Bill should come forward earlier there was a simple solution which would have avoided many problems. If we were having the Second Reading today the Minister and her department would have had three weeks in which to bring forward the amendments incorporated in the delayed Bill. Then we would have proceeded to the Committee stage immediately after the Christmas Recess. The Government would have lost at most two days of parliamentary time, which could have been filled with other business. They could easily have restored the timetable of the Bill.
This is a deplorable proceeding. I wish only that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had chosen, with our full support, to endeavour to prevent the Committee stage taking place today.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the rights of the House include the rights of Back-Benchers, and for the purposes of this Bill I speak as a Back-Bencher. I appreciate that the Minister has taken great trouble to make the code of practice available to those principally interested. When I arrived here today I understood that no code of practice had been made available. At lunch-time I discovered that it had been made available but that there were no copies in the Printed Paper Office. There was no copy in the Library. A copy was found for me but I have not discovered from where. It was made available to me after the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, had begun to speak. That is not sufficient time to judge the questions which that code of practice raises. Those questions are all the wider because of the very general and permissive way in which Clauses 6 to 19 are drafted.
Over and over again, those clauses repeat that the code of practice "may". In the time since the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, rose, I have been quite unable to establish whether the code of practice in fact "does". But those questions are of considerable importance as regards which amendments need to be tabled to the Bill. Those clauses savour of what I have christened the Cambyses clause, which says that the Secretary of State may, like King Cambyses of Persia, do whatever he likes. In those circumstances, the House deserves a proper opportunity to consider what was in the code of practice. I appreciate that the noble Baroness has done what she can about this, but for my part I am sorry to say that it is not enough.
Viscount Runciman of Doxford: My Lords, having heard what I have just heard, I feel bound to echo the concerns voiced by other noble Lords about the position with which we are confronted. I do so on the basis of having been extremely grateful to Ministers for the extent to which the recommendations of the Royal Commission bear directly on what we shall discuss this afternoon. Those matters should be given ample time for consideration and debate. It seems to me a great shame that this situation has arisen. At this stage, time is still necessary in order for this House to do what it does best; namely, to propose and discuss amendments which, in some important cases, I hope the Minister will consider seriously. Those amendments seek to achieve not only
1410
the objectives of the Royal Commission but also the Government's own legislation in the form in which it was debated in this Chamber on Second Reading.
I agree that it is deplorable that the opportunity for informed debate on some important issues should be foreshortened in the way that it appears, from what I have heard today, is likely to happen.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as my name has been mentioned, perhaps I may say that but for the good offices of the Government Chief Whip and the Minister we should not be in the position in which we are today even to be able to debate these issues.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I believe that the House would wish to have a reply from the Leader of the House. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that this is not a matter only for those on the Front Benches or those who are directly involved with the Bill. Sooner or later, as it is a Committee stage, the ordinary Back-Benchers may be called upon to participate in a Division.
I have listened extremely carefully to what is being said. I believe that this is a unique occasion because there is major unease in nearly every quarter of the House as to whether, in the interests both of the House and the legislation with which we are involved, we should proceed today.
I know that it is very difficult for the Leader of the House to say, "We will lose a day in Committee". It may well be that a whole day would not be lost if he were to meet the anxieties expressed by my noble friend on the Front Bench. This Bill is particular to this House. I do not believe that the other place, with all our respect for it, will be able to look at all the detail of the legislation which is now proposed. I am not talking in terms of the policy and what is behind it, but I listened to the Second Reading debate and anxiety was expressed as to the way in which the policy was to be implemented and the way in which it would affect those who had to implement it.
This is not party politics at all, but there is a sense of unease. Perhaps the Leader of the House would think it right to allow 10 minutes for consultation to see whether it would be possible to resolve and overcome the problems that have been mentioned. If that cannot be done, I should be one of the first to support my noble friend in the Division Lobby on the Motion before the House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, without reservation, I apologise to the House for what has been a difficult timetable. I should say also that on Second Reading I made absolutely no secret of the outstanding issues which would need to be addressed by amendment in Committee. There are no subjects which were not trailed on the Second Reading which arise for consideration now. Much has been made of the number of amendments but many of the amendments deal with one single point but are relevant to many different parts of the Bill. Therefore, many of the amendments are repetitious and deal with a single issue. That accounts for the number of amendments.

1411
At every opportunity since Second Reading until today, I have written to noble Lords with an update of the situation reached. I have copied the information to all interested Peers on all sides of the House. On every occasion I have made sure that a copy of what I have written has been placed in the Library to be available to all Members of the House. Therefore, I am perplexed by the matter raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, because my understanding is that a copy of the code of practice and the covering letter that was sent with it were placed in the Library of the House.
Having said that, and having admitted the difficulties that they impose on noble Lords, I have noticed no reticence on the part of noble Lords in coming forward with amendments. I did not see the amendments until Sunday evening when they were sent to me for consideration. Therefore, I too have burnt a good deal of midnight oil in considering the amendments, and there are a great number of them. We are about to begin the detailed Committee stage, when all the detail will be considered, as will both government and opposition amendments. There will then be a Report stage which 'will allow further opportunity for discussion.
It is not unprecedented that a code of practice does not accompany a Bill when it is first published. The code of practice will continue to change. It is not at all a definitive code of practice. It continues to be subject to consultation and to change as a result of debates in this House and what is said at all stages of the Bill. Even after that, the Bill is still a draft as it goes out in its definitive stage before it is approved by the House. I hope that the House will feel that we can now proceed with this Bill in Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, and if the House will allow me, she will know that I did not accuse her of any personal discourtesy and I thanked the Minister and the Chief Whip for their efforts to retrieve the situation. But that does not improve matters. It is still the case that it is the Government and the department who were responsible for the unsatisfactory situation in which we find ourselves.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will acknowledge also that we have made every effort to give her as much advance notice as possible of our amendments. The amendments which the Minister received only on Sunday afternoon were faxed to her office well before four o'clock on Friday afternoon. It is not our fault that it took 48 hours for the amendments to reach her.
If the Minister, the officials concerned, other Members of the House and I have to work over the weekend in that rushed way, that confirms and reinforces my view that the procedures and preparation are inadequate. It cannot be good for the House to have to work in that way. How much worse is it for the Minister to have to work in that way?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may make two further points. First, the Bill has been in print. As I said, I trailed all the issues that would arise by amendment on Second Reading. Secondly, since I have appeared as a Front Bench spokesman on this side of the House, I have seldom seen amendments coming
1412
from the other side until something like a day or two before the next stage of a Bill. Indeed, it is not unusual for noble Lords to place amendments very late in the day and for me to have to do last minute work; that also applies to my colleagues on these Benches.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly join the debate. The House will have heard my noble friend Lady Blatch apologise unreservedly for the way that the matter has been brought to the attention of the House. I entirely agree with her; it is regrettable when occasionally such issues arise. However, as regards the rest of the debate on the Bill as it goes through the House, I hope that noble Lords will feel that they can put the matter behind them and carry on dealing with the amendments in a constructive manner.
It may also be helpful to your Lordships if I announce that, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the outcome of the Madrid Summit.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITIEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Application of this Part]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("applies") to end of line 20 and insert ("to any offence in respect of which a person charged has not already indicated an intention to plead guilty").
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment I should like, with the leave of the Committee, to speak also to Amendments Nos. 14, 19, 29, 61, 62 and 130. The amendments are designed—which I believe the Committee will find throughout the Bill—to help the Government to produce a sensible, rational and workable procedure for disclosure, rather than being wrecking or damaging.
We made it clear on Second Reading that we support the principle of the Bill and our concern is to ensure that it works properly. This is the classic case where inadequate thought has forced the department and the Government to propose something which is simply unworkable. The Bill proposes that there should be primary disclosure by the prosecution—we shall deal in later amendments with what that primary disclosure should be—only when the accused has pleaded not guilty to the charge or when the matter has been referred to the Crown Court. That is madness. If the defence is not going to receive the information from the prosecution as to the nature of the case until a plea of not guilty has been made, any solicitor in his right mind will advise his client to plead not guilty in order to get hold of the material.
Let us not forget that the Bill covers not only major cases in the Crown Court and major miscarriages of justice (which prompted the setting up of the Royal Commission in the first place) but also every single small case appearing before magistrates. It is a Bill which is about riding a bicycle without a light; indeed, it is a Bill which is about almost everything except tiny

1413
traffic cases which are dealt with outside the court. At present in nearly all of those cases the accused goes to the magistrates' court knowing what the charge is but hearing for the first time on that occasion the case against him and acting accordingly. In other words, the matter can very often—indeed, normally—be dispatched rapidly.
However, where the defendant has a solicitor or is smart enough himself he will say, "In normal circumstances I would let it go; I would assume that they had enough to convict me. I know what is in their case and, therefore, I shall leave it alone and let the normal procedures take place". But now, under the proposed procedures, the solicitor or the accused may say, "I don't know. It may be worth while pleading not guilty to see whether they have enough evidence". That is what he will do and the courts will be clogged up with all the minor cases which could have been disposed of in the speedy and effective way that they are now dealt with.
I can assure the Committee that we are trying to help the Government. We are trying to make it a workable Bill. The Minister said on Second Reading that the prosecution might be unable to prepare its evidence for disclosure at an earlier stage than that envisaged in the Bill. But, now we have seen the code of practice, we see from that document that once the investigation is over the police will be obliged to prepare a detailed schedule of evidence for the prosecutor and pass on material which supports or appears to undermine the prosecution case. Therefore, we now know from the code of practice what we did not know on Second Reading; namely, that the information will actually be there. It will have been produced to the prosecutor almost as soon as the investigation is over.
I turn now to Clause 34 which provides for the accused in either-way cases to indicate a plea in advance. The idea, very sensibly, is to make savings in preparation work which would be unnecessary if the accused were going to plead guilty. But the fact that the information will not be available from the prosecution until a plea of guilty has been entered means that Clause 34 will not work properly. Indeed, Clause 34 could actually be extremely effective if it were not for the Bill's provisions as presently drafted.
There is no good reason why that information which we now know will be available should not be passed on to the defence straight away, without waiting for a plea of not guilty. I urge the Government in their own interests to accept at least the principle of the amendments. They may be complex, but I am sure that they are right. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The principle of the noble Lord's speech and of the amendment warrants serious consideration with reference to the code of practice and Clause 34 for the reasons that he gave. I only ask that that consideration may perhaps be given.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendments offer an alternative description of the circumstances in which Part I of the Bill is to apply. Instead of describing the circumstances with reference to the classification of the offence and the mode of trial, Amendment No. 1 would
1414
apply Part I to all cases where the accused has not indicated an intention to plead guilty. As I understand it, Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are purely consequential on Amendment No. 1.
However, Amendments Nos. 14 and 130 would effect a serious change of substance. So far as concerns offences which are triable either way, the amendments between them would require the prosecutor to make primary prosecution disclosure, and to give the accused the schedule of non-sensitive material, in a period of time which begins when the accused is charged and ends when the mode of trial decision is taken under Clause 34 of the Bill. This means that a schedule would have to be prepared, and the prosecutor would have to consider what material needed to be disclosed and disclose it in all these cases whether or not the accused intended to plead not guilty. Either way, in cases where the accused intends to plead guilty, disclosure is not needed. That is why the Bill does not require primary prosecution disclosure under Clause 1(1) until a not guilty plea has been indicated and the court proceeds to summary trial. The amendments would place a heavy and completely unnecessary burden on the prosecutor.
Members of the Committee opposite have argued that the accused needs to know what the prosecutor thinks might undermine the prosecution case before he decides whether to plead guilty or not guilty, and that in the absence of prosecution disclosure he will simply plead not guilty to see what turns up. I disagree. The accused will have received advance information under the Magistrates' Courts (Advance Information) Rules 1985, consisting of either copies of the statements of proposed prosecution witnesses or a summary of the facts and matters of which the prosecutor proposes to adduce evidence in the proceedings. That is designed to enable him to make an informed decision about mode of trial. He does not therefore also need to know what might undermine the prosecution case to determine whether he should plead not guilty and whether he should elect Crown Court trial.
I must also point out that Amendment No. 14 will fall if the Committee accepts the separate government amendment replacing Clause 3(8) and (9), which is Amendment No. 13 and which will be moved first. Although it may make no difference in practice, the amendments would also make a substantive change to Clause 14. They abolish most of the common law rules on disclosure, effective immediately before Part I is brought into force, from the moment a person is charged with an offence (rather than from when he pleads not guilty at a summary trial) or the proceedings are transferred to the Crown Court. For those reasons I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am disappointed, and the Committee will be disappointed, that the Minister has chosen to look at drafting considerations in later amendments rather than address the thrust of the most important amendment, which is Amendment No. 1. No attention whatever was paid in the Minister's reply to what I said about the process in a magistrates' court.

1415
There was no acknowledgement that if a full statement is available only after a plea of not guilty, a solicitor or an intelligent defendant is going to plead not guilty in order to obtain the statement of evidence, at the very least on the basis that the evidence may be incomplete in some way or may provide further support to a defence case. The Government, in rejecting these amendments in effect out of hand, are doing enormous damage to the practical effects of the. Bill and the chance of it working properly.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have been accused of not referring at all to that particular point. In fact I did refer to it. said that the accused will have received advance information under the Magistrates' Courts (Advance Information) Rules 1985, consisting of either copies of the statements of proposed prosecution witnesses or a summary of the facts and matters of which the prosecutor proposes to adduce evidence in the proceedings. That is designed to enable the accused to decide how to plead.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is a considerable difference between information which is made available under rules which can be changed without parliamentary approval and a new wholly statutory provision—as there is in Part I—for primary disclosure by the prosecution. The opportunity should have been taken, following the report and the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and indeed following the consultation which took place on the publication of the consultation paper, to make sure that the facilities which are available to the defence under the principle of equality of arms should be made available by statute, as elsewhere in the Bill. The Minister's reply is not satisfactory; it is a self-contradictory response. I shall have to seek the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 1.
Viscount Runciman of Doxford: I am, I fear, doubly disadvantaged—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I said I would have to seek the opinion of the Committee but I have not actually done so.
Viscount Runciman of Doxford: I am grateful to be spared an impending embarrassment. I must confess I am particularly disadvantaged because I did not see the amendments until the middle of this morning. I was not prepared to cancel my appearance at the Christmas head office lunch of a substantial multinational conglomerate which I chair in order to do some last minute homework which I think would have been inadequate in any case. Therefore I make my two points tentatively but I feel bound to make them.
My first point is one of principle. It would be disturbing if the effect of the Bill were that a person accused of a serious offence—I am particularly concerned with Crown Court offences—was expected to decide on plea before being fully informed of the nature of the offence. Surely that cannot be right. I
1416
should be grateful for some assurance from the Minister that that will not be the unintended consequence of a refusal to accept the amendment or a similar one.
The other point is the practical one. l endorse what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh said. Within the Royal Commission we found that it was not merely helpful but essential, on these recommendations and others, to consult widely and as far as possible among experienced practitioners, asking about the effect upon the defence and its ability to look after, as it should, the interests of clients if there were to be change along the lines proposed. We recognise that duty to the client will—as up to a point it should—require defence solicitors and counsel to do whatever they can to avert the possibility of their client being prematurely pressed into disclosing his or her hand or proceeding in such a way as might undermine a legitimate defence at a later stage. In purely practical terms the criticism which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has made of the Bill is a disturbing one. I do not feel entirely satisfied with the Minister's response.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: There are some practical problems. I shall speak briefly. I hope that we shall not have to divide at this stage on this amendment which involves an important question of principle which ought to be considered carefully. I hope that my noble friend the Minister may without commitment be able to say that she will at least meet, discuss and consider the practical implications. If she were to do so without commitment, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, might not take the opinion of the House.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord decides what to do about this matter, I wish to answer the question posed by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman. It will not be a consequence of the Bill that a person has to decide plea without information on the case against him. It is only unused material that will be disclosable after plea.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is persuasive as always but he does not seem to realise that it is on issues of principle that we take the opinion of the Committee. That is exactly why we have the voting system in this Chamber. Whether there is subsequent consultation on the practicalities of the Bill is a matter for the Government and for those of us in the Chamber who are concerned with the issues. I can assure the noble Lord that, if I take the opinion of the Committee, whatever that opinion may be if there is any advantage in further consultation and discussion with the Government I shall seek that further discussion and consultation, as I always do. I am quite sure that the response from this Minister will be, as it always is, one of complete co-operation.
The issue has not been resolved by the answer given either to me or by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman. As a result of the further exchange I am confirmed in my view that I should take the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 1.
3.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 118.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Ilchester, E.

Addington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Airedale, L.

Jeger, B.

Annan, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Attlee, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Avebury, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bancroft, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Barnett, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McNair, L.

Berkeley, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Blackstone, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Blease, L.

Marsh, L.

Brain, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Molloy, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Nelson, E.

Dahrendorf, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Ogrnore, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Peston, L.

Desai, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Richard, L

Donoughue, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Geraint, L.

Sandwich, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Serota, B.

Greenway, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Grey, E.

Shepherd, L.

Hanworth, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hams of Greenwich, L.

Stallard, L.

Haskel, L.

Stedman, B.

Hayter, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

White, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Addison, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ailsa, M.

Burnham, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Butterworth, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cadman, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Barber, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Beloff, L.

Carnock, L.

Blaker, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Blatch, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Blyth, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Boardman, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Borthwick, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Courtown, E.

1418

Cox, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cuckney, L.

Manton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mersey, V.

De Freyne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Moyne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Munster, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elles, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Elton, L.

Newall, L.

Faithfull, B.

Norrie, L.

Flather, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Forbes, L.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gainford, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Geddes, L.

Pender, L.

Gisborough, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Goschen, V.

Prentice, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Reay, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Renwick, L.

Henley, L.

Romney, E.

Holderness, L.

St. Davids, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Inglewood, L.

Seccombe, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Selborne, E.

Kimball, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Knollys, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Lauderdale, E

Strathcarron, L.

Leigh, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Swansea, L.

Liverpool, E.

Swinfen, L

Long, V.

Terrington, L.

Lucas, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

McConnell, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wolfson, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Wynford, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Council, Madrid
3.48 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the Madrid European Council. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I shall make a Statement on the meeting of the European Council at Madrid which I attended with my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have placed the conclusions of the Council in the Library.
"I shall deal first with economic and monetary union and then with enlargement. The decisions

1419
which the European Union must take on these two issues over the next few years could be the most crucial steps for Europe since the European Community was founded. They will have a profound effect on the political and economic stability of our continent over the next generation.
"On economic and monetary union the Madrid Council decided on a name for a single European currency. "Euro" was not a name which attracted enthusiasm around the Council table. It will not ease the task of those seeking to market the idea of a single currency, but one or more of the member states had objections to each of the other names suggested.
"A more fundamental decision was to study the implications of seeking to introduce a single currency in 1999. As the House knows, I have for a long time argued that the introduction of a single currency by a small number of states would raise very serious questions about its economic consequences and about the way Europe functions.
"At the informal meeting at Mallorca in September there was general agreement that these questions needed to be examined carefully. At Madrid a study was formally commissioned.
"The Maastricht Treaty lays down strict criteria for entry to a single currency. It is now certain that on a proper interpretation of the criteria only a small number of member states will meet the criteria if a single currency is introduced in January 1999.
"Before taking such a step, the European Union needs to examine what it would mean in practice. It must consider its effect on the states outside the single currency area as well as those inside it. It must consider how decisions would be taken. It must ask whether the result would be divergence rather than convergence of European economies. It must consider the potential effects on employment and the demand for resource transfers.
"The risk of monetary instability is one of the questions to be examined. Some have argued for rigid linkages between those inside and those outside a single currency by reverting to an old-style exchange rate mechanism. This is a course which has already been tried and which failed. I have made clear to our partners that I would not recommend that sterling should return to such a system.
"Europe needs coherent answers to these and other questions and I am glad the Madrid Council decided to examine them. The opt-out I negotiated at Maastricht protects the United Kingdom from being forced into an unworkable system. But it is vital to our interests, and to the interests of Europe as a whole, that a single currency does not begin and then fail, thus causing economic turmoil across the continent.
"Let me turn now to enlargement. Ahead even of prosperity, the European Union exists to provide security and stability to the peoples of Europe. For that reason, I believe that enlargement is the most important task facing the European Union. Having
1420
demolished the Iron Curtain, we must never again have a dividing line running through the middle of Europe.
"Ten or more countries are hoping to negotiate entry to the European Union in the coming years. This is an historic opportunity to entrench stability through a union of democracies right across the continent—and one we must take. The Madrid Council gave further impetus to enlargement. The European Commission has been asked to produce opinions on all eastern and central European applicants as soon as possible after the end of the Inter-Governmental Conference. This is a necessary step towards full accession negotiations, which are likely to begin with at least the most advanced of the new applicants, as well as with Malta and Cyprus, in about two years' time.
"The Madrid Council considered reports from the Commission on the implications of enlargement for the European Union's policies. These are profound. To be affordable and to be consistent with the EU's obligations under the GATT, the common agricultural policy will have to be reformed when the Union enlarges. So will the structural cohesion funds. At my insistence, it was agreed that future meetings of the Council would examine the implications. The Madrid Council has therefore taken an important step towards combining policy reform with enlargement, both of which are essential to the European Union's future.
"Let me deal briefly with some of the other subjects discussed at Madrid. It was agreed that the Inter-Governmental Conference would start at Turin on 29th March. The conference will be conducted by meetings of foreign ministers, supported by a working party made up of a representative of each minister and of the President of the European Commission. No decisions were taken at Madrid on the substance of the IGC. Work on the agenda will be carried out under the Italian presidency by foreign ministers.
"The drive to promote subsidiarity was strongly in evidence again at Madrid and vigorously supported in informal discussion. The Commission has been instructed to examine the continued need for existing Community legislation and for proposals now on the table. It is now widely recognised that the United Kingdom was right to reverse the trend towards greater intrusiveness by the Commission.
"There was also support for our approach to job creation, flexible pay relating to performance, curtailing non-wage labour costs and the reform of social protection systems. Increasing emphasis is being given to small and medium enterprises and to the need to cut the burden of red tape and over-regulation. The campaign against fraud and for better financial management which I launched at the Essen Council a year ago gained further weight at Madrid.
"The House will welcome the higher priority being given to inter-governmental co-operation against drug-trafficking. At Madrid I presented, with President Chirac, an initiative to help Caribbean states crack down on the transhipment to Europe and

1421
elsewhere of huge quantities of drugs produced in Latin America. This initiative was agreed by the Council and is now part of the European Union's policy.
"On external affairs, the Council underlined the importance of successful implementation of the Bosnian peace agreement and gave support to Mr. Carl Bildt who will be leading the international civilian effort there. It also discussed the European Union's relations with Russia, Ukraine and Turkey, and welcomed the agreement at the recent European Union/United States summit to strengthen the European Union's relationship with the United States.
"This was a Council at which the key decisions for the future were identified rather than taken. The programme of work for the next five years, the Political Agenda for Europe, is set out in the Madrid Conclusions. It is a formidable programme. In this period Europe must review the treaty at the Inter-Governmental Conference; review the Union's policies, including the common agricultural policy and the structural funds; take decisions on a single currency; carry out enlargement negotiations; determine the Community's future financing; contribute to new European security arrangements; and develop its relations with neighbouring countries, especially Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and other Mediterranean countries.
"The decisions we take in this period will determine the shape of Europe well into the next century. They will vitally affect the United Kingdom's interests and our future security and prosperity. That is why at successive meetings of Heads of Government I have argued for cautious and careful consideration before decisions are finalised.
"The European Union must carefully weigh the practical consequences of all these issues. Its decisions must be securely grounded in reality. We need, above all, a Europe that works. In that respect, I believe that important steps were taken at Madrid, as they were at Mallorca. They would not have been taken if we had not been prepared to raise the difficult questions and to demand practical answers to real problems.
"In the interests of the United Kingdom, it is essential to continue taking a hard-headed approach at the centre of European policy-making, and I shall go on doing so."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating a Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. This is one of the more important European summits to take place in recent years. Quite frequently, Prime Ministers and heads of government go to these meetings and fly back with communiqués which are not over-precise. In this instance, it appears that certain very important decisions
1422
were made at the summit. It is very important for this country that that point is recognised and that we try to analyse them.
I make to the House a plea that I have made in respect of other Statements made by the Prime Minister when he has returned from other summits. I hope that your Lordships will read the communique and not rely merely upon the Statement. The communiqué is a somewhat lengthy but not too daunting a document, and it has been agreed to unanimously. I do not know what happens in the aeroplane on the way home from these summits. Recollections appear to be slightly disturbed and in the 24 or 48 hours that elapse between the end of the summit and the Statement by the Prime Minister certain things tend to be pushed to one side and a gloss is given to this or to that. Of course, none of it is directly misleading. Nevertheless, it is important that we look at the document and not just bathe ourselves in the rosy glow that all heads of government try to put upon what they have agreed to but perhaps do not particularly wish to own up to.
The fact is that at the Madrid Summit this country ended up isolated and alone on the essential points. It is very important that we accept that and see where the country should go to from here. Some parts of the communiqué and agreement are welcomed; for example, the issues of enlargement and subsidiarity. As far as enlargement is concerned, I ask the Leader of the House whether it is envisaged that negotiations with the applicant east European countries, who seem most ready for admission, will take place simultaneously with those conducted with Cyprus and Malta. Which countries do the Government see as being in the first batch of negotiations? As far as subsidiarity is concerned, I welcome what the Government and the communiqué have to say about that. However, I am bound to say that for the Government to go abroad trumpeting subsidiarity, in view of the treatment that they have meted out to local authorities in this country over the past five years, is a bit rich—but there we are! Perhaps we should not complain or be too surprised about the way in which this is presented. We also welcome what is said about Turkey, Caribbean drugs and the United States.
I turn to what are perhaps the two most important single issues: employment and European monetary union. Employment is dealt with in the Prime Minister's Statement in one small paragraph as if it is of no great account. I welcome what is said in the communiqué—that the European Council reaffirms that the fight against unemployment and for equal opportunities is the priority task for the Community and member states. I welcome, too, the list on page 11 of the communiqué. The communiqué urges member states to regard as priorities about a dozen spheres of action which are set out in the list. It would be nice to know at some stage the Government's thinking on these various items, not merely to have them all wrapped up as if the European Council agreed with the Government's approach to job creation and employment. I take but one example. Member states are urged to step up training programmes especially for the unemployed. The Prime Minister accepted it in Madrid. It is strange that he heads a

1423
government who have cut the training programme, especially for the unemployed. I suppose that we should not be too surprised at that slight difference between the communiqué and the Statement.
As regards European monetary union, the fact is that for all the Government's bluster before going to Madrid the European Council has agreed unanimously that the third stage should begin on 1st January 1999. It has reaffirmed all of the other criteria for its introduction. To all of this the Prime Minister has agreed. It is not as though he is in a minority of one. He has agreed to all of it happening. Could he have done otherwise? He probably could not, given the rough nature of domestic and international politics. But at least it stops all of the nonsense that we have heard for so long about our view gaining ground with our European partners. What happened to the prospective alliance with the French? They were to stand with us on European currency shoulder to shoulder against the Germans. What happened to the very successful foray to Rome last week when apparently the Italians were also to stand with us? The fact is that one thing Madrid has done is to strip away the illusion and destroy the fantasy. On the issue of the EMU, Britain finds itself isolated and alone in Europe. The only thing the Prime Minister came back with was the fig leaf of a study into the effects of the single currency.
Why are we in this position? I believe that, among other reasons, we are isolated and alone in Europe because nobody is quite sure what the Government mean. Is the Prime Minister in favour of a single currency and European monetary union but wants to get there rather more slowly and in a different way? I do riot know. Is he against the whole prospect and is desperately trying to hold out? I am afraid I have to say—because it is true—that our European policy is being dictated by the internal state of the governing party in the United Kingdom. This is a document and a policy that are designed to preserve as much unity as possible in the Conservative Party. In my view, it is not good for this country for us to stand isolated and alone in Europe against developments which, it is perfectly clear from the summit, wall take place.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I too, am grateful to the Leader of the House for having repeated the Statement and with such emphasis and animation. There was no question of his gabbling through it in his case. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to the extent that this summit clearly marks a considerable strengthening of the probability of a European currency coming into operation by the appointed day. Ten days ago ex-Chancellor Schmidt of Germany told me that he thought the chances were fifty-fifty. Three days ago the British Chancellor of the Exchequer announced with a show of spirit, for a Minister of this Government, that he thought the chances were sixty-forty. The trend is strongly in that direction. Will it not now be sensible for the British Government to work on the assumption that it is more likely to happen than not, instead of trying to convince themselves that it will not and, therefore, constantly be operating on a false premise?
1424
There are several reasons why we ought to be very nervous about continuing to sing the old and dangerous British lullaby which we have sung for the past 40 years. I can never forget, because it is engraved on my mind, the report of the British delegate to the Messina Conference in 1955. He said that they would not agree but that even if they did it would not happen, and if it happened it would not work. That is the position that we have consistently taken.
Would it not be better to learn a little from experience? To make a mistake once is fully excusable, as in the case of the European Coal and Steel Community. To make the same mistake twice, as in the case of Economic Community, is a pity. To make it a third time, as in the case of EMS, looks more like pig-headed than carelessness. To make it a fourth time, in exactly the same form as the single currency, points to positive perversity.
I would still not predict with certainty that a single currency will come into being. But I say with certainty that any wise British Government ought now to treat it as more likely than not, instead of going on trying to pretend that it is all a chimera. I also predict with certainty that if a single currency comes into being, which I believe is now more likely than not, we shall repeat the dreary and consistent pattern that we have previously followed. We shall probably not join in 1999. We shall probably join about two or three years later, dragging our feet in the meantime and doing it uninfluentially and with the minimum of good will. We saw the result of this at Madrid.
I am sorry to have to say this, but I have the strong impression, speaking with some experience of European councils, that the Prime Minister was brushed aside like a fly.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That is a disgrace if he was.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: Listen to him, let him have his say, let him have his inquiry. But let the rest of us get on with the business. I do not like to see a British Prime Minister so treated. But that is the reality and it will continue to be so, so long as our European policy is like a feather in the wind.
I make one last point. The second issue that the Prime Minister raised in his Statement was enlargement. It is of great importance. I am strongly in favour of enlargement. But it is a great mistake to see enlargement and a reform of the common agricultural policy as a matter quite separate from a single currency and general European construction.
I make another prediction. If, as is still possible, the single currency collapses, and if Europe is set back on its heels, then I think it very unlikely that enlargement will take place with any speed. Europe will be in a state of stasis; certain countries will go into a defeated, bunker-like mood; and one or more countries will veto enlargement. Enlargement is by far the best hope of reforming the common agricultural policy, if only because of the weight and expensiveness of Polish agriculture.

1425
It is therefore a great pity to see these matters in isolation. How can Britain believe, being as isolated on the central issue as it was in Madrid, not merely that it can be at the heart of Europe—that sounds ridiculous these days—but that it can have any influence proportionate to that which a country of the United Kingdom's standing ought to exercise?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for his approval of the principle of enlargement, and that he subscribed to my right honourable friend's view of the importance of endeavouring to enlarge the Community. I am also grateful to him for stating in terms that enlargement is the best hope of reforming the CAP. That objective, as the noble Lord knows, is very much shared by Her Majesty's Government.
I was most interested, if not altogether surprised, to hear the mantra repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggesting that we should (I paraphrase) not listen to the Statement but rather read the communiqué. I was particularly interested to hear the noble Lord issue what has now become his standard recommendation in the context of the importance of employment creation and how that was identified as a priority task by the heads of state and government who met in Madrid.
The noble Lord referred to page 11 of the presidency conclusions, which he has in front of him. I shall not weary the House by reading out all the employment action recommended on page 11 of those conclusions. However, virtually every single one, including training programmes, is entirely and fully in step and consistent with Her Majesty's Government's existing policies and negotiating objectives in Europe. Indeed, since Essen it has become perfectly clear that it is Europe that has finally realised—perhaps through looking at our own employment and unemployment figures—what policies are needed by developed economies (or indeed any economy) in order to achieve the sort of growth in employment and the decrease in unemployment which we are beginning to see in this country and which are in at least some favourable contrast to the employment figures obtaining in the economies of our European partners.
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Her Majesty's Government need no lectures from him on this matter. If he is implying that we are isolated on the policies needed for the priority task, as identified at Madrid, we can pronounce ourselves well satisfied at seeing our partners in Europe wholly with us on what creates employment. Perhaps we should underline that it is the Labour Party that is out of step. In the unlikely event that it ever finds itself in government, it will be interesting to see whether they will be isolated as the only government in Europe peddling socialist policies on employment creation rather than the ones that are prudent and work.
One has only to look at the other principal issues—subsidiarity, deregulation, competitiveness, the single market, enlargement (as I mentioned, as did the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins) and the fight against fraud—to see a litany of issues initially tabled by this country that we
1426
are delighted to see our European partners taking seriously after some years of persuasion on our part. A few years ago the United Kingdom alone would have been pushing those issues. Now they are common ground. The noble Lord is right to draw our attention to the presidency conclusions. From them it is clear that that is the case.
The noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Richard, both talked with some intimation of derision about the Government's position on economic and monetary union. I deduce from the noble Lord's remarks—I hope he will correct me if I am wrong—that were the Labour Party to come to government, they would immediately sign up to a single currency. From the noble Lord's present state of immobility, I imagine I am right in assuming that that is what a Labour Government would do.
It is worth emphasising, as the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Richard, intimated, that it is perfectly possible that a number of countries will sign up to the third stage of EMU in 1999. What I am not entirely clear about—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is a little clearer than I—is just how many countries will do so. It is perfectly clear that the Maastricht criteria will still apply. They will not be loosened in any way. There was no mention in the presidency conclusions of that being so. In that case, though we cannot be certain, it appears that the number of countries which will be in a position to join at the third stage in 1999 will not be even a majority of the members of the European Union.
I suggest that it is therefore only prudent for my right honourable friend to draw to the attention of his colleagues, the heads of state and government in the European Union, the questions that must be asked and addressed before 1999 comes along. What is the relationship between those countries that choose to join, and indeed are able to join because they satisfy the Maastricht criteria, and those which do not choose to join? Britain may well be one of them; after all, we secured an opt-out on this, unlike our European partners. But it is at least fair to ask what the relationship will be between the members of a single currency in 1999 and during the transitional phase between 1998 and 1st January 1999; how it will be possible to address the relationship; and, indeed, whether in fact the beginning of a hard-core single currency will not lead to the economies of Europe being driven apart rather than being brought closer together.
I suggest that it is entirely sensible for my right honourable friend to ask those tough questions and for this country to play a full part in the negotiations leading up to the final decisions being taken. They matter not only to those who join but also to those who do not join. Since it is this country which is concerned with the pragmatic questions, it seems only right that this country should ask them.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, suggested that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was brushed aside like a fly. That is some fly! It is a fly with a remarkable buzz, capable of making clear—and obtaining the agreement of his colleagues—that these matters have to be addressed and will be addressed urgently. Indeed, we

1427
shall begin to see some of the answers emerge at the next council in Florence towards the end of the Italian presidency. It is perhaps not Her Majesty's Government who are indulging in wishful thinking but rather the two Opposition parties, which hope against hope that Her Majesty's Government will be found not to be the effective negotiator and pragmatist in European matters that they are in fact turning out to be.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister know of any other country of the European Union where, immediately following a summit meeting, the conclusions have been brought to the attention of the national parliament and discussed by it? Is not the fact that we are probably alone in doing that an additional reason for clinging to our parliamentary democracy and repudiating the idea of a European superstate which, the German Government have informed us, is the real and only reason for pressing for a single currency?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps fortunately I am not responsible to your Lordships' House for the proceedings and procedures of other parliamentary assemblies within the European Union. Therefore, I must ask your Lordships to draw your own conclusions from my noble friend's remarks. However, it is extremely fortunate, above all, that your Lordships are in a position to examine closely and with authoritative detail the directives that are sent our way from Brussels, and indeed that we are able to give these matters the degree of parliamentary scrutiny which perhaps, dare I say it, is a matter of some pride and self-congratulation for this place.
With regard to the general point made by my noble friend, I note with keen approval the frequent allusions of my right honourable friend Mr. Douglas Hurd, during his most distinguished tenure as Foreign Secretary, to his objective of building a Europe of nations.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I should like to take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, a moment ago. In discussing the agenda for the IGC, the Reflection Group unanimously made clear that it was not in favour of a superstate.
Reverting to the point made by the Prime Minister about economic and monetary union, can the Minister confirm that, however many states go in at the outset, under Maastricht if all those states—or even a minority of those states—meet the criteria, there will be a single currency? Perhaps he would confirm that for us.
Secondly, the Minister raised the issue of whether a Labour Government would automatically go into a single currency by 1999. I cannot speak for a future Labour Government. But will the Minister make quite clear that the Prime Minister has not ruled out—at least the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not ruled out—that they would possibly join a single currency (which I gather is now called a European currency for a number of reasons) and might well join a single currency by 1999, if we meet the criteria, as now seems extremely likely? Will he confirm that?
1428
Perhaps the Minister will also answer another question. He may know that only the Members of your Lordships' House are discussing the important issue raised by the Prime Minister; namely, the issue of the ins and outs. That is to say, if there is to be a single currency, what will be the consequences for countries, like the United Kingdom, if they do or do not join? There would be consequences, as I am sure the Minister is aware. The all-party Select Committee which I have the honour to chair is looking at precisely that question which the Prime Minister raised. It is a vital question. Would the noble Lord the Leader of the House be willing to come and give evidence to that Select Committee, or would he persuade the Prime Minister to come and give evidence to it? I am sure that all the members of the committee would be delighted to hear from them.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure that if a number of members of the European Union qualify under the Maastricht criteria and decide to proceed with a single currency, it is possible that the single currency will happen. As the noble Lord knows—none better—unless that transition is accomplished with care, there could be some very serious consequences for both those who join and those who do not join, which could do a great disservice to the idea of an economically prosperous and stable Europe. We do not differ about that.
The noble Lord asked whether my right honourable friend has ruled out a single currency. I point out to him—again he knows far better than I do—that no parliament can bind its successor. That is axiomatic in our parliamentary proceedings. It is perfectly sensible for my right honourable friend and the Government as a whole to keep their options open. It would have been extremely foolish for any government to have said, "We shall opt out of the single currency no matter what happens", if only for the obvious negotiating reason that, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, nobody would take us as seriously as they do in the councils of Europe. They would not do so if it were not clear that we are vitally interested and are taking a central part in the negotiations, particularly of the kind of matters that the noble Lord mentioned and what he called the ins and outs.
With regard to giving evidence to his committee, it would be very unwise for any Leader of your Lordships' House to dream of saying no to such an invitation, although I suspect that there may be people more technically qualified than I who are able to answer the questions of his committee with the assurance that he would expect of Members of the Government. Nevertheless, if the noble Lord invites me, certainly I shall not have the nerve to refuse. So far as concerns my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, I shall of course transmit his kind invitation in principle. No doubt my noble friend will answer any particular invitation with his usual empressement and courtesy.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, it has been said that the Prime Minister was in a lonely position at Madrid. Is it not a fact that leaders who are giving a lead often find themselves in a lonely position? The crux

1429
must be whether in fact the lead that is being given will be followed by others in the months and years ahead. I am convinced that the value of what the Prime Minister has done at Madrid will be appreciated more and more.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question relating to the IGC. I understand that it is to start on 29th March. Will it be of limited duration or a continuing conference? I have in mind that Italy's presidency will finalise in June. It is sometimes unfortunate that at the end of a presidency there is felt a need to produce a final statement when conditions are not always right for that final statement. It would be better, in my view, to allow the conference to be ongoing rather than seek to bring it to an end at a specific time.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks in relation to the qualities of leadership being shown by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I wholly concur with what he said. It is worth underlining the changed nature of the discussions being conducted in European forums, substantially as a result of the practical questions which my right honourable friends and ministerial colleagues ask. With regard to the duration of the IGC, it is fair to say that we can be pretty sure that it will last rather longer than the expected end of the Italian presidency. It will probably spill over into 1997.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is not in his place. I feel sure that the whole House would not wish to endorse his remarks that if one is isolated, one is essentially wrong. There have been many times in our island's history when we have dissented from most of the countries of Europe and indeed other countries as well. Those with some experience of these matters in the 1930s will not be unaware that we have been known to be right. Therefore, to argue about this matter on the basis that we must be wrong because we are isolated is a lot of nonsense. It is unworthy of any intellectual appreciation with which one would normally credit the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.
What seems to have escaped the noble Viscount opposite and, because of the pressures of time, has not yet been picked up by my noble friend on the Front Bench, is the fact that the whole of the proceedings in Madrid were dominated by the German Government. There can be no doubt about that. Anyone who saw the press reports knows perfectly well that it was Herr Kohl who laid down how the proceedings should go. He embarked upon a unique criticism of the President of the Commission and generally thought that the world—and in particular the United Kingdom—would have to do exactly what it was told or else. That is hardly the way in which international conferences ought to be conducted.
I am bound to draw to the attention of the noble Viscount and remind the House as a whole, though Members are probably aware of it, that on 22nd January 1963 the treaty of Elysé was entered into between Germany and France. It bound the two countries together to consult and determine their position before any matters were raised before the European Economic
1430
Community. The core of Europe is already there, enshrined in a treaty. It would be odd if we were able to enter it now. Surely it is possible to adopt a more rational attitude.
I was surprised that in the recent budget negotiations, whether or not qualified majority voting was applied, Her Majesty's Government voted£41 million to the Commission in order to popularise throughout Europe the whole question of the single currency. It is surprising also that£5 million of British taxpayers' money is to be devoted to propagating a cause by the Commission when the Government and the Opposition are not clear whether they want to enter it.
I hope that those matters can be clarified. They are of great importance. When one reads through the communiqué one finds—I am bound to say that I agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench, a unique occurrence—that the Government assented by supporting the document (there is no question of majority voting) that binds them hook, line and sinker. Unfortunately, in the absence of dissent from the noble Lord representing Labour interests, we have no indication that it would have dissented either.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, our debates in the wake of Statements of this kind would be the poorer were it not for the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. However, I am not clear to what he thinks the Government have been bound "hook, line and sinker". If it is to economic and monetary union, I refer him to the opt-out, which we and the Danes are the only ones to enjoy.
I wholly follow the noble Lord's logic on the question of isolation. I always say to my children that just because everybody does it does not mean that it is right. I am pleased to find that, as I tried to say a few moments ago, our isolation on key matters is becoming much less of a factor as our partners come closer to us, particularly on the key matter of unemployment and what economic measures need to be taken in order to reduce it and, if possible, eliminate it.
With regard to the domination of the German Government, I wonder whether our Spanish friends would have agreed as they scurried round Europe trying to fix the agenda and give priority to those matters, particularly relationships with Latin America, which played such a large part in the arrangements. It would be a little discourteous for me to go along with the noble Lord. Domination by Germany is not part of our agenda; partnership is.
On the matter which the noble Lord thought so surprising, I confess that I find it surprising also.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is not in his place. He alleged that the British Prime Minister had been "brushed aside". I hope that the Leader of the House can give us an assurance that the British Government, which represents 60 million people, are never brushed aside; will not allow themselves to be brushed aside; and would say that this is not a partnership where the majority, whatever it may be, brushes one of the other partners aside. I want that assurance and I want it this afternoon.

1431
Further, is the noble Viscount aware that we should not allow ourselves as a country to be driven by German political ambition into the madness of EMU and a single currency? In that connection, can he say what is meant on page 7 by,
"irrevocable fixing of conversion rates".
What does that mean? We were able to opt-out of the ERM when it was claimed that it was destroying our economy. According to:his document, apparently we cannot ever opt-out of a single currency and the EMU even if it is plain for everyone to see that they are destroying our economy. Can the noble Viscount comment on that?
Finally, will the committee which is to look into the matter consider the taxation implications for the British people, particularly if expansion goes on towards the east? Those countries will need enormous subsidies if they are ever to be able to join the new European monetary union and a single currency. Those are some of the matters that need to be addressed not only by noble Lords and the Government opposite, but also by my own Front Bench. The sooner the whole country, including political parties, gets down to a realistic examination of this problem, the better it will be.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I can certainly give the noble Lord the unequivocal assurance he needs that this country will certainly not be "brushed aside"—to use his phrase and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. As I have tried to explain, that has been the tenor of the Government's approach. It is an assurance which his own noble friends are quite incapable of giving him
I am sure that the country as a whole will note that.
As regards the single currency point, paragraph 4 on page 7 says:
"The scenario"—
always a ghastly word to use—
"provides for transparency and acceptability, strengthens credibility and underlines the irreversibility of the process".
I understand that that means that once the exchange rates have been fixed during the transitional period, that is irreversible; otherwise the exchanges themselves would be subject to some pretty powerful market forces of a kind which would destroy the process. That is my understanding of the word "irreversibility" which, I am advised, has a particular Euro-jargon meaning in matters of this kind.
As regards the taxation implications, I am beginning to wonder whether the noble Lord should cross the Floor and join us because that is precisely what has been worrying my right honourable friend. He wants to make absolutely sure that the desirable expansion of the European Community does not lead to a vast increase in the expense of the CAP or of the cohesion funds. That is going to be one of our principal bargaining objectives in the months and years to come. I fully
1432
expect that other partners will see the justice of that, particularly as so many of them are now net contributors like ourselves.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [H.L.]
4.42 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 1, at end insert ("or not").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 101. This is a much more simple amendment and one which should cause the Committee and, I hope, the Government, no difficulty. I believe that it is generally recognised that the role of the police, or any other body involved in an investigation, is not simply to collect material which would indicate the guilt of an accused, but to collect material which will enable the court to decide whether the accused is guilty or not. That should be the basis on which the police investigation is carried out and it should be the wording in the Bill. Yet, curiously, Clause 1(4) states,
"For the purposes of this section, a criminal investigation is an investigation which police officers or other persons have a duty to conduct with a view to it being ascertained—

(a) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or

(b) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it".

Surely, in reality it should be whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it "or not". Before and after the decision is made to charge somebody, it is still the responsibility of the police or the investigators to be as objective as possible in the way in which evidence is collected. I am very well aware, not only as a non-lawyer, but as a market researcher, that one gets more accurate answers to a question which asks, "Do you think that this should happen or not?" rather than asking a question which is implicitly one-sided; namely, "Do you think that X should happen?". Surely the same applies to police investigations. The alternative is there and it should be included. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Surely this amendment is unnecessary. Clause 1(4) states,
"with a view to it being ascertained".
If one tries to ascertain something, then one is trying to ascertain whether a person is guilty or not. I wish to give an explanation to the Committee. I supported the Government on the previous amendment although I had considerable misgivings. I realised that if I did not I would break wide open the structure of Part I of the Bill. My noble friend the Minister has done her very best to provide us with a mass of material to follow the principles of each amendment satisfactorily, but I have found that very difficult to do because of the state of the material which we have.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for the intervention from my noble friend. He is right in that I believe that

1433
we can allay the concerns of the noble Lord. The process of considering whether a person is guilty of an offence must also include considering whether he is not guilty. In fact, the key word in Clause 1(4)(a) and (b) is "whether" and that is the first word in each line. It would be a different matter if the Bill defined a criminal investigation in terms of ascertaining that a person was guilty of an offence rather than whether he was guilty, but it does not. Therefore, these amendments are unnecessary.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I believe that the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are important and the burden of his message clear. I hope that the Committee will endorse it. Can the Minister say whether the form of words on the face of the Bill is a convention in parliamentary drafting? If it is, then I shall certainly not want to press the argument further, but if it is a departure from convention in comparable circumstances, then we need a further explanation.
Baroness Blatch: I cannot give an absolute answer to that. However, if one asks whether a person is guilty of an offence, then in asking whether they are guilty one is implicitly asking whether they are not guilty of it. I have stood here many times answering the point. I am reminded that this House is not always impressed with the argument that because something has always been done in a certain manner, that it should always be done like that. The important factor is whether the wording here reflects what we want it to reflect; namely, that it is subsumed in that a person may be guilty or not guilty.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may refer first to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. He is of course fully entitled to take whatever view he wishes about the previous amendment. However, I do not believe that he is right to say that Amendment No. l would have broken open the whole structure of Clause 1. Its structure is complicated and on it depends the introduction of a number of other clauses, and Clauses 3 to 5 in particular. We took care to make sure that the structure of Part I of the Bill, which is more important, survived the amendment which we thought was necessary. I do not take too kindly to the implication that we have not thought about our series of amendments.
My response to the Minister as regards Amendment No. 2 and the subsequent amendment, can only be that she does not really recognise the English language "as she is spoke". We do say, "Whether or not" and "Guilty or not". We do that perhaps with an element of repetition, but in order to make clear that our minds are open as to the outcome of any investigation. It is simply not good enough to say that "whether" implies "whether or not" when the noble Baroness knows as well as I do that the English language commonly consists of putting the two alternatives. It is particularly important that the two alternatives should be put into a description of police investigations because it is particularly important that Parliament should insist that police investigations are objective and that they seek the truth rather than that they seek a particular outcome which is convenient to the police and the prosecution.
1434
I note that the Minister was not able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that the omission of the words "or not" is common in legislation. I do not feel that that issue has been adequately answered. However, as it may be considered a higher level drafting issue, it is not one on which I wish to seek the opinion of the Committee. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("made by statutory instrument").
The noble Baroness said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if in moving Amendment No. 3, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 27, 30, 35, 50, 53, 57, 98, 104, 126, 129, 131 to 134, 141, 151, 156 and 159.
All of those amendments are designed to tidy up the Bill by removing unnecessary duplication in the way in which the Bill provides for orders or regulations to be made. They achieve this by adding one new clause after Clause 46 and removing or re-drafting other provisions in consequence.
First, in Clauses 1, 18, 21, 32 to 38, 44 and 45, the Bill refers to a day appointed by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument. The amendments remove the words "made by statutory instrument" from all these clauses. They reappear in subsection (2) of the new clause after Clause 46, which provides that orders made under the Bill are to be made by statutory instrument.
Secondly, Clauses 3, 5, 6 and 7 each require the prosecutor or the accused to comply with the requirements of the clause before the end of a certain period. The period is described as consisting of a number of days to be prescribed, starting on the relevant day. The relevant day is different in each case: in Clause 3 it is where the accused pleads not guilty at a summary trial or where proceedings are transferred to the Crown Court. In Clauses 5 and 6 the period begins on the day when the prosecutor complies with Clauses 3. In Clause 7 the period begins on the day when the accused complies with Clauses 5 or 6. The number of days is to be specified in an order made by statutory instrument subject to the negative resolution procedure. The amendments to these clauses provide that the prosecutor or the accused must act within a period beginning and ending with such days as are prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations. Subsection (3) of the new clause after Clause 46 provides that the regulations are to be made by statutory instrument subject to the negative resolution procedure. I should explain that we now take the view that the most appropriate means of prescribing the period is by regulations rather than by order, just as, for example, custody time limits are specified in regulations, and the amendments provide accordingly.
Clause 10 currently refers to the specified period described in Clauses 5 and 6. The three amendments to Clause 10 are consequential on the amendments to Clauses 5 and 6 which I have just described.
Finally, subsection (1) of the new clause after Clause 46 provides that the power to make appointed day orders, and regulations under Clauses 3, 5, 6 and 7, may be exercised differently in relation to different cases or classes of case. In particular, the power may be exercised differently in relation to different areas, enabling the Secretary of State to bring Part III of the Bill into force on different days for different places, that is, for different Crown Court centres. The amendment to Clause 21 removes subsection (2) in consequence. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The whole issue of order-making powers and regulation-making powers exercised the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which received a lengthy memorandum from the Home Office on the subject. The very fact that we are now considering 19 amendments—and therefore 19 different provisions in the Bill—is evidence that this is one of those pieces of legislation which relies heavily on delegated powers. However, the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee concluded that since most of those powers are already part of delegated legislation (because they refer to the operation of the courts) this is an appropriate use of order and regulation-making powers and continues the same procedures.
As the Minister said, Amendment No. 159 is the important amendment. It introduces a new clause. The Committee should note that that new clause states that it is the power to make regulations rather than orders which is exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment—in other words, by the negative procedure. One never likes a Bill which contains so much delegated legislation, but I think that we can accept that in this case what is now proposed is a tidying up and that there is no particular threat in the new clause which it is proposed to insert after Clause 46.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I would not dissent from the conclusion of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but in view of the exchanges that took place before the committal of the Bill, perhaps I might say that I too was immensely grateful for the courtesy and helpfulness of the Minister in making papers available, including the comparison, for which I asked on Second Reading, between the Royal Commission report, the disclosure consultation document arid the Bill. That must have required an immense amount of work and the whole Committee should be grateful for that.
However, the fact that It and others take that view of the Minister's contribution does not absolve us from still regretting that the Bill was drafted in the form that it was. As the Minister said—and as she stated in her initial letter in which she set out the changes that the Government are making—the present Bill contains an unnecessary duplication and, to follow both the Minister's words and those of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, a process of tidying up is taking place. I do not want to dissent from that, but I see no reason whatsoever why that tidying process should be necessary now. It would have been an easy drafting
1436
point to ensure that those separate provisions within the Bill were contained in a single clause. That is being done now, but it should have been done earlier.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I seek clarification on one aspect? I raised this point on Second Reading. Is the code of practice to be introduced by an order under subsection (2) by statutory instrument, but not be subject to any parliamentary scrutiny? Is that the position?
Baroness Blatch: Yes, it is.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Primary disclosure by prosecutor]:
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("prosecution material") and insert ("material in his possession").
The noble Lord said: We are invited to discuss Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 together. We now come to Clause 3, which deals with primary disclosure by the prosecutor. In paragraph (a) of Clause 3(1) we find the expression "prosecution material". To begin with, I do not regard that as the language of statute. Surely "material in the possession of the prosecutor" would be preferable. Furthermore, "prosecution material" leads one to suppose that you are talking about material which is in favour of the prosecution, but that clearly is not the case because paragraph (a) refers to,
"prosecution material which...might undermine the case for the prosecution".
That does not seem to make much sense.
In Amendment No. 6 I have tried to get rid of the expression about undermining the case for the prosecution. It is just a question of relevance: whether the material in the prosecutor's possession is relevant. He does not have to consider whether or not it undermines his case. He does not have to consider whether he thinks that it is useful material or material which is not worthy of much belief. If it is relevant, he has to disclose it. That is what the amendment does. It substitutes relevance for the untidy wording about undermining the prosecution's case.
On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said:
"I welcome the Bill in substance but must say that, although the drafting seems to achieve its intended legal effects, it is a little spun out and laborious. I am quite sure that it could have been drafted more succinctly".—[Official Report, 27/11/95; col. 479.]
I hope that Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 take us a little way along the road that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would like to see us go. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: On Amendment No. 6, it is essential that the words,
"which in the prosecutor's opinion might undermine the case of the prosecution against the accused",

1437
remain. That is a safeguard and must surely be retained. As to Amendment No. 4, it is a question of grammar. I understand what is said.
Baroness Blatch: On the first amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, I am not sure whether he intended it but it has the effect of narrowing the range of material to which the disclosure duty in Clause 3 applies. It restricts it to material in the possession of the prosecutor, thereby excluding any material in the possession of the police rather than the prosecutor but which the prosecutor has inspected. As Clause 3(2) makes clear, both kinds of material are intended to be subject to the disclosure test. As it stands, the amendment weakens the protection for the accused provided by the Bill.
The second amendment has significant implications for the disclosure scheme in the Bill. Clause 3 currently requires the prosecutor to disclose prosecution material which he thinks might undermine the prosecution case. The amendment would widen that test significantly to require the disclosure of material which the prosecutor thought might be relevant. This is very similar to the disclosure test operating under the current law.
I can understand why the noble Lord wants to amend the clause in that way. He believes that it would reduce the risk of a wrongful conviction if the accused had access to all relevant prosecution material rather than just material which might undermine the prosecution case. But I believe that the provisions in the Bill are themselves adequate to guard against a wrongful conviction. The disclosure tests we have provided focus attention on material which might undermine the prosecution case or which might reasonably assist the defence disclosed by the accused. The prosecutor must disclose all material falling within the tests, subject to considerations of public interest, or provide a written statement that there is no such material. At the time of primary prosecution disclosure he must give the accused a schedule listing all material which has been retained and which is not subject to public interest considerations. The police will have to certify to the prosecutor that they have complied with the requirements imposed on them under the code of practice.
What is more, I am afraid that the amendments proposed by the noble Lord have some significant drawbacks. These are the same as those applying to the current disclosure test. We explained in the consultation paper on disclosure which we issued earlier this year what those drawbacks were and why we intended to narrow the test for prosecution disclosure in the way we have done. I will summarise the reasons, because it is important to put them on the record.
First, a test of relevance includes everything which might possibly have a bearing on the case. But that is very different from whether it has a bearing on the defence which the accused actually relies upon in court. The effect of the current test is that the police often have to photocopy and deliver large volumes of material to the accused, much of it unnecessary in that it is completely irrelevant to the actual defence. Where it is unnecessary it
1438
is also inefficient. It imposes significantly higher burdens on the police than the test we propose, and diverts police resources away from their primary task of fighting crime.
Secondly, a test as wide-ranging as "relevance" does nothing to narrow the issues in dispute in the case. The test we propose contributes to that by focusing on material which the prosecutor thinks might undermine the prosecution case. In conjunction with defence disclosure, and secondary prosecution disclosure of material which might reasonably assist the defence, our proposals will ensure that cases are much better prepared for trial than at present.
Thirdly, a test of "relevance" is inconsistent with the rest of the disclosure scheme. If the prosecutor discloses everything which might be relevant, there is no point in requiring secondary prosecution disclosure of material which might reasonably assist the defence, because there will be nothing left to disclose. The accused will accordingly be deprived of the benefit of the prosecutor reconsidering undisclosed prosecution material in the light of defence disclosure to assess whether any particular items of material might reasonably assist the defence case.
For all of those reasons, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed. The noble Lord referred to "prosecution material", and said that it was not statutory language. "Prosecution material" is defined in Clause 3(2) in terms which incorporate the language in the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. It goes further and includes material that the prosecution has been allowed to inspect.
Lord Airedale: I must say that I have had a full and thorough answer from the Minister. That may be partly because I put down my amendments in good time. One does not cure an inelegant phrase by defining it somewhere else in the Bill. However that may be, this is not the first time that I will have disagreed with something said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. Nevertheless, I must read what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may put on record that I believe that the noble Lord said that it is no good defining the phrase in another part of the Bill. It is in fact defined in Clause 3(2) which states:
"For the purposes of this section prosecution material is material—

(a) which is in the prosecutor's possession, or

(b) which he has been allowed to inspect in pursuance of a code operative under Part II".

So the definition is included within the same clause.
Lord Airedale: I do not mind where the phrase is defined. Defining something does not make it an elegant expression. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 21, leave out ("in the prosecutor's opinion").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 43. With Clause 3(1)(a) we come to what are perhaps the most important few lines in the Bill. They are important, first, because they use the phrase:
"material which has not previously been disclosed".
Of course, what has been previously disclosed depends upon Part II and the code of practice, which goes only to confirm the view I expressed on Second Reading that Parts I and II of the Bill are back to front. In chronological and logical terms, and to make it easier to understand, we should be pursuing the process from the investigation through to conviction or acquittal and indeed afterwards.
Part I is spelt out in great detail but it is dependent on the code of practice, which is the substance of Part II. We must debate Part II having already debated Part I. That opinion is reinforced by the Minister's reminder that the definition of prosecution material is contained in Clause 3(2)(b), which states:
"which he has been allowed to inspect in pursuance of a code operative under Part II".
If we are to understand the meaning of that we should be dealing with a code operative under Part II before we deal with the statutory provisions contained in Part I. We have tabled a number of amendments to Clause 3(1)(a) which seek to clarify and strengthen the definition of what must be disclosed by the prosecutor at the primary disclosure stage.
Incidentally, I was most taken aback by what the Minister said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. She said that if the primary disclosure were to be too wide it would make it impossible to have an effective secondary disclosure. I do not see that at all. It seems to me that one has a primary disclosure which is as wide as is necessary to make the defence disclosure effective. There is no reason why there should be a subsequent secondary disclosure, except when other information has come to light as a result of the primary disclosure. That will still be the case. A three-stage process is not being pursued for the sake of doing so. If it can be cut down one cuts it down. One retains with the secondary disclosure procedure the opportunity for either the defence or the prosecution to make sure that the material which should be disclosed is in fact disclosed. I was not at all impressed by the argument that one must restrict primary disclosure for that purpose.
The particular issue with which we are concerned in these four amendments is the phrase which occurs four times, and which we seek to leave out four times, "in the prosecutor's opinion". It cannot be right for the statutory test of what is disclosed to be in the prosecutor's opinion. Of course the prosecutor must form an opinion, but the statutory test ought to be that which, to use the phrasing of Clause 3(1)(a),
"might undermine the case for the prosecution".
Otherwise, the prosecutor will form an opinion, however well or badly he may reach that conclusion, and there is no appeal or argument against it. If it turns out to be wrong his defence is, "That was my opinion. I don't hold to it now but it was my opinion at the time and
1440
it was the basis on which I withheld that material or information". That cannot be satisfactory. It must be the case that in all such proceedings there is in the end, and in the event of challenge, an objective test. It must be possible for the court to decide whether the material was relevant or not and not simply be turned aside by the historical fact that the prosecutor at that time formed the opinion that it was not relevant or did not fall within the terms of Clause 3. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: There is an inter-reaction with paragraph 2(d) of the code of practice, which is a draft code. There the prosecutor is defined as:
" the authority responsible for the conduct of criminal proceedings on behalf of the Crown".
That authority—an authority—does not have an opinion but, according to the code, it may delegate particular duties to individuals. On delegation, that individual has an opinion. It does not read very happily in context with the way in which the code has been drafted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may respond to that point. I do not believe that my argument for the amendments depends on who the prosecutor is. In introducing them I made it clear that I accept that the prosecutor will have an opinion. That is the case whether there is one prosecutor or a prosecutor delegating his responsibilities to other people. The point is that, unless there is an objective test, when there is a challenge as to whether something falls within the conditions of the clause, as the Bill is drafted there will be a complete answer saying, "That was my opinion. I do not hold to that opinion but that was the case at the time".
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I did not misunderstand the noble Lord. As he put the matter then, he put it quite clearly previously. All I am seeking to show is that, as drafted, if the code goes in the prosecutor is defined as the authority. The authority as such does not have an opinion. The person who has the opinion is the person to whom it is delegated. It is not a nit-picking point. It is a point which, with respect, ought to be addressed.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The point is that the prosecutor has an obligation to disclose. It is for the prosecutor to make a judgment as to what should be disclosed. That must meet the code of practice and the obligations under the law as it would be if the Bill passed into statute.
As I understand it, the main purpose of these amendments is to change the test for primary prosecution disclosure from a subjective test, reliant on the opinion of the prosecutor, to an objective test. In effect, material would be disclosed if in the opinion of a reasonable person it might undermine the prosecution case, rather than if the prosecutor thought it might have that effect.
The effect of an objective test would be to make the decision of the prosecutor subject to review in the courts. If the accused wanted to, he could challenge the decision on whether material undermined the

1441
prosecution case by seeking a judicial review. I do not think he would succeed in relation to Crown Court cases because the prosecutor's decision would seem to fall within the category of matters relating to trial on indictment which are excluded from judicial review. But no such exclusion applies in summary cases. There would be the potential for delay in a large number of summary cases if the accused sought a review of the prosecutor's decision. Similar considerations apply to the second and third amendments to Clause 3 and also to the amendment to Clause 9.
I also believe that there is a distinction to be drawn between the test for primary prosecution disclosure in Clause 3 and secondary prosecution disclosure in Clause 7. In Clause 3 the prosecutor is required to consider the effect of undisclosed prosecution material on the prosecution case. The only criterion that he can apply is his own judgment. But in Clause 7 the prosecutor is required to consider the effect of undisclosed prosecution material on something other than the prosecution case; that is, on the defence case as disclosed in a defence statement. This makes it easier to consider objectively rather than subjectively what might reasonably assist the defence that has been disclosed. And because the test in Clause 7 is an objective test it is open to challenge in the courts. Clause 8, accordingly, provides for the accused to make an application to the court.
In the light of this explanation, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: That does not quite work. On analysis, it is not a question of judicial review, objective or subjective, or anything like that. As regards non-disclosure in Clause 19(3) there is a sanction for breach of the code. We are not concerned with judicial review at all. My noble friend has not dealt with the curious form of drafting in which an authority has an opinion. That was the point to which I was addressing my criticism.
Baroness Blatch: Of course, we are at an early stage of the Bill and I shall always take back points which have been raised and continue to inspect the drafting. My understanding is that the prosecutor is under a duty to disclose information which he believes will undermine the prosecution case, whereas I understand that the effect of the amendment would be for the prosecutor to stand in the shoes of a third reasonable person and make judgments about what a reasonable person might consider to be disclosable material. That could be challenged and could give rise to judicial review.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that the effect of a challenge would not be a judicial review. That would be a gross abuse of that process, which is already being abused too often in our legal system. Judicial review should be the last resort when a piece of legislation is inadequately drafted. And I suspect that this legislation is inadequately drafted.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, made a good point which I did not appreciate the first time that he made it. I am grateful to him for making the point
1442
so clearly the second time; namely, that it is extremely difficult for an authority, as opposed to an individual, to have an opinion. I am sure that, in turn, he will recognise that I have made it easier for the Committee to understand the point which he makes by including the whole text of the code of practice in Amendment No. 162 so that it is available to all Members of the Committee.
The fundamental point has not been answered; namely, in this series of amendments there should be an objective test of what is and what is not relevant. The Minister describes that as the prosecutor putting himself in the place of a reasonable Person. I do not dissent from that. If that is the way in which an objective test is defined in law, so be it. It is right for the prosecutor to do that.
It should not be that the opinion of the prosecutor cannot be challenged subsequently in any way, whether by judicial review or as part of the process of the case with which the disclosure is concerned. It should not be possible for the prosecutor to say subsequently to anybody, whether to a judge making a judicial review or a trial judge, "I may have been wrong but that was my opinion and you cannot do anything about that because the law says that it is only my opinion which matters". That cannot be right. I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer and I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 111.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Airedale, L.

Jeger, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Barnett, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

McNair, L.

David, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Desai, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkender, B.

Monkswell, L.

Falkland, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L [Teller]

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Geraint, L.

Ogmore, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Grey, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rea, L.

Hanworth, V.

Richard, L

Hams of Greenwich, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Howell, L.

Russell, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Seear, B.

Hughes, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Serota, B.

1443

Shepherd, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

White, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Kenyon, L.

Abinger, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Addison, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Ailsa, M.

Lauderdale, E.

Aldington, L.

Leigh, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Long, V.

Barber, L.

Lucas, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lyell, L.

Biddulph, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blaker, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Blyth, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Borthwick, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Manton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brain of Wheatley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Burnham, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Milverton, L.

Cadman, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Cannock, L.

Moyne, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Courtown, E.

Nelson, E.

Craigavon, V.

Newall, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Orkney, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pender, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pym, L.

Elles, B.

Quinton, L.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rees, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rennell, L.

Flather, B.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Romney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Geddes, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gisborough, L.

Selborne, E.

Goschen, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Stewartby, L.

Harrowby, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Swansea, L.

Hogg, B.

Swinfen, L.

Holderness, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Torrington, V.

Hooper, B.

Vivian, L.

Howe, E.

Wakeham, L.

Inchcape, E.

Westbury, L.

Inglewood, L.

Wynford, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.31 p.m.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 23, after ("accused") insert ("or assist the defence case so far as it is known").
The noble Baroness said: As the Committee knows, Clause 3 sets out the duties of the prosecutor in respect of primary disclosure. As I understand it, its purpose is in part to enable the issues between prosecution and defence to be clarified before trial. The purpose of the amendment is, in effect, to clarify the obligations of the prosecutor at that stage and also to seek to clarify the issues between the parties as early as possible.
Clause 3(1), as amended by the amendment, would require the prosecutor to disclose to the accused not just material which would undermine his case but also any material which would assist the defence case "as it is known". If the defendant has maintained his right to silence and said nothing upon arrest or during later interview, or if he has answered questions but has played his cards close to his chest and not shown his defence, then the amendment would have no effect. The prosecution would be able only to guess what the likely defence would be.
However, where the defence, as is usual practice since the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act came into force, has answered the questions put, and, indeed, has revealed the defence clearly to the Crown, it must surely make sense for the prosecution to disclose the material in its possession which assists the defence case.
Judging by her answer to my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey in relation to Amendment No. 5, the Minister seems to be set upon a subjective test for the prosecutor at that stage. The noble Baroness must appreciate, or try to follow, the difficulties which a prosecutor will be placed in by the clause as currently drafted. Perhaps I may just give some instances of the difficulties involved.
A prosecutor faced with the clause unamended will have to decide whether to disclose material which at present he would disclose without question under the existing common law rule. For example, should he or should he not disclose to the defence previous statements made by a witness upon whom he is going to rely whether or not they are inconsistent? Should he disclose earlier accounts by witnesses which are made in the form of notes by investigators or drafts of statements which are later prepared? That is the sort of material which Mr. Justice Henry (as he then was) ordered should be disclosed in the Guinness trial and which has been disclosed subsequently in criminal cases. Should he or should he not show, for example, information in his possession which demonstrates that the complainant—or, indeed, another witness—has been paid or has sought reward for the account that he will give at the trial?
Should or should not the prosecutor disclose unusual situations of which he is aware and on which he has related material; for example, where a witness has been through his evidence in rehearsal for a television programme or has given his evidence as a result of hypnosis? That may sound far fetched, but there are quite a number of cases coming before the courts now where recovered memory syndrome is relevant and hypnosis has led to the initial complaint.
Under the Bill as drafted the prosecutor's decision as to whether to disclose at that primary stage is subjective. Clearly it is for him to try to determine—and a difficult

1445
task he will have in all those instances and many others—what material undermines his case. The result will inevitably be a considerable degree of inconsistency as between one prosecutor and another. It seems to me that the situation is not only inevitable but also potentially very fraught with danger. I do not pretend that the amendment that I now propose the Committee should consider would remove that danger. However, it does at least give some assistance to a prosecutor who already, from the material before him, knows the nature of the defence. It enables him to ensure that the defence has access to the relevant material to assist it at an earlier stage.
I suggest that it would be ironic if legislation which was intended to prevent what has sometimes been described as the poker game of the defence playing its cards close to its chest and not disclosing the issues were to be turned in effect into a poker game where the Crown was required to withhold material which it knew was relevant to the defence until a later stage in the proceedings. Where material is clearly relevant to a defence of which the Crown is aware, in our submission it must clearly be right that that should be disclosed at as early a stage as reasonably possible so that the issues can be clarified and the establishment of the truth facilitated. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With respect, would not material known to assist the defence inevitably, as a general rule, undermine the case for the prosecution? If that is right, and although I accept everything that the noble Baroness said about disclosure and its desirability, is it really necessary?
Baroness Blatch: The amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Williams of Mostyn, but spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, would widen the test for prosecution disclosure but in a different way to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. It would require the prosecutor to disclose under Clause 3 not only material that he thought might undermine the prosecution case but also material that he thought might assist the defence case as far as it was known.
Having considered the matter carefully, I do not believe that it would add anything of substance to the current test in the Bill. The amendment would also introduce an element of uncertainty into what is intended to be a clear and ordered scheme for prosecution and defence disclosure. Let us suppose that the accused has indicated to a police officer an explanation for the offence with which he has been charged. That will be passed on to the prosecutor and will tell him something about what the defence case might be. But if that material points away from the accused, it is very likely to undermine the prosecution case and fall within the existing disclosure situation, which I believe was partly the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway.
Alternatively, let us suppose that the prosecutor does not have material of that kind. Under the wider test, if he tries to guess what the defence might be, based on a rumour or second-hand information, he may have to
1446
disclose all sorts of material which may have no bearing at all on the actual defence. I have to say that I find that both inefficient and unnecessary. The proper means of defence disclosure is a defence statement given under Clause 5 or Clause 6 of the Bill. Until that happens, the prosecutor has no firm indication of what undisclosed material will assist the defence that the accused actually intends to advance. When a defence statement has been given, the prosecutor is then able to assess properly whether he has any undisclosed material which might reasonably assist that defence. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Mallalieu: I am bound to say that the impetus for this amendment comes from a former senior Treasury counsel prosecuting at the Central Criminal Court. I am concerned because although I fully accept what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said and that in most cases it will not be difficult for a prosecutor to look at the material and say to himself, "This will undermine my case if the defence see it, and therefore it should be disclosed at the primary stage", there will be other pieces of material where doubt will arise. I have given some instances and I believe that both of us could think of others without great difficulty. Far from being certain as regards the way the clause is presently drafted, in my view it is likely to lead not only to considerable inconsistencies as between one prosecutor and another but also to prosecutors retaining material which might well resolve the issues and, who knows, at the end of the day save a great deal of court time and prevent investigative time as regards the defence from being wasted, most of which is likely to be funded by public funds. I feel that this is a matter of principle. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 99.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hamwee, B.

Addington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Airedale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Haskel, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Howell, L.

Blease, L.

Howie of Troon, L

Broadbridge, L.

Hughes, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Jeger, B.

David, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Desai, L.

Kennet, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Falkender, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Falkland, V.

Longford, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B. [Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Geraint, L.

McNair, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Mallalieu, B.

Grey, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Halsbury, E.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

1447

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Serota, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Shepherd, L.

Monkswell, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Ogmore, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L

Peston, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Rea, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Richard, L.

Whaddon, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

White, B.

Russell, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Seear, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Howe, E.

Addison,V.

Inchcape, E.

Ailsa, M.

Inglewood, L.

Aldington, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kenyon, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Biddulph, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Blaker, L.

Leigh, L.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Lucas, L

Boardman, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Burnham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Butterworth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cadman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Milverton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnock, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V. [Teller.]

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Moyne, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Munster, E

Colwyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Courtown, E.

Nelson, E

Craigavon, V.

Newall, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Orkney, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pender, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Quinton, L.

Elles, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rees, L.

Ferrets, E.

Rennell, L

Flather, B.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Romney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Selborne, E

Gisborough, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Goschen, V.

Skelmersdale, L

Harding of Petherton, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Harmar-Nicholls, L

Stewartby, L.

Harrowby, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Swansea, L.

Hogg, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Holderness, L.

Vivian, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Westbury, L.

Hooper, B.

Wynford, L

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.49 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 25, at end insert ("and (except as may be ordered by the court not to be disclosed) disclose to the accused the written witness statements which have been taken so far by the investigator.").
The noble Baroness said: I fully accept that the wording of this proposed amendment may appear to take matters further than I intend. However, I hope that the noble Baroness will look at the amendment, see the mischief at which it is aimed, and, if it needs some tidying up, will undertake that that should happen.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that in summary cases the prosecution must disclose to the accused the evidence which it intends to call before the accused is required to serve a defence statement. At present, in many cases no witness statements are served before the trial in a magistrates' court. Advance information may simply require the service on the accused of a statement of the case but no actual witness statements.
Under the Bill as presently drafted an obligation is placed on the prosecution to disclose statements or material which undermine its case but not those which support it. It would, of course, be a nonsense if a prosecutor chose to follow that course, but that is the course which the Bill as presently drafted appears to indicate.
If the wording appears to oblige the prosecutor to serve all material in his possession, that goes very much further than I intend. However, I hope that the noble Baroness will respond favourably to the need to include some provision in this legislation. If the defence is required to serve a statement, the prosecution should serve on it, or at the very least disclose, those statements which will form its case rather than simply those which undermine the case which it proposes to adduce. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Again, as I understand it, the amendment requires the prosecutor, in addition to disclosing material which meets the test for disclosure under Clause 3, to disclose to the accused any witness statements so far taken by the police. The requirement would apply in both Crown Court and magistrates' court cases.
In so far as witness statements form part of the case against the accused, they will already have been provided in Crown Court cases. They may have been provided earlier as part of advance information in respect of offences which are triable either way. There is no such requirement in relation to summary offences, but the great majority of these are straightforward and are currently dealt with extremely quickly. It would not materially assist the accused to have copies of witness statements in advance. Having to provide them would represent a new and unnecessary burden on the prosecutor and would slow down the delivery of justice in magistrates' courts.
In so far as witness statements do not form part of the case against the accused, they will in any event be disclosed to the accused if they might undermine the prosecution case.

1449
The noble Baroness will note that I reject the amendment, but she posed a question. I am prepared to say that we shall continue to look at the wording, but at the moment, on the face of it, I believe that the amendment is not acceptable.
Baroness Mallalieu: I appreciate that the noble Baroness has had very little time to consider the amendment carefully. However, I suggest that when she does so she will see the nonsense which results from the Bill as presently drafted. I make it clear that I am dealing only with summary trials where the accused may not see the statements which will be used in relation to the witnesses relied on by the Crown. It must be a nonsense for a prosecutor in such a case, when he does not serve those statements on which he will rely, to be required under the Bill to serve the statements which undermine that material.
I hope that the noble Baroness will look carefully at the Bill in the light of what has been said, as she indicated that she will. I hope that she will feel it right, if necessary, to take steps to introduce her own amendments at a later stage to remedy what is at present an absurdity. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 6, leave out ("believes") and insert ("concludes").
The noble Baroness said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if in moving Amendment No. 11, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 33, 40 and 45, which have the same effect.
The amendment to Clause 3 is a minor amendment improving the description in the Bill of what a court does in considering whether it is in the public interest to disclose material brought before it for a ruling.
The court must weigh the competing public interests involved. For example, there is a public interest in not revealing the identity of persons who give information to the police which assists the detection of crime. There is also a public interest in disclosing material which would enable a defendant to put forward a tenable case in its best light. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice stated in the 1994 case of Keane, if the material may prove the defendant's innocence or avoid a miscarriage of justice, then the balance comes down resoundingly in favour of disclosing it. However, the court must examine each case on its merits in the light of the particular circumstances. The degree of relevance of the material to the defence is obviously one factor which the court will bear in mind.
Given that the court must conduct a balancing exercise between the competing interests and come to a decision, we think that it is more accurate to say that material must not be disclosed if the court concludes that it is not in the public interest to disclose it than that the court believes that it is not in the public interest to disclose it. Accordingly, Amendment No. 11 replaces "believes" with "concludes" in Clause 3(6), and we have
1450
tabled identical amendments—Amendments Nos. 33, 40 and 45—to Clauses 7(5), 8(4) and 9(8) to achieve the same effect.
Although he is not in his place, I understand that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice also takes the view that "concludes" is a better word to use than "believes" in this context. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Who am I to go against the Lord Chief Justice?
This series of amendments serves to propagate the belief that the courts are entirely rational. They do not believe things, they conclu4e them after an exhaustive process of ratiocination. I wish that were the case. I do not believe that it is true, but I am quite content to go along with the pretence which is contained in the amendments.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I entirely agree with this and the subsequent amendments. However, I should like the noble Baroness to confirm one point.
I am looking at paragraph 6.6 of the draft code of practice. I hope that there is no suggestion that the word "believes" there will be changed to "concludes", because it is very important that the prosecutor should be put under a duty to look very carefully and determine what he believes to be in the public interest to disclose. It is crucial that the prosecutor should put before the court all the material in his possession for the court to decide what is or what is not in the public interest to disclose. I hope that there will be no consequential amendment to the code of practice, because that is a totally different matter when it is in the hands of the prosecutor rather than in the hands of the court.
Baroness Blatch: It is my understanding that the noble Viscount is right in his assumption. However, at this stage the code of practice is not a definitive document and will be subject to change. On this particular point I believe that the noble Viscount is right.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 8, leave out ("need") and insert ("must").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 12 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34, 41 and 46.
Amendment No. 12 is a minor amendment to Clause 3 to make its provisions on intercepted material more consistent with the Interception of Communications Act 1985. As drafted, Clause 3(7) provides that material need not be disclosed if it has been intercepted in obedience to a warrant issued under Section 2 of the 1985 Act or if it indicates that such a warrant has been issued or such material has been intercepted. The intention was to disapply the requirements for disclosure in the Bill as regards intercepted material or material indicating that a warrant had been issued or interception had taken place. Section 6 of IOCA requires the Secretary of State when issuing a warrant to make arrangements to secure that the dissemination of intercepted material is kept to a minimum and that it is

1451
destroyed as soon as it is no longer necessary to retain it in relation to the purposes for which it is issued. Your Lordships sitting in a judicial capacity decided in the recent case of R. v Preston and Others that the destruction of intercepted material was not only a permissible act but one which those responsible were hound by Section 6 to perform. For this reason, on reflection we have decided that it would be more consistent with the terms of the 1985 Act, as considered in that case, to provide that the prosecutor must not, rather than need not, disclose intercepted material. In addition to this amendment, we have tabled identical amendments—Amendments Nos. 34, 41 and 46—to Clauses 7(6), 8(5) and 9(9). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Broadbridge): I must inform the House that if Amendment No. 13 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 14.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 13, leave out from ("section") to end of line 24 and insert ("during a period beginning and ending with such days as the Secretary of State prescribes under this subsection by regulations.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale: I do not understand the words:
"a period beginning and ending with such days as the Secretary of State prescribes".
Surely, Secretaries of State prescribe dates "on which" things are to happen, not "with".
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord raises a particularly pedantic point. However, I shall go away and look at the wording. I hope that in promising to look at the word "with" the amendment will be passed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must inform the Committee that Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 are amendments to Amendment No. 15. The Marshalled List contains a printer's error. Line 5, to which Amendment No. 16 refers, has been placed on the wrong line of Amendment No. 15. It should be one line higher up.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
PRIMARY DISCLOSURE: FURTHER PROVISIONS
(".—(1) This section applies where—

(a) the prosecutor acts under section 3, and

(b) before so doing he was given a document in pursuance of provision included, by virtue of section 17(3), in a code operative under Part II.

(2) In such a case the prosecutor must give the document to the accused at the same time as the prosecutor acts under section 3.").
The noble Baroness said: The government new clause after Clause 3 is designed to replace Clause 4. As currently drafted, Clause 4(1) requires the prosecutor, when he makes primary prosecution disclosure, to give the accused a document that indicates the nature of
1452
undisclosed prosecution material relating to the offence which the prosecutor believes is not sensitive. Subsections (2) and (3) then define what is meant by "prosecution material" and "sensitive". Because there is no direct reference to what is done in pursuance of a code of practice under Part II, the clause implies that this is a separate document prepared by the prosecutor on the basis of the material obtained by the police. What happens at present—and what we intend to happen in future—is that the prosecutor gives the accused the schedule of non-sensitive material prepared by the police rather than creating a separate document. The new clause after Clause 3 replaces Clause 4 in its entirety. It applies where the prosecutor makes primary prosecution disclosure under Clause 3 and, before doing so, has been given the schedule of non-sensitive material referred in Clause 17(3). He is to give that schedule to the accused at the same time that he makes primary prosecution disclosure. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 15, Amendment No. 16:
Line 5, after ("section") insert ("17(2A) and").
The noble Lord said: I indicated a desire to take together Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 and 88. Somehow, in the groupings, Amendments Nos. 15 and 88 have been separated, although clearly they should not be. Amendment No. 16 has to be debated before Amendment No. 15 can be agreed.
I recognise that in some respects the new Clause 4 is a better clause than the one in the Bill as printed. On this occasion I do not refer to the constitution of the Labour Party. The advantage of the new Clause 4 as proposed in Amendment No. 15 is that makes clear that the document to be disclosed is to be produced by the police, not compiled by the prosecutor from police material. That is very welcome. It is also true that the new clause is considerably simpler than the existing clause. I suppose that, even in the absence of the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Campbell of Alloway, we must he grateful for that.
There are still very substantial defects in the new Clause 4, and very substantial ways in which the document referred to is not securely the schedule to which the Royal Commission referred and to which the Minister was good enough to refer in letters to me before Second Reading. It is important that this should not simply be a document which indicates the nature of material, as provided in Clause 17(3), but that it should be specifically a schedule, that it should be complete, that the police should have the duty to ensure that what they provide is complete, that the prosecutor should have the duty to ensure that the disclosure document that he issues is complete, and that the accused should have adequate power to demand the relevant information. That is what my amendments provide for.
Amendment No. 16 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 88 which provides in Clause 17 a further condition that the prosecutor must be given any material prepared under subsection (2) referred to in new Clause 4, must have access to the material indicated in it, though not necessarily have it in his possession, and may amend the document having himself reviewed

1453
whether or not it is in the public interest that it should not be disclosed to the accused. The importance of this is that the Bill as drafted, and as it is being redrafted, still provides that it is the police who decide what is sensitive and what is or is not in the public interest rather than the prosecutor. In our view, the prosecutor should make that decision, not the police. In later amendments we deal further with the issue of sensitive material. We have amendments in Part II which spell out in more detail what is listed in the code of practice as sensitive material. It will be seen that the list is very wide. The decision as to what is sensitive and to what is not and what is in the public interest and what is not is a matter of considerable public importance. It should be the prosecutor rather than the investigator who has that responsibility. That is the purpose of Amendments Nos. 16 and 88.
Amendment No. 17 provides that the prosecutor has the responsibility to ensure that the document lists all the material relevant to the offence, the offender or the surrounding circumstances of the case, whether or not the prosecution intend to rely upon the material, in sufficient detail to enable the material to be correctly identified. This is the crux of the matter as far as the schedule is concerned. This is what a schedule is for. It is a complete list of documents compiled in such a way that they can be identified so that the defence can interpret what they mean. On the basis of those documents and only on that basis, the defence can make an adequate disclosure in response. I believe that the wording in Amendment No. 17 is much closer to the original intention of the Royal Commission than either the consultation paper published earlier this year or this Bill. Despite the well meaning and helpful words of the Minister, we would wish the provision for an adequate schedule to be on the face of the Bill.
Thirdly, Amendment No. 18 is again an amendment to Amendment No. 15. It would allow the accused to have increased power to demand material:
"in order to determine the full circumstances of the case before determining appropriate defence disclosure".
The accused may therefore apply to the court. It is not a matter for negotiation between prosecution and defence; it is a matter where the accused would apply to the court for further material to be made available. The purpose of all that is not to try to make life more difficult for the prosecution. Far from it. Its purpose is to ensure that a defence disclosure is properly made in the light of the facts that ought to be available to the defence in order to make a defence disclosure.
It has been our position all along that there should be a defence disclosure, although we shall come to the terms of that disclosure later. However, it must be on the basis of the necessary information from the prosecution in the first place. So although we welcome the thrust of some of the amendments in the new clause and the improvements which are made in it, there are still a number of significant points on which the Bill needs to go further than it does. I beg to move Amendment No. 16.
Baroness Blatch: The amendments would provide for the prosecutor to be given the schedule of sensitive
1454
material and to have access to all material listed on it and would allow him to amend the schedule in the light of his own decision about whether it was in the public interest to disclose the material listed.
The amendments would also insert a reference to the sensitive schedule, which may have been amended, into subsection (1)(b) of the new clause after Clause 3. In conjunction with subsection (2), that would mean that the prosecutor would have to give the accused both the non-sensitive and the sensitive schedules. The amendments would also require the prosecutor to ensure that the document he was given listed all material relevant to the offence or the offender or the surrounding circumstances of the case, whether or not the prosecution intends to rely upon the material, in sufficient detail to enable the material to be correctly identified.
The amendments would also enable the accused to apply to the court for the disclosure of undisclosed material on the document if he reasonably believed that he needed to see it in order to determine the full circumstances of the case before making a defence disclosure. That amounts to a very different disclosure scheme from the one in the Bill. There are a number of serious difficulties with it.
The accused would automatically have the schedule of sensitive material, listing details of informants, covert surveillance techniques and other methods of fighting crime. That would significantly impede the fight against serious crime. Despite all the developments in the law on disclosure in the past few years, no responsible person has ever questioned the need to protect sensitive material such as that. I cannot believe that the noble Lords intended their amendments to have that effect.
On the other hand, if the sensitive schedule is not to be given to the accused, the amendment to Clause 17 is unnecessary. The draft code of practice already provides for the prosecutor to receive the sensitive schedule and to have access to all sensitive material. There is no need to amend the schedule if it is not to be given to anyone. The proper course is for the prosecutor to consider whether any sensitive material falls within the tests for disclosure and, if it does, to seek a court ruling on whether it should be disclosed. Depending on the court ruling, the prosecutor then acts accordingly. If sensitive material does not fall within the disclosure tests, then it is effectively protected by not disclosing either the material or the sensitive schedule.
Also, the accused would effectively have access to all prosecution material if he could make out a case for it to the court. How is the court to know whether the belief of the accused that he needs to see prosecution material is reasonable? At that stage the accused will have disclosed no information about his defence; there is no criterion by which to judge the reasonableness of any request.
More generally, if the accused has access to all prosecution material before making a defence disclosure, we have returned to the current disclosure regime. It would be open to the accused to trawl through all the material in the hope of finding something which the prosecution could not disclose, thereby forcing the abandonment of the proceedings, or simply to elicit

1455
promising lines of inquiry rather than material supporting his own version of events. I am afraid that that is completely contrary to the principles underlying Part I of the Bill. I may say too that it is a bit at odds with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he spoke at Second Reading, because it seriously changes the nature of the Bill.
The noble Lord made a point about the police deciding themselves what should be sensitive. The police will, of course, take an initial view on whether material is sensitive for the purposes of preparing the schedules. But it will still be for the prosecutor to decide whether material should be disclosed and whether material from all that is retained needs to be put before the court for a ruling because of its sensitivity. For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will reject the amendments.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. She has certainly pointed out a major respect in which the amendments go further than I had intended. For that, I apologise to the Committee. It was never my intention to secure that a schedule of sensitive material should be made available to the accused. My intention was to ensure that the police were not responsible for the final decision about what was sensitive and what was not. The prosecutor is responsible for that decision.
Again, I have listened to what the Minister said. If she is right that it is the responsibility of the prosecutor, then she will hear no more of this. I am riot sure what is meant by the initial view taken by the police and what force that has in the interaction. Of course, we must now talk about "revealing" and riot "disclosing".
I believe that, as in Amendment No. 17, it is right that the prosecutor should have the responsibility of ensuring that the disclosure document is complete. I recall that the Royal Commission said that both parts of the process—the compilation of a schedule by the investigator and the compilation of a schedule by the prosecution—should be subject to a signed certificate. We shall come to that point when we deal with the issue of the named officer.
I also believe that it is right, as in Amendment No. 18, for the accused to have the increased power to demand material. However, it was never my intention—and I apologise for the fault in the wording—that the accused should have access to a schedule of sensitive material. As the Minister said, in many ways that would undermine the force of the proposals made in the Bill. I do not wish to do that and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 16.
Amendment No. 16, as an amendment to Amendment No. 15, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18, as amendments to Amendment No. 15, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 15 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Primary disclosure: further provisions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: I beg to move that this clause do not stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 negatived.
Clause 5 [Compulsory disclosure by accused]:
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 4, line 3, leave out ("or purports to comply with it").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. It is in one sense defective in that there ought to be another amendment in the same terms to Clause 6 (page 5, line 13). We simply do not understand what is the force of the phrase,
"or purports to comply with it".
I understand that the prosecutor complies with the provisions, but I cannot understand what is the significance of "purports to comply with it". To me, "purports" means that the prosecutor does not really mean to comply, that he pretends to comply. Perhaps I misunderstand the thrust of the phrase in legal language. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I hope I can be helpful here. Clause 5(1)(b) provides that Clause 5 applies where the prosecutor complies with the requirement to make primary prosecution disclosure in Clause 3 "or purports to comply with it". The amendment removes those words and is a probing amendment, as the noble Lord confirmed.
This formulation is needed because, although the prosecutor may genuinely believe that he has disclosed all material which he thinks undermines the prosecution case, he may not in fact have disclosed all such material. There might be some material in the possession of the police which he has not inspected, although he would be entitled to inspect it, and which (if he had inspected it) he might think undermined the prosecution case. In cases where there is this kind of inadvertent non-disclosure, the prosecutor does not actually comply with Clause 3 but only purports to do so. I notice that the noble Lord looks perplexed at the moment, as I did when I first read this explanation. But even if this does happen in respect of one item of material, the prosecutor will have disclosed all other material which he thinks may undermine the prosecution case, and the requirements in Clause 5 should still apply.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw this amendment. The noble Lord still appears perplexed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can perfectly well understand that the prosecutor can make a mistake, and that he may think he has complied, may intend to comply, may want to comply and may fail to do so. That is perfectly clear. But the word "purports" puzzles me. Surely, the normal phrase that would be used is, "has used his best endeavours to comply", or something of that sort. But "purports to comply" means to me that he is pretending to comply when he has not really done so.

1457
It is a matter of the meaning of words in the English language. I did not take the opportunity to look up any of the relevant words in the dictionary; perhaps I should have done.
If I am right about the word "purports", I may return to it at a later stage. In the meantime, I am grateful for the explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 4, line 5, leave out ("condition in subsection (2) is") and insert ("conditions in subsections (2) and (2A) are").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24 and 28. These amendments are concerned with the detailed written case statement which we suggest the prosecution should prepare. This is not the same as the "written witness statements" dealt with in the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu. This is, as it were, the analysed prosecution case statement.
The reason for requesting it is, as I said when speaking to an earlier amendment, not that we want to make life more difficult for the prosecution; on the contrary, we want to make sure that the defence disclosure is adequate because it is based on the proper prior information.
The Bill as drafted requires the defence to set out the nature of its defence, the matter on which it takes issue with the prosecution and the reasons for taking issue with the prosecution, in order to obtain secondary disclosure. If the defence does not produce an adequate defence statement, it may be subject to adverse influence at the trial; or indeed, if the defence is changed after the provision of the defence statement, that may be subject to adverse comment at the trial. So far, so good. That depends on the ability of the defence to produce a proper statement. That in turn depends on a requirement for the prosecution to set out its case at this stage.
I believe I am right in saying that at Second Reading the Minister gave the impression that she thought Clause 5 already provided for that. It is true that in cases to be tried at the Crown Court the defence will have been served with the indictment, evidence which goes to the prosecution case, evidence which appears to undermine the prosecution case, and the schedule of unused and non-sensitive information. But it will not have been provided with a full statement of the prosecution case.
If the defence is required to produce all of that, surely the principle of equality of arms requires that it should apply to the prosecution as well. I use the phrase "equality of arms" deliberately. It is used in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and we have been assured that everything in this Bill is in accordance with that convention.
The wording used in these amendments is in the same terms as the wording of what is required for preparatory hearings. So it already has some legitimacy in legislative terms. We believe that there should be the possibility of
1458
adverse comment if it is not done, as there is the possibility of adverse comment for faults in the defence disclosure. All of this will be dealt with in more detail when we come to Clause 10 of the Bill.
We believe it is important that the defence case should be well enough informed for it to be comparable with the prosecution case, for both of them not to be changed without good reason, and for the prosecution to have been so codified. I do not mean that every single decision has to be made in advance; but the prosecution case has to be set out in such a way that the prosecution does not go on a fishing expedition and build or shape its case on the basis of the defence disclosure. In other words, the same rules must apply to both. That is the purpose of these amendments. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Ackner: This amendment seems to overlap with my Amendment No. 23 and should perhaps be grouped with it. As might have been anticipated, my amendment is less ambitious than that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It arises in the same way, although I emphasise it in a somewhat different way.
One should bear in mind that the Government's proposals in regard to the obligation cast upon the defence has gone considerably further than that proposed by the Royal Commission. In paragraph 68 (page 99) the Royal Commission reported as follows:
"In most cases disclosure of the defence should be a matter capable of being handled by the defendant's solicitor (in the same way that alibi notices are usually dealt with at present). Standard forms could be drawn up to cover the most common offences, with the solicitor having only to tick one or more of a list of possibilities, such as 'accident', 'self-defence', 'consent', 'no dishonest intent', `no appropriation', 'abandoned goods', 'claim of right', 'mistaken identification' and so on. There will be complex cases which may require the assistance of counsel in formulating the defence".
The proposal here has gone a great deal further. Clause 5(3) casts upon the accused the obligation to give a defence statement. That is a statement which—I quote from subsection (4)—sets out:
"in general terms the nature of the accused's defence"—
that is according to the Royal Commission—
"indicating the matters on which he takes issue with the prosecution, and … setting out, in the case of each such matter, the reason why he takes issue with the prosecution".
I do not in any way differ from the proposal to widen the obligation put upon the defence. But what, apparently, is being sought to be done is almost to assimilate the criminal procedure to the civil procedure, whereby the defendant in a piece of civil litigation puts in a defence to a statement of claim which sets out in detail the nature of the claim. That is not done in this case. What is relied upon (under Clause 5(2)(b)) is:
"a copy of the notice of the prosecution case [served] on the accused under section 5 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980".
The prosecution's case is defined in that section as obliging the specification of the charge or charges and the inclusion of a set of documents containing the evidence. That is all. So when the defendant comes to plead to that statement he has probably to infer just how the prosecution is basing its case. What is required—my

1459
amendment is in a briefer form than that provided by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—is an obligation to set out the material facts:
"a detailed statement of the facts relied upon and the inferences to be drawn".
I have not included all the various matters which would be ordered at a preparatory hearing, anticipating that it might be said that that places too great a burden upon the prosecution. If the prosecution do provide what I respectfully suggest is the bare minimum—namely:
"a detailed statement of the facts relied upon and the inferences to be drawn therefrom"—
that will enable the defendant, who is anxious to carry out his duty, in particular to indicate (Clause 5(4)):
"the matters on which he takes issue with the prosecution, and … in the case of each such matter, the reason why he takes issue with the prosecution".
To expect him to perform those two functions purely on the basis of a statement of the charge and the statements of witnesses is, I believe, asking too much and spoils the whole basis of the operation, which is to say clearly to the defendant, "This is our case. To what extent do you take issue with it?"
That is what the prosecution seeks to find out and I support it in its quest. But if the prosecution wants to find that out effectively, it must set out the nature of its case and the inferences which it wishes to draw from the facts that it specifies.
Therefore, I support the principle behind the noble Lord's amendment, though in due course I should have suggested my amendment: in lieu of his if his proved too ambitious.
Viscount Runciman of Doxford: I thank the noble and learned Lord for voicing those concerns a great deal more eloquently than I was about to do. I should like merely to endorse them. On the basis of what I said earlier, I am not close enough to the detail of what we are discussing this afternoon to do more than ask the Minister to take seriously certain worries which are shared quite widely throughout the Committee.
It is a matter of considerable concern if defence disclosure is to be taken to the point that a defendant is required to set out in detail the reasons why he takes issue with the prosecution point by point. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that to assimilate in that way the criminal to the civil procedure runs a serious risk, in practice, of undermining what is common ground throughout the House—the principles of the burden and standard of proof. That cannot be right.
There is a further matter which will need to be addressed later. I mention it now because it arises directly out of the issues which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, raised. It is not clear to me—unless there is some passage in the Bill or the amendments with which I am not yet up to speed, so to speak—what prevents the prosecution from varying its case in the light of information obtained from the defence under the proposed requirement on the defence to set out in detail the reasons why issue is taken with the prosecution.
1460
It seems to me, but here I obviously defer to practitioners with direct experience, that in the great majority of cases the crucial issue is likely to turn, certainly in many serious criminal cases, on the credibility of the witnesses. If the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, were acceptable to the Minister, that would meet both the concerns which are certainly shared on this side of the House and the concerns which the Royal Commission had very much in mind in its proposals, not going so far as the Bill does now.
As I said, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for what he said, to endorse it and ask the Minister to consider it very seriously.
Baroness Blatch: I preface my response to the amendment by saying that of course I want to take away what has been said during the course of the debate and study it very carefully. But, as has been said, there is already a statutory requirement to supply certain information about the prosecution case. In respect of either way offences, the Magistrates' Courts (Advance Information) Rules 1985 require the prosecutor to provide either copies of the statements of proposed prosecution witnesses or a summary of the facts and matters of which the prosecutor proposes to adduce evidence in the proceedings before a decision on mode of trial. In Crown Court cases, the prosecution must serve a notice of the prosecution case or a notice of transfer with documents containing the evidence on which the charges are based. Clause 5(2) refers to the provision of that information as a condition which must be met before the accused is required to provide a defence statement.
These amendments would accordingly require the prosecutor to prepare and give the accused an additional document containing information which, in some respects, duplicates what has already been given. I do not believe that it is necessary to provide that additional information in order to enable the accused to comply with the requirements of defence disclosure in Clause 5. It would place an additional and unnecessary burden on the prosecutor, and serve only to delay the delivery of justice.
The content of the prosecution case statement would be the same as in a preparatory hearing. Such a case statement would be required in all cases. But a preparatory hearing is designed only for potentially long or complex cases where the judge believes that substantial benefits might accrue. In those cases the benefits will outweigh the burdens imposed on both sides by the preparatory hearings regime. That cannot be said of the generality of cases.
As I said, I believe that the burden on the prosecution of complying with that requirement in all Crown Court cases, where the prosecutor has already served information about the prosecution case on the accused, would outweigh any benefit to the accused. But, as I have said, I shall take this matter away and read

1461
carefully what has been said. If we believe that the Bill is not right as presently drafted, I shall reconsider at the next stage.
Viscount Colville of Culross: If the noble Baroness intends to take this matter away, I shall be obliged if she will also consider the practicalities.
Under Clause 5, subsections (3)and (4), the accused has to give a detailed statement. I can envisage—not in the case that needs a preparatory hearing of the complicated kind to which the Minister referred, but in the ordinary straightforward case where it is to be dealt with on a plea and directions hearing—that the prosecution may say that the defence has not indicated the matters with which it takes issue and the reason why it takes issue because it has not known what it must take issue with. We therefore conduct a tiresome hearing which could have been obviated if the prosecution had been a little fuller in setting out what was the prosecution case in the first place and one would not then have to spend a great deal of time on PDHs dealing with something which, in one shape or form, is to be covered either by this amendment or that of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner.
I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness will look at the practicalities. That process will happen day after day in the Crown Court unless we know exactly what the prosecution has to produce before the defence submits its statement.
Baroness Blatch: First, I repeat my willingness to take the matter away and think about it. However, it is important to distinguish between the words on the page of the amendments we started to discuss before bringing in Amendment No. 23 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Amendment No. 24 imposes the same requirements as the prosecutor in a preparatory hearing. We are now talking about something less prescriptive but more informative. Without prejudice, I shall take the matter away and think about it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This may have been a helpful 22 minutes. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for linking his amendment with my three amendments. I had no right to separate them and he is right to say that the subject matter overlaps considerably. I am prepared to be convinced that his wording, apart from being shorter and simpler, is better than mine. I am prepared to be convinced also that it is not appropriate to bring in the wording from Clause 24, as my Amendment No. 24 does, but to use the simpler form of words that he proposed.
I am grateful also to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. He points out, as the Minister recognises, the interlinking of the requirements for the prosecution and the requirements of the defence in subsection (4) of Clause 5. I shall beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 21 and shall not move the other linked amendments, but, because of the statements of the Minister, it may be as well for me not to move Amendment No. 26 which seeks to restrict the disclosure obligations of the defence.
1462
A balance must be kept between the prosecution and the defence. I suspect that the Minister recognises that the present wording does not reflect that balance. It is not prescriptive enough in terms of the prosecution and/or too prescriptive in terms of the defence. It does not achieve the equality of arms for which we are all looking.
I shall take up any opportunity that is available to discuss this matter with the Minister, her colleagues and officials. I am grateful for her offer and for the terms of her reply to the amendment.
Viscount Bledisloe: Before the amendment is withdrawn, perhaps I might suggest—as a person who has worked with crime, though not for a long time—that perhaps subsection (4) is over elaborate for simple cases. The Minister said that these amendments are asking the prosecution to do something complicated which is not necessary in simple cases. Perhaps the answer is that subsection (4) has gone too far for simple cases and one should revert to something more like the passage read out by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner from the Royal Commission report for those simpler cases. It may be that then both the prosecution and defence could do simple things rather than complicated things in simple cases.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am attracted by that proposition. The noble Viscount said more clearly what I intended to say when I said that I intended to throw Amendment No. 26 back into the melting pot together with the others.
If we are to achieve equality, it is right that we should seek to achieve it with a lower level of disclosure and a greater simplicity rather than by complicating matters on both sides. If that is to be achieved by simplifying the defence disclosure requirements rather than by complicating the prosecution disclosure requirements, that would be an admirable outcome. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, would agree that that would be closer to the intention of the Royal Commission in its recommendations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 7, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 22 is a minor amendment designed to remove an unnecessary provision in Clause 5(2).
Clause 5 provides that the accused need not make defence disclosure in Crown Court cases until he has been served with some information about the prosecution case under the existing statutory provisions. Subsections (2)(a) to (d) refer to those. If the case is transferred to the Crown Court for trial, the accused will in all cases receive one of the notices described in subsections (2)(b) to (d)—which, as it happens, contain more information than would have been provided under subsection (2)(a). Since Clause 5 only applies where the proceedings have been transferred to the Crown Court,

1463
and since the provisions described in subsections (2)(b) to (d) apply in all those cases, the reference in subsection (2)(a) to information given before transfer is unnecessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 23:
Page 4, line 12, at end insert ('together with a detailed statement of the facts relied upon and the inferences to be drawn therefrom,').
The noble and learned Lord said: I thank the Minister for agreeing to look at this matter again. Speaking for myself, I am not in favour of boxes being ticked. I do not believe they give much information and the amendment is designed to clarify the position of what the case is all about. One does not discover what the case is all about if one has a little box which says 'mistake', 'provocation' or whatever may be the short epithet used to describe the nature of the defence without any detail. In those circumstances I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 22, at end insert ('unless in the opinion of the court it is not in the interests of justice for him to do so.').
The noble Baroness sand: Clause 5(3), as at present drafted, makes a requirement:
'The accused must give a defence statement to the prosecutor'.
The amendment adds the words,
'unless in the opinion of the court it is not in the interests of justice for him to do so'.
I know that I speak for both sides of the legal profession when I say that there is real concern about the danger of this legislation saddling criminal practitioners with a mass of procedural requirements which, in some cases, everyone agrees, are neither desirable nor necessary. Nor are they in the interests of justice. The purpose of the amendment is to enable the court in an appropriate case to cut this procedure short—in other words, to cut away the bureaucracy.
In a very simple, straightforward case where the accused, for example, has in interview made his defence plain, it would surely be a nonsense if the judge could not say, 'This is a case in which the interests of justice do not require the time, trouble and expense'—and I stress, usually public expense—'of all the following steps being taken'.
There will also be cases—they are ones which trouble me greatly—where the accused is unrepresented. In some instances the judge may well take the view that it is not in the interests of justice that an unrepresented accused should be required to undertake an important form of criminal proceeding. There may also be cases where an accused person is represented but may be under a disability or, for some reason, unable to give coherent instructions. In such a case a judge may take a similar view.
The amendment is intended simply to deal with those cases where the elaborate procedure which is required to be followed can be short-circuited. A judge who
1464
thinks it appropriate will have the ability to do so. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that the amendment is a helpful addition to the legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: First, the policy underlying the Bill is that the issues in dispute between the two parties should be narrowed and clarified as far as possible before the trial starts. That will promote the efficient and effective management of the trial. it would be inconsistent with that principle to create exceptions to the requirement to give a defence statement.
Secondly, the amendment provides no procedure for the court to consider the question whether it is in the interests of justice to give a defence statement. I suppose that it would be necessary for the accused to apply to the court and for there to be a hearing. There would be nothing to stop the accused making an application in all cases to be tried in the Crown Court. The number of additional hearings required could bring the business of the courts to a standstill. Because the amendment would insert an additional stage into the disclosure process, it would delay the start of the trial. That is also undesirable.
If the prosecutor comments at trial on the failure to give a defence statement, it will be for the jury to decide what inference may be properly drawn. In so doing it will have the benefit of the summing-up by the trial judge in which he can direct what inference it is proper to draw. If it really is not in the interests of justice for the accused to have given a defence statement, that is bound to affect what inference it is proper to draw, so even in those cases I believe that the Bill does provide. For the reasons that I have given I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Viscount Colville of Culross: The noble Baroness really should think again. I quite see that, in the generality of cases she has been talking about, she may be right. But she should consider the possibility of exceptions. For instance, if the issue is going to end up as one of fitness to plead, which is not all that uncommon, there is no point in the defence trying to produce a defence statement. Indeed, it may be impossible to get one because the hypothesis is that the defence will be unable to put forward anything sensible. Therefore, it will be impossible to comply with the subsection in Clause 5.
I believe that there are circumstances where the matter could be brought before the Crown Court on a perfectly simple application or even as a mention, which would enable this provision to be dispensed with because of the particular circumstances of the case. That will not be possible as the clause is currently drafted because it is mandatory and universal. I do not believe that it should be.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: As regards the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, can the Minister say what will happen if a defendant is not legally represented? Who is going to draw the attention of the accused to the fact that he has to produce a defence statement to the prosecutor? Who has the obligation of informing the unrepresented defendant

1465
what his responsibilities are? Some of these people are at best semi-literate. It is not at all clear how some of these people are going to undertake the task.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the defendant would be represented in court or would represent himself. If a statement of defence were not made it would be for the judge to advise the jury what inference should be drawn. If it was because the defendant was incapable or inadequate for one reason or another, and they were good reasons, that would be a matter on which the judge should advise the jury. I shall read this debate very carefully, as I always do, between the stages of the Bill.
The amendment adds another judicial stage to the process and would cause undue delay. I am saying that in a particular case where there is a disadvantage there is a mechanism within the Bill and the procedure to deal with it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Does the Minister agree that that mechanism comes in too late? This is not a partisan point. The criticism which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, put forward is based—as everyone who has ever practised in a criminal court recognises—on very real problems. The Minister says that an unrepresented defendant is not represented because he is representing himself. I have heard better points in my time. An unrepresented defendant is at a gross disadvantage. Prosecutions in the Crown Court or the magistrates' court are always conducted by professionally qualified people. The burden of this suggestion is one of economy and efficiency of practice. The judge who is controlling the fairness of the procedure should be entitled to waive this condition. In other words, it is trusting the judiciary, in a minority of cases, to waive the absolute necessity which the Bill presently requires.
Viscount Bledisloe: The noble Baroness is in fact saying that here we have an absolute obligation to give a defence statement. Some people will be unable to do it or will have good reason for not doing so. When the judge comes to sum up, he will say, 'Members of the jury, you should not take into account at all the fact that there is not a defence statement because it would have been impossible for the defendant to give one and, indeed, it would have been ludicrous to have required him to. But, unfortunately, the statute gave me no power earlier to tell him not to bother'. So he is saying, 'Parliament has said that this is obligatory, but it is a ridiculous thing not to do and therefore, members of the jury, do not take it into account'. I suggest to the noble Baroness, with the greatest respect, that that is not very good legislation.
Baroness Blatch: I have given my answer and I have also given an undertaking to read this debate very carefully. If my answer is insufficient and I believe that something has to be done, that follows the whole process of proceeding in this way through Parliament. I repeat what I said earlier. There is no procedure provided in the amendment for the court to consider the question of whether it is in the interests
1466
of justice to give a defence statement. I suppose therefore that it would be necessary for the accused to apply to the court and for there to be a hearing. I am trying to suggest that the mechanisms that would have to accompany these amendments would simply add and overlay more procedures. However, I shall consider very carefully all that has been said.
7 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: I am grateful to the Minister for what she has just said. She has heard from four noble Lords who are either practitioners or former practitioners, one of whom is now a member of the judiciary, about the real problems to which the absence of such a provision is likely to lead. If the Minister feels, on reflection, that there should be some way of saving time and money and ensuring that justice is done by making such a small amendment, I hope that the Home Office will take that step—even if it requires some additional amendments to provide the mechanism, which could be done in relation to the preparatory hearing stage although perhaps it is more advisable that it happens earlier.
If the Minister does not feel that she can introduce such an amendment I am bound to tell her that I shall have to return to this matter at a later stage. I should be grateful if the Minister could look carefully at what has been said by a number of noble Lords who know a great deal about these matters. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 27 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 28.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 4, line 43, leave out from ('section') to end of line 10 on page 5 and insert ('during a period beginning and ending with such days as the Secretary of State prescribes under this subsection by regulations.').
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Voluntary disclosure by accused]:
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 5, line 18, leave out from ('it') to end of line 26 and insert ('during a period beginning and ending with such days as the Secretary of State prescribes under this subsection by regulations.').
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion,

1467
I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Consolidated Fund Bill
7.2 p.m.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (The Earl of Courtown.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend the Minister realises the farce in which she is taking part. The Consolidated Fund Bill is an immensely important Bill which we are inhibited from debating as a result of a very unwise decision by the Procedure Committee. When the Bill's First Reading is moved, it is just as well that the House should bear in mind that it is deprived of the very proper duty that it would otherwise have of analysing a Bill of such great importance.
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995
7.3 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these regulations amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in order to implement all of the main provisions of a Council directive (93/98/EEC) harmonising the term of protection of copyright and related rights in the European Union. This became due for implementation on 1st July this year, and we very much regret that the complexities of the regulations have meant that we have been unable to complete their preparation in time to meet that date. Indeed, work still remains on legislation to implement Article 4 of the directive, which requires introduction of a new form of protection for unpublished works in which copyright has expired. That article is not, therefore, covered by the present regulations. We intend, however, to deal with that remaining aspect as soon as possible.
The 1988 Act already complies with one of the main requirements of the directive—a 50-year period of protection for copyright in sound recordings and broadcasts and for the rights of performing artists. In bringing the duration of those rights to the same level in the rest of the EU as in the UK, the directive should
1468
be of significant benefit, particularly to the UK sound recording industry. The area is of considerable economic importance to the UK, and where up to now terms of protection have been much shorter in several other member states, including Germany.
The directive does, however, mean that the 1988 Act has to be amended to increase the basic term of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. This will rise from the present Life of the author and 50 years after death, to life plus 70 years. Although this term previously applied only in one member state, Germany, two others also had terms longer than the UK—Spain with life plus 60, and France with life plus 70 in the case of musical works. Harmonisation at life plus 50 would therefore have been difficult since it would have meant reductions in protection in three member states. Moreover, the directive was subject to qualified majority voting, and it became clear that most other member states were willing to accept harmonisation at life plus 70. In those circumstances, therefore, the UK agreed, reluctantly, to accept the increased term. It follows, however, that there will also be increases in most other member states, and UK authors, composers and artists should benefit from this at least as much as those from other EU countries.
The directive also means that the duration of copyright in films, at present 50 years from making or release, is changed by the regulations and is put on a similar footing to the term for literary and like works. Copyright in films will now last for 70 years from the death of the last to die of the principal director, the authors of the screenplay and dialogue, and the composer of any music specifically for the film. The underlying reason for the change in approach is that several other member states already protect films on a 'life plus' basis rather than for a fixed period.
I should also explain that the directive requires the increased copyright terms it sets to apply not only to future works but also to existing ones. This means that the copyright of works currently in protection in the UK will be extended. Revival of copyright will also occur in the case of works which, although in the public domain in the UK, are still protected elsewhere in the EU. However, the terms set by the directive essentially apply only to works from the EU. Those from outside the EU will receive the term granted in the country of origin, which in most cases will be less than the EU term.
A number of the regulations concern transitional provisions in relation to extended and revived copyrights. The Government are well aware of the difficulties which revival could cause. But without this approach there would be no effective harmonisation for a considerable period, and UK sound recordings and performances would suffer from remaining out of protection in several other member states.
Moreover, we have tried to do as much as possible to ensure that there are adequate safeguards to protect users who would otherwise be adversely affected by revival of copyright. Clearly, it would be wrong if anything done before the regulations come into force and copyrights revive were retrospectively to constitute an

1469
infringement of the revived rights, and this will not be the case. But, necessarily, the safeguards go much further than this; for example, where arrangements for exploitation of a work in which copyright will revive have been made prior to 1st January 1995, nothing done in pursuance of those arrangements after the regulations come into force will infringe the revived rights. That means, for example, that if a publisher has entered into commitments to produce an edition of an affected work before the date I have indicated, he will be able to fulfil his commitments without incurring any liability to copyright owners.
We have also had to establish who is to own extended or revived rights. That is not dealt with by the directive but is a matter which has to be resolved since otherwise it would be unclear who is entitled to authorise particular acts or benefit from them, with the result that future use of works could be inhibited. On that aspect we have tried to take an approach which is both fair and produces the greatest legal certainty. In essence, we have concluded that those objectives are best met by providing that the current owner of copyright will own the rights extended by the regulations and that the last owner of the original copyright will own revived rights.
The House will realise from this introduction that the directive raises difficult questions of balance between competing interests. I am confident, however, that the solutions we have arrived at are fair and workable.
Finally, there is one matter upon which I should comment. It is the date upon which the regulations are due to come into force; namely, 1st January 1996. I am aware that there is concern among interested parties as to whether that means that copyrights due to expire on 31st December this year are extended as opposed to being revived. I should like to take the opportunity to assure your Lordships that the effect of the regulations is that those copyrights will continue in force and will be extended. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
7.12 p.m.
Lord Brain: My Lords, in giving the statutory instrument a guarded welcome, I must declare a number of interests. I am treasurer of the British Copyright Council, and chairman of the British Photographers Liaison Committee, both of which bodies have consulted the intellectual property section of the DTI and actively made representations to the European Commission. It is possible also that my family may benefit in due course from the extension of copyright provided by the statutory instrument. So I declare those interests.
I congratulate the Minister on his explanation of this SI, which is longer than many Bills, and I accept fully the point that he has just made, that copyright which people feel expires at the last minute of this year is, because of the way the SI is worded, in copyright at that moment, immediately before the SI comes into force. That is acceptable. It is genuinely extended copyright.
1470
The Minister has admitted that there are parts of the appropriate directive which have yet to be dealt with. I may come to that in a minute. He has said also, with regret—I accept that—that it should have been brought into force by 1st July. I would just draw attention to the fact that members of the British Copyright Council saw the Minister on 2nd November 1994 to discuss implementation of the directive. I have a slight feeling that, rather than dealing with an SI, an elephant was being conceived in those days, and that the calf has been born in a bit of a rush. When it all arrived, we were given less than three weeks to deal with all the final complications of the last draft. Even then, when it was first placed before the House it took me two days to obtain a copy of the instrument. It was considered by a joint committee. I have been awaiting the report of that joint committee. I managed to pick one up this morning in the Printed Paper Office. We have already had comments about delays of that sort in the House today. I would just add that to the list of problems.
I shall talk about the problems of photographers in particular. Those who have heard what the Minister said will realise that the photographs which were taken in 1945, which was a great year for this country, would have fallen out of copyright on 31st December. That copyright is now extended, but those photographs were taken under the Copyright Act 1911, which was then extended by the Copyright Act 1956, which was then further extended by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Schedule 1, paragraph 11(2)(a).
So the person who commissioned the photograph owns the copyright on 31st December this year, and therefore, quite correctly, it goes on from 1st January as his property, if he still exists. I shall come to whether or not his existence is important in a moment. Looking at the extension for things like films, because the people who were granted the extension of copyright were receiving copyright extended in a somewhat peculiar way and the directive granted them and others more protection, it is clear in the SI when the extended copyright expires.
I have looked through with great care, and because in most cases the extension of copyright of artistic works is now the author's death plus 70 years, I have been unable to find the date of expiry of extended photographic copyright. I may not have used a sufficiently good magnifying glass. I am happy to be told by the Minister when he replies that I have made a mistake. Regulation 18 of the SI, which deals with the extension of the copyright, is fine when one is considering the extension of copyright of an author or the extension of copyright in a film, but, because copyright was held by the commissioner, it does not apply so easily to photography, especially if the copyright was held by a limited company which has been taken over innumerable times, and such things.
Regulation 19, however, which deals with revived copyright, conveniently deals with those points. It is a great pity that Regulation 18 does not contain a somewhat similar provision for photographs. If I have made a valid point on either of those two matters, I hope that, when the Minister replies, because he has already said that there are matters outstanding on the directive

1471
to be dealt with later, he may find a way of covering in a future SI the point I have raised. I leave that, and welcome what he says.
I have one other query on the SI. Under what section of the directive do the Government have power to implement the reasonable royalty provision under Regulation 24(1)? I ask that question especially, because I have received an indication that that type of royalty may be in contravention of the Berne Convention.
Finally, will the Government give an indication of the date on which the next statutory instrument relating to duration and the statutory instruments on rental and lending and the cable and satellite directives are likely to be laid before the House and, it is to be hoped, given an unhurried implementation, bearing in mind that the latter two instruments are some 18 months late?
7.20 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Brain, I have nothing to declare in respect of copyright law. Indeed, I have been struggling to understand the few words of the regulations. I wish first to congratulate my noble and learned friend on introducing the regulations in his usual skilful way and on making a complicated matter look simple.
In general, one applauds the harmonisation of copyright as set out in the 1993 directive and the benefits that will flow to British authors and publishers from 1st January 1996. I expect that all noble Lords have spoken on behalf of one particular factor but my intervention follows a discussion that I had with members of the Composers' Estates Group. The group represents approximately 15 estates of some of the most famous British composers; for example, Elgar, Delius, Ho1st, Britten, Walton and Vaughan Williams, to name just a few.
Many of the estates were formed as charitable trusts on the death of the composer. Today the trust income provides a welcome benefit to future generations of struggling composers, the training of youth orchestras and even the funding of the Aldbury Theatre in Suffolk. One would think that such heirs of great composers would significantly benefit, together with authors and publishers. That was the obvious intention of the 1993 directive which stated:
'Their protection ensures the maintenance and development of creativity in the interests of authors/composers, cultural institutions, consumers and society as a whole'.
One could find nothing more positive than that. Yet, despite these fine objectives, the heirs and estates of composers are unlikely, as I understand it, to benefit very much from harmonisation due to the drafting of the regulations before us.
The main concern of the group is its future interests in the ownership of the extended and revived copyrights. In the case of the extended copyright, its ownership interests under the regulations appears to be limited to the terms of the original agreement. That may have been written more than 50 years ago and have little bearing on today's conditions. I suggest that such a restriction becomes unworkable.
1472
It is interesting to note that musical rights fall broadly into three categories; the performing rights, the mechanical rights and the publishing rights. Surely a fairer formula of benefit could be devised. A similar unfairness appears to arise under the regulations as regards revived copyright. Here the benefit goes to the immediate owner before the copyright expired. That may seem reasonable for authors who traditionally hang on to their copyright ownership. However, as regards composers it is known that traditionally the publisher owns their copyright.
Thus, because of market conditions, the composers' heirs and estates are unlikely ever to be able to benefit from the windfall designed for them under the directive. Why cannot some equitable remuneration be introduced in the regulations in view of those well-known traditional practices?
I turn to the exploitation of revived works. Here the regulations seem to depart somewhat from the directive. First, the dates differ and the directive is more simple to understand. Secondly, when judging whether a person is due to pay or not pay a royalty for revived works the directive uses the expression 'in good faith' but the regulations use the expression 'in pursuance of arrangements'. My legal friends tell me that the phrase 'in pursuance of arrangements' is baffling and has no precise legal definition. To substitute 'arrangement' for 'agreement' would be understood. I hope that my noble friend will give an assurance that that will not lead to wasteful litigation. Furthermore, it appears that there is no mechanism for the exploiter to have to declare his arrangements, which is a minus factor for the states attempting to protect their interests.
My final question relates to compulsory licences, which I understand first arose in copyright legislation back in 1911. I am advised that in 1988 the Government abolished the compulsory licences as being incompatible with the Berne Convention and likely to cause problems with the export of records to member states. Why are the Government introducing such a provision and re-opening these old worries?
I return to where I began. The 1993 directive is to be welcomed for the intellectual property of our country and for the windfall benefits that will accrue. However, I am unhappy that part of that intellectual property—our famous composers and their heirs—should be unfairly handicapped by the regulations. After all, without composers the music world would be a sterile place.
I hope that tonight my noble and learned friend can offer some assurances and clarifications about how a group such as the Composers' Estates Group, which does such immense good, will not be penalised by any inept drafting of the regulations and that if their case is proved some modifications can be made in future regulations.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord say whether, as has been widely reported, Germany in effect bullied other EU countries, which initially were extremely reluctant, into agreeing to extend the period of literary copyright by 20 years?

1473
Secondly, will he give an estimate of how much this regrettable step, as he himself explicitly agreed, will increase the price of low-priced reprints of popular classics, which have been such a welcome feature of our publishing scene during the past five years or so?
7.27 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too must start by declaring an interest. I am a solicitor and a partner in a firm of solicitors many of whose clients are authors and owners of copyright material, performing artists and licensees of such material.
My first question is a general one relating to the form in which the regulations are introduced. I understand that the directive could have been implemented by primary legislation rather than by statutory instrument. Given the anxieties that have been expressed tonight, which reflect discussions and debates on some difficult matters, will the Minister explain to the House why the Government decided to go ahead with regulations in this form, because the statutory instrument is not capable of amendment? Had we been dealing with a Bill, it would have been possible to discuss the anxieties in the shape of amendments and possibly to have implemented some amendments.
Noble Lords who have already spoken have covered the major points and I apologise for repeating some of them. First, perhaps I may ask the Minister about matters in the directive which have not been implemented. He has already mentioned Article 4, so I shall not ask about that. But I understand that Article 2(1) provides for authorship of cinematographic or audio-visual work, the author to be the principal director of that work. The regulations do not amend the 1988 Act to provide for authorship of those works.
Secondly, Article 3(3) requires that the producer of the first affixation of a film shall enjoy rights for a period of 50 years. Again, the regulations do not deal with that. In parenthesis, I apologise to the Minister for not giving him notice of these questions. I was not aware of the questions until shortly before the debate.
The issue of what in effect will happen in practice in the extra 20 years has been dealt with by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. He referred to old-fashioned forms of publishing agreements. Over a number of years of practice, I have seen agreements which, to modern eyes, seem extraordinarily outdated and unfair to the composers and authors. Royalty levels may be very low or, indeed, there may be no royalties at all. The agreements may not be so outrageous that they may be challenged as being unenforceable or, indeed, they may be open to challenge but there is neither the wherewithal nor the will to do so. But certainly, they are often quite unsatisfactory. They inevitably fail to deal with technological progress. The possibility of exploitation using modern technology was not even a twinkle in anybody's eye when many of the agreements were written. I share the noble Earl's anxieties about the continuation of such terms for another 20 years.
1474
The noble Earl has also talked about anxieties as to the extent of what is permitted when revived works are exploited. In referring to arrangements undertaken in good faith, the Minister used the word 'commitments'. Perhaps he will expand a little on that.
In the real world, a publisher may have decided in December of last year to bring out an edition of a work which was then in the public domain. Being sensible, he would have decided to print copies to meet demand. After all, publishers do not wish to hold excessive stocks. The copyright then revives. Will the publisher continue to print and market that edition indefinitely on the basis that it was an arrangement made within the regulations? I should be grateful to the Minister if he could help your Lordships and those in the industry who are concerned as to where the lines are to be drawn.
The question of compulsory licences has also been raised. I share the concerns that have been expressed. The directive dealt with exclusive rights and protection of exclusive rights. Having the benefit of a licence which one is compelled to grant is not the same as being in control. The blanket licences are not, to my mind, the same as the control and protection which was anticipated by the directive.
The Berne Convention has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brain. I have been advised that there may be also a question of ultra vires in connection with the European Communities Act. Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 empowers the Minister to make certain provisions but there is no obligation on the United Kingdom under the directive to establish a right to a reasonable royalty. I am advised that the right may be contrary to the obligation which the directive imposes; in other words the restoration of the exclusive right. Therefore, there is also a concern in that connection in relation to the Berne Convention.
Also in connection with compulsory licences, it is not only the income which is material—the licence charge—but other conditions which the licensor may wish to impose. The copyright tribunal has powers to fix the reasonable licence fee if the parties cannot reach agreement but that is the extent of the tribunal's powers. In the minds of the parties there are no doubt other details as to the extent of use which are important but which are not catered for if the parties cannot reach agreement.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for introducing the regulations. When I was preparing my notes, I did not realise, although it is now clear to me, that as I am the author of several books I must declare an interest. I can only add that I hear from my publishers once a year when they say, 'Your total royalties earned this year are less

1475
than the minimum we pay and we accumulate them for subsequent years.' Thai. is accumulating very slowly. Therefore, I do not have much of an interest to declare.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Lord may be aware that the embarrassment that might be caused when such interests had to be declared in detail was a concern of some Members of this House.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. I must also join with other noble Lords in a note of complaint. We are dealing with a matter of enormous importance. In particular, the restoration of copyright, with one notable and almost notorious exception, seems to me quite unique. The Minister is aware that I am grievously unhappy that we are dealing with such a significant matter in the dinner hour, late in the year. These matters deserve detailed and lengthy scrutiny.
I echo the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. If this were a Bill, my guess is that it would take us a day to scrutinise it; in fact, a day merely in terms of asking the Minister to explain various matters. It is, to put it at its mildest, rather unattractive to be dealing with the matter as we are. The Minister persuaded me that it had to be done this way because of the 1st January date. I am advised that that is not the case but I must bow to the Minister's advice that we must deal with it.
I add a further complaint. We should never have been put in this position as regards a matter of this significance. I hope that it will not happen in respect of the other directives to which the noble Lord, Lord Brain, referred. I am responding moderately today but I shall not behave so well in future, in particular in relation to the rental and related rights directive, if we are not given ample time in terms of notice and availability to debate it. I say that without wishing unduly to criticise the department. In my judgment, within limits and given the difficulty of the issue, the department has done a good job. I agree with the Minister about that. But there is a difference between doing, a good job and doing a perfect or an amendable job. That was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. As she rightly said, we cannot amend any of the material before us, even when some of us believe that the advice given is wrong. The Minister does not have to agree but I hope that he will take on board the point that if some of it does turn out to be wrong in the sense that it does not meet the directive, is unworkable or has other flaws, we shall come back to it in some way or another and put the matter right because that is vital.
I have two further issues to raise. First, apart from the extension of copyright being mildly unusual, it is extraordinarily generous. To add 20 years to what is a generous form of law is extraordinary. Your Lordships may compare it with another branch of intellectual property—patent law. That is at the other extreme. Many inventors find it difficult to procure any years of patent protection. Therefore, the extension we are considering is very generous.
Nevertheless I take the point, although the bullying element had not occurred to me. If we are to harmonise, it would be much easier to harmonise upwards than to ask the Germans to come down to 50 years. I should be
1476
most interested to know whether bullying was involved. I am certainly not one of those who would have gone out of his way, if we had not been asked to harmonise in that direction, to say that there was some national interest in extending copyright by a further 20 years.
The related question is: can we be assured that we have met all the points of the directive? I say that because on previous directives we were told we had but suddenly discovered that that was not the case. In particular, on the balance question, I understood the point of the directive was not merely to harmonise but also to protect the author and the next two generations of his or her family. That is the point at issue. Yet in no sense do the rights in the document revert to the author's heirs: they revert, as the Minister said, either to the current owner or to the last owner. That is quite a different matter. As the noble Baroness said, people may have sold their rights not realising that they were giving something away that was a good deal more valuable than it appeared at the time. Again, I shall be interested to know whether the Minister has been advised that there is no possibility of litigation in that respect. That is not something we would like to see arise.
I have talked about the problem of dealing with such a complex document in the manner that has been proposed today but I have to tell your Lordships that I find Regulation 23 completely incomprehensible. I have put in a good deal of work, but I do not believe that it could be comprehended by anyone. It is totally beyond me even to work out what the paragraph is trying to say, let alone what it actually says. If we were discussing a normal clause in a Bill, I would have tabled several amendments, the objective of which would be to see whether it made any sense.
I hasten to tell the Minister that I am not demanding that he makes an enormous speech telling me what Regulation 23 means—especially as I have already said that I do not believe that that can be done—but I have to say that Regulation 24 also concerns me. The Minister is entirely right to say that there is a question of balance involved. Certainly, someone—for example, a publisher—who in good faith published a work which was out of copyright should not be regarded as infringing because it has now been put back into copyright. However, I believe that Regulation 24 says that, from now on, such a publisher will have to pay royalties on the work. I am not, however, 100 per cent. certain in that respect.
I will give your Lordships a further example. A new publisher wants to publish exactly the same work which was out of copyright but is now back in it. That publisher will not treat the owners of the copyright as if the work were in copyright; as I understand it, the system under Regulation 24(1) will operate under the 'reasonable royalty' rule which is a different matter. In other words, it is rather like the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. The owners will not be given back what they thought they had. Therefore, I believe that we may have the balance wrong in two different ways.
I should add—and this is rather more acid—that I am sorry to see that, inevitably, the Copyright Tribunal will be brought in at that point. From my knowledge of that

1477
tribunal, I must say that I am less than impressed by it in every possible way. For example, I am not impressed with its expertise or its good judgment; and I am certainly not impressed with its ability to act with any degree of speed which I believe may be relevant. Therefore, I have to go on record as being both confused by, and unhappy with, Regulations 23 and 24 in so far as I understand anything at all.
I shall not prolong the discussion any further except to put one further question to the Minister. If he is not able to answer tonight, perhaps he will write to me on the matter. We are, of course, dealing with intellectual property and, therefore, we are dealing with an asset. When the composer or author of the case that we have in mind died, I assume that the estate was valued for probate according to the copyright vested in it at that point based on the assumption that you looked forward 50 years, and no doubt tax was paid on that. My question is: what happens now when a greater value will be created? It was never a value that was there for tax purposes for probate. My probate lawyers tell me that the matter cannot be re-opened once it has been agreed. Nonetheless—putting it at its mildest—we have a very definite tax anomaly here; namely, that someone has got some value which, in a sense, ought to have been taxed earlier but which will now never be taxed.
I do not raise a purely intellectual argument; I raise a serious example of the consequences of going down the route suggested. I reinforce my point to the Minister. I do not expect that question to be answered tonight. However, if anyone in the Minister's department is able to sort out the matter for me, I shall be more than usually obliged. Having said that, we must of course agree the regulations. I do not believe that there is any point in delaying the matter further.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am most grateful to those speakers who have contributed to tonight's extraordinarily erudite debate. I compliment them on their grasp of the detail of the statutory instrument now before us. I shall attempt to respond to most of the points raised, but, if I fail to do so, I shall look at the Hansard record of the proceedings tomorrow and write to noble Lords if there are any points that I fail to answer.
I was asked in general terms whether this was an appropriate way to proceed. Yes, in the circumstances, I do believe that it was right to have resort to such a procedure. There may be a complaint that the instrument has come forward to your Lordships at rather short notice, especially as the 31st December and 1st January crossover point is extremely important. However, in an area as arcane as this, I must point out that the critical aspect of it is that there should have been widespread consultation. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brain, indicated that as far back as two years ago he was engaged in consultation over the matter. It is possible that we have the balance slightly wrong. However, it is not often in your Lordships' House that the complaint is made that we have consulted too much rather than too little.
1478
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, whether Germany had bullied the United Kingdom into accepting life plus 70 years. I see that the noble Lord wishes to respond. I give way.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am much obliged. I referred to the fact that Germany may have bullied other countries; in other words, all the other EU countries and not just the United Kingdom.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, well, perhaps I should say, bullied the United Kingdom or other countries.
As I sought to indicate in my opening remarks, not only Germany but two other member states have copyright terms longer than our present one of life plus 50 years. I also sought to stress—whether or not it was a result of bullying or otherwise, I know not—that every indication was that other member states were willing to accept harmonisation at life plus 70 years. In those circumstances—and I hope that I put a sufficiently heavy emphasis upon it—we reluctantly agreed. In other respects, Germany is having to increase its term to that which already exists in the United Kingdom. As in the case of sound recordings, the directive is a compromise between the various national laws.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Brain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the licence of right or the compulsory licence. The directive leaves considerable flexibility to determine how best to safeguard the interests of users who will be affected by the revival of copyright. In that context, it is specifically mentioned in respect of legitimate expectations. We feel that existing users and the public at large might reasonably have expected that, having once entered the public domain works would remain available for use. We consider therefore that the licence of right is permissible and strikes the fairest balance. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for appreciating that there is a balance to be struck. The fairest balance to achieve was between the interests of the public and those of right owners who will still receive payment for the use of their works during the new and unexpected period of protection these will now receive. We do not consider that it is outside the powers of the European Communities Act to introduce the licence of right.
I was asked a number of extremely difficult questions about photographs. In Regulation I9(2)(b) 'author' has the meaning given to it in Section 9(1) of the 1988 Act. We intend that photographs should be treated in this regulation no differently from the case of photographs which are offered to film directors. I am aware of the detail of this matter as regards the 1911 and the 1956 Act. However, as I understand the way the regulation is drafted, the defect that has been hinted at is not there. We are certainly not aware of any deficiency. The term of copyright in the case of photographs will be the life of the author plus 70 years unless the transitional provisions of the 1988 Act produce a term which is longer than that, in which case that will continue to apply.

1479
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull asked a number of questions about the ownership and the balance between extended and revived rights. We recognise that there is an argument that extended or revived rights should belong to the author or to his successors. I shall certainly not engage now in a discussion about what enters into revived or new probate. However, we certainly understand that argument. But where copyright has been sold outright by an author or his successors no further benefit can have been expected and it is appropriate, in our view, that the present or last owner of the copyright, as the case may be, should be entitled to the rights. Again, we are trying to strike a balance. What is important is that this approach also offers the greatest legal certainty as regards ownership. In a broader way that is extremely important, for without that the future use and availability of works could be inhibited as it would be unclear who is entitled to authorise or benefit from the particular acts of exploitation.
My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked me about the term 'in pursuance of arrangements which were made before 1st January 1995'. I believe there has been some suggestion that that phrase has not appeared previously, but it appears in the 1988 Act. There are a wide variety of circumstances which can occur in practice and the wording of the legislation has of necessity to be fairly general. We do not think it possible to define the kinds of acts which will be permitted more precisely. Where dispute occurs it will be for the courts to determine whether or not this has been done genuinely in pursuance of arrangements made before the specified date.
I was asked whether I anticipated legislation. I am bound to say as a lawyer that I think it would be quite extraordinary if this important but complicated matter at some point did not give rise to regulation. We have certainly done what we can to ensure that, so far as possible, difficulties which might have arisen have been ironed out. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also asked about Article 2(1) which states that the principal director should be regarded as the author of the film. However, the article also provides for the implementation of this provision to be deferred up to 1st July 1997. We intend to introduce the change when the so-called 'rental directive' is implemented. I was asked to give a precise indication of when that would be. I can say no more than that we hope that will be in the near future.
I conclude by saying that we believe these regulations comply fully with the directive. I hope, notwithstanding the time that has been available to discuss this matter, that I have been able to answer most of the questions that have been asked. This is certainly an extremely complicated statutory instrument but I hope that the long time that has been taken up in consultation has ensured that in the main it has achieved the objectives of the directive other than in those respects where I have already indicated it will be necessary to return to regulation.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I hope he will answer
1480
this point. I apologise to the House for prolonging this matter. The noble and learned Lord referred to the term 'arrangements' by analogy with their use in the 1988 Act. I do not expect an answer just now but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will write to me on this point. I am certainly aware of the use of the term 'arrangements' in making arrangements for a film that determines the copyright ownership of a film. No doubt the term is used elsewhere. I hope that the noble and learned Lord can write to me on the detail of the analogy.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am certainly prepared to do that. I believe the phrase occurs in more than one context in the 1988 Act. Rather than prolong the debate at this moment I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until five past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.55 to 8.5 p.m.]

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 7 [Secondary disclosure by prosecutor]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 5, line 33, at end insert ('and which could be seen on a sensible appraisal by the prosecution to be relevant or possibly relevant to an issue in the case, or which raised or possibly raised a new issue whose existence was not apparent from the evidence the prosecution intended to use, or which held out a real as opposed to fanciful, prospect of providing a lead on evidence which went to a relevant or new issue').
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 31 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 36 and 44. These amendments are inextricably linked to the amendments that we have already dealt with relating to primary prosecution disclosure and defence disclosure. We now move on to the issue of secondary prosecution disclosure in Clause 7.
The problem with Clause 7 is that it is very narrowly drafted. It creates only two gateways for disclosure of material to the defence. One is, as we have seen, material which the prosecution considers undermines its case. The second is material which the prosecution considers may assist the defence case as disclosed in the initial statement of defence. Those are the two criteria for primary and secondary disclosure. They are the only bases on which the court can order disclosure of unused material which the defence requests to see.
The problems with those criteria are, first, there may be material which is relevant but which the prosecution, in all good faith, does not realise could be of assistance to the defence although the defence recognises that it is of assistance; and, secondly, if there is a change in the

1481
defence case—and there is some provision for a change in the defence case—there is no obligation on the prosecution to disclose information which is relevant to the new defence case. More seriously, the court cannot order its disclosure, even if it recognises that the change in the defence case is reasonable and should not be commented on adversely.
Then there is the problem of the relevant material which does not fall into those two categories. There could be other lines of investigation which are pursued and then abandoned. There could be trails which the defence realises could lead to important evidence or to a genuine defence which might not otherwise be apparent.
All of those are cases where it is necessary to have a wider requirement for prosecution disclosure. I reiterate that it is not our intention to increase the burdens on the prosecution, merely to make the defence disclosure, and its effect on the trial, more effective than it would be under the Bill as drafted.
Fortunately, there is a precedent for this. They may not be the terms used by parliamentary draftsmen, but in the case of Keane in 1994, to which the Minister has already referred this evening, the Lord Chief Justice used words which we have adopted in Amendments Nos. 31, 36 and 44. Because wording in legislation is so boring, and because the Lord Chief Justice is certainly not boring, I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I read what he said, because it contains a lot more oomph than one normally finds in Bills. He said:
'and which could be seen on a sensible appraisal by the prosecution to be relevant or possibly relevant to an issue in the case, or which raised or possibly raised a new issue whose existence was not apparent from the evidence the prosecution intended to use, or which held out a real as opposed to fanciful, prospect of providing a lead on evidence which went to a relevant or new issue'.
I know that we do not use the words 'sensible' or 'fanciful' in legislation, but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice made his point. He pointed out that the gateways were far too narrow, that they could well be widened, that secondary disclosure by the prosecutor was an important element in the just and effective conduct of the trial, and that such disclosure would not be an obstruction to the judicial process. I do not believe it can be said that these criteria, since they have been spoken by the Lord Chief Justice himself, can possibly be an obstruction to the criminal law process. We believe that they, or something like them, perhaps couched in more diplomatic terms, will be a valuable addition to the Bill. I beg to move Amendment No. 31.
Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 31 would expand Clause 7(2)(a) so that the prosecutor was required to disclose to the accused any prosecution material which had not previously been disclosed to the accused, and might be reasonably expected to assist his defence as disclosed by the defence statement, and could be seen on a sensible appraisal by the prosecution to be relevant, or possibly relevant, to an issue in the case, or which raised, or possibly raised, a new issue whose existence was not apparent from the evidence the prosecution
1482
intended to use, or which held out a real, as opposed to fanciful, prospect of providing a lead on evidence which went to a relevant or new issue.
As the amendment is drafted, the prosecutor is not required to disclose material unless it satisfies all three elements. This is because the amendment is introduced with the word 'and' rather than 'or'. Because the existing test in (ii) is more restrictive than the new test in (iii), material which may be relevant but which does not assist the defence will not need to be disclosed. The same is true of Amendment No. 36 in relation to the description of prosecution material which the accused may apply to have disclosed.
Amendment No. 44 differs from the other two in beginning with the word 'or' rather than 'and'. It has the effect of creating two separate conditions for the test of prosecution disclosure under the continuing duty in Clause 9. If either condition is satisfied—if the material may reasonably assist the defence or may be relevant or raise a new issue—the prosecutor will be required to disclose it. This considerably widens the test for prosecution disclosure in the circumstances in which Clause 9 applies. I think this is what the noble Lords want to achieve in relation to Clauses 7 and 8 also. Of course, it is not achieved by those amendments. If that is their intention there are problems with that. The test of relevance to an issue in the case is considerably wider than the tests for prosecution disclosure currently in the Bill. The prosecutor would be required to disclose considerably more material than had been disclosed to the accused by way of primary prosecution disclosure under Clause 3. As the Bill is currently drafted, the accused receives the bulk of prosecution disclosure before he makes defence disclosure. If the amendments had their intended effect, he would receive the bulk after defence disclosure rather than before.
Furthermore, the new test is the same as the current test for prosecution disclosure as set out by the Court of Appeal in the 1994 case of R. v. Keane. It requires the prosecutor to disclose in effect all material relevant to an issue in the case, whether or not it has any bearing on the defence actually chosen by the accused. As I explained earlier in the debate on the amendments to Clause 3 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, this imposes heavy burdens on the police and prosecution relating to the disclosure of material which may be completely irrelevant to the actual defence. In the light of this, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister has given a very strange answer. We were told in reply to earlier amendments that the risk we ran in expanding primary disclosure by the prosecution was that there would be no point in secondary disclosure because everything would have been disclosed at the first stage. We are now told that to expand secondary disclosure will, in some sense that is not understood, endanger primary disclosure. I do not believe that the two can possibly be made to fit together.
As was recognised by your Lordships in a wide-ranging debate, with a lot of well-informed contributions, primary prosecution disclosure and

1483
defence disclosure should, as far as possible, be balanced. We did not agree about how they should be balanced, whether they should be balanced by placing increasing burdens on the prosecution to match the burdens on the defence, or whether the burdens on the defence should be reduced to match the prosecution. That is a matter which remains for discussion.
The issue of secondary prosecution disclosure is closely related to the two issues that we have already discussed and are themselves inextricably linked. Surely it is necessary to have a wider definition of what is relevant at the secondary disclosure stage, if only because at that stage it is more apparent both to the defence and the prosecution, because of the nature of the disclosures that have already taken place, what is relevant. Yet, curiously, there is very little change in the definitions of what is relevant and what should be disclosed. The Bill provides that the criteria are the material which the prosecution consider undermines its case, which comes from the primary prosecution disclosure, and the material which the prosecution consider may assist the defence case, which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, thought was not different in any significant way from the first criterion.
What is proposed here is nothing very dramatic. We say that things may happen both in the understanding of the defence and prosecution and the development of investigations, or understanding of the relationship between one investigation and other investigations. To that degree, it means that the criteria should be more relaxed. We do not propose to put in dreadfully revolutionary words. They are the words used by the Lord Chief Justice himself in the case of Keane.
I acknowledge that technically the Minister has a point in suggesting that we should have used the word 'or' rather than 'and' in the first two amendments. On that basis, I do not propose to press the three amendments in this group to a Division. However, the point is still valid and is related to the earlier discussions which it has been agreed will take place. I hope that those discussions will be widened to consider the criteria for secondary prosecution disclosure as well as the earlier matters that are now on the table. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 31.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 5, line 36, at end insert—
('() The prosecutor may disclose to the accused any prosecution material which he considers it to be in the interests of justice for the accused to see.).
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 32 seeks to insert a discretion into Clause 7, which deals with secondary disclosure by the prosecution. Having dealt with the situation in which the prosecutor must make disclosure, the amendment inserts in sub-paragraph(iii):
'The prosecutor may disclose to the accused any prosecution material which he considers it to be in the interests of justice for the accused to see.'
I make clear to the noble Baroness that this is in the nature of a probing amendment. I preface my remarks by saying that the amendment is prompted at the
1484
particular request and as a result of very strong representations made to me by senior members of the Bar who prosecute in serious criminal cases.
There is acute concern that this piece of legislation, as presently drafted, may have the opposite effect of what is intended. Instead of releasing the Crown from the burden of much of the disclosure which they are presently required to make, prosecutors may find themselves saddled with a different burden which will adversely affect their ability to prosecute cases to proper conviction. What they are required to do is to look at the unused material at the time of primary disclosure, after the defence statement, and then, as I understand it, throughout the trial from the defence point of view.
A prosecutor will have to keep the unused material under constant review to ensure that nothing which assists the defence is withheld during the course of the trial. That task will, in many serious criminal cases, be a vast one. It is almost standard practice now in an investigation which, for example, concerns a murder, for a large number of statements to be taken initially from witnesses that ultimately are never used by the Crown. There may be many thousands of pages of unused material consisting of both statements and exhibits. The prosecution in a murder case in which a number of different people are accused—and this is an everyday occurrence at the Central Criminal Court and other major court centers—may as a result of the defence statement under those provisions have to keep in mind a number of different defences.
Perhaps I may give a hypothetical illustration. In a murder case in which there are five separate defendants, a killing may have resulted from a fight. One defendant may have served a defence statement indicating an alibi as his defence; another, self-defence; a third that he was present but did nothing; a fourth that he was present and involved in the fight but lacked any knowledge of a weapon which had been used by someone else to inflict the fatal injury; and the fifth may even indicate provocation. It may be that when the prosecutor looks through the unused material at the time of primary disclosure, he sees nothing in it which, in his view, helps him; and nothing in it, so far as he can see, which helps the defence either. The course that he may well wish to adopt, and which is done day in day out at present in criminal trials, is to say to the defence: 'You may see anything you wish. You may make an appointment at the police station where you will be shown into a room where the exhibits are by the officer'. That happens day after day. Junior counsel and solicitors, one or the other, visit the station by appointment and sit reading through the material. If anything is required in the way of a copy, then it can be done at the expense of the defence.
If the prosecutor takes that course now and takes it following this Bill reaching the statute book, he will know that he cannot later be accused of failure to disclose. He cannot later be accused of having missed something. He cannot face a successful appeal later on the basis of non-disclosure, when a proper conviction may be overturned. Above all, he will not have to keep taking his eye off the ball when he is prosecuting the case; in other words, constantly trying to review the case and the evidence from the point of view of the defence.

1485
He may take that course; and, indeed, does so at present. He must be able to take that course, if he sees fit, when this legislation reaches the statute book.
I said that it is a probing amendment. It raises a matter which should possibly appear in the Bill both at the stage of primary disclosure and, as I indicated in the amendment, at the stage of secondary disclosure; or the noble Baroness might consider enshrining that discretion in the code of practice in paragraph 10.1.
At Second Reading of the Bill, I and other noble Lords sought reassurance from the Minister that prosecuting counsel would retain a discretion at both those stages to let the defence have access to additional material, if they chose to do so. When the noble Baroness dealt with the matter at Second Reading (at col. 505 of Hansard for 27th November 1995), her reply was:
'My noble friends Lord Alexander of Weedon and Lord Campbell of Alloway referred to the discretion of the prosecutor to make further disclosure than is required. The Bill does not prevent the prosecution going further than is required under Part I, but I am not sure what circumstances would justify the prosecution wanting to show the accused all the material the police have gathered. I do not see how it would improve the current arrangements. After all, the prosecutor is under an obligation to make available all material which, in his opinion, could undermine his case and also to make available to the defence material which could support the defendant's case, as disclosed. The prosecutor is required to certify that both obligations have been met'.
I should like to see that discretion enshrined either in the Bill or, at the very least, in the code of practice rather than leaving it to prosecution counsel to trawl through the pages of Hansard for guidance in situations like the one I have outlined. It would be an irony if a Bill, which was born of a desire to help the prosecution avoid burdens of disclosure about which the police, quite understandably, were complaining, resulted in the substitution of a burden on the prosecution which adversely affected their ability to conduct prosecution cases effectively and efficiently.
To prosecute a case of the nature that I have indicated—by no means an unusual occurrence—usually means that the Crown may have a junior counsel to assist; each of the defence is likely to be separately represented, often with two counsel. Each of those pairs of counsel have nothing to do but to devote their attention to their individual client, while the prosecutor has to prosecute a number of different cases. To require him to do so, as this legislation does at the moment, without making it clear that there is a way in which he can ease his burden, is to place a burden on him which can only distract him from doing his job; that is, in essence, to prosecute the case.
I ask the noble Baroness to say that the discretion, which she kindly indicated on Second Reading would remain, can be enshrined in some part of the Bill, either on the face of the statute or in the code of practice. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that the only thing that divides the noble Baroness and myself is a misunderstanding about what the Bill provides for. The amendment provides expressly that the prosecutor may disclose prosecution material to the accused if he thinks
1486
it is in the interests of justice to do so. But there is nothing in the Bill as currently drafted which prevents the prosecutor from doing that and a prosecutor is under a common law duty to secure a fair trial. It is worth recording that the prosecuting counsel, for example, are bound by the Bar's code of conduct which sets out that:
'Prosecuting counsel should not attempt to obtain a conviction by all means at his command. He should not regard himself as appearing for a party. He should lay before the Court fairly and impartially the whole of the facts which comprise the case for the prosecution and should assist the Court on all matters of law applicable to the case'.
The code of conduct for Crown prosecutors provides in the introduction that:
'Fair and effective prosecution is essential to the maintenance of law and order'.
In the section headed 'General Principles', the code stipulates that:
'The duty of the CPS is to make sure … that all relevant facts are given to the court',
and that,
'Crown prosecutors must be fair'.
The Bill sets out only what the prosecutor is specifically required to do for the purposes of this scheme of disclosure. Thus, for all the reasons I have given—an obligation under the Bill to disclose, consistent with the requirements of the Bill and also an obligation to abide by the code by which all the key agents are bound—I believe that the amendment is not necessary. As always, of course, I shall go away and read Hansard carefully following this stage of the Bill.
Baroness Mallalieu: I am in part much reassured by what the noble Baroness has said. Nevertheless, I ask her that when she looks at the draft code of practice—and she indicated again today that it is a draft—to consider whether it ought to be made clear in paragraph 10.1, which deals with the disclosure of the material to the accused, that nothing in the code or in the legislation restricts that ultimate discretion. It would be helpful to those who are practitioners. I am grateful to her and ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 6, line 2, leave out ('believes') and insert ('concludes').
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 34 and 35:
Page 6, line 4, leave out ('need') and insert ('must').
Page 6, line 9, leave out from ('section') to end of line 16 and insert ('during a period beginning and ending with such days as the Secretary of State prescribes under this subsection by regulations.').
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Application by accused for disclosure]:
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 6, line 28, leave out ('or').
The noble Baroness said: These are minor amendments designed to ensure that the procedure in Clause 8 under which the accused may apply to the court for the disclosure of additional prosecution material works properly.
Clause 8 provides for the accused to apply to the court for the disclosure of undisclosed prosecution material which he has reasonable cause to believe might reasonably be expected to assist the defence disclosed. Prosecution material is defined in terms of material which is in the possession of the prosecutor or which is in the possession of the police and which the prosecutor has inspected. The definition does not include material which is in the possession of the police and which the prosecutor has chosen not to inspect. But the accused needs to be able to apply to the court in relation to all material which has been retained and which is in the possession of the prosecutor or the police.
The definition of prosecution material in Clause 8 needs to be expanded to cater for this. These two amendments achieve this be referring not only to material which the prosecutor either has in his possession or has been allowed to inspect, but also to material which the prosecutor is entitled to inspect—which encompasses all material retained by the police. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 6, line 28, at end insert—
('() which is in the possession of a third party and which may contain information which is relevant to the offence or to the offender or to the surrounding circumstances of the case.').
The noble Lord said: This amendment is relatively straightforward. It is based on the possibility of conflict between a third party and the public interest. Quite a lot of material that is relevant to a case could be in the possession of a third party, and there is a natural tendency for the third party to have an interest in keeping it confidential. 'The amendment provides that information in the possession of a third party should be disclosed if it is in the third party's possession and the public interest in disclosing it overrides the third party's confidentiality interest.
That may mean that the defence has to inspect the document to assess whether it contains information which is material. This is an addition to the provision in Clause 8(3) for the definition of prosecution material as being that,
'which is in the prosecutor's possession, or…which he has been allowed to inspect in pursuance of a code operative under Part II'.'
I may not in the time available fully have appreciated the nuances of all of the code of practice. If that is the case and I have got this wrong, I apologise. But I have seen nothing in the code of practice that allows the concern expressed in Clause 8(3)(b) to override the third party's confidentiality interest. Clearly, in the interests of justice and the proper prosecution of a criminal case,
1488
it is important that there should be no let-out on information that is relevant and is in the possession of a third party. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I hope again that there is some misunderstanding. The amendment would require the prosecutor to disclose, on a court order, material in the possession of a third party which he may never have seen. It is not defined as material in his possession or material which he has been allowed to inspect. I simply do not see how or why the prosecutor can be expected to disclose material about which he knows nothing.
Further, if the accused wishes to obtain material held by a third party, a means of doing so already exists. He may apply to the court for a witness summons under Section 2 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965. The third party must attend court and produce any document specified in the summons, although he can apply for the summons to be set aside.
Also, there is something inherently objectionable in defining material held by third parties as prosecution material. This amendment does not define what is meant by a third party, so it presumably includes everyone who is not a party to the proceedings. Why should a doctor, a lawyer or a social worker who have had nothing to do with the prosecution be regarded as possessing material which ranks as prosecution material for these proceedings? Why, for example, should a witness for the defence in other proceedings which have concluded be regarded as possessing material which ranks as prosecution material for these proceedings?
Finally, the House will recall that in the debate at Second Reading I gave notice that the Government intended to bring forward amendments as soon as we could on the whole subject of third party disclosure. That is still our intention. Among other things, we intend to reform the procedures for the accused to obtain material from a third party. In the light of that, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Again that is a curious answer. The Minister relies on the definition of the phrase 'prosecution material' to suggest that the kind of material to which I refer is not prosecution material. But in replying to the amendment moved earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, she made it clear that in her view there was nothing significant about prosecution material. The noble Lord wanted different wording but the Minister thought there was nothing sinister in the existing phrase and that it did not mean, as the noble Lord thought, material collected for the purpose of the prosecution. It could be material which is relevant to the case but has not been collected for the purpose of the prosecution.
The Minister also gave examples of what she considered to be material in the possession of a third party. She gave the example of doctors and lawyers. I recognise that there could be examples of conflict between the professional rules of some of those people and the interests of the court. Indeed, I believe this is the issue at the moment between President Clinton and the Senate inquiry into Whitewater, namely, what is confidential information between a lawyer and his client.

1489
I accept that it will be very difficult to find a form of words which resolves that conflict in all circumstances. Nevertheless, it is a lack in the Bill as drafted that there is no specific provision for access to information that is in the possession of a third party.
I do not believe it is relevant that the prosecutor may not know about the material. If it comes to the ear of the accused that there is material which somebody else holds and which may let him off, even though it is not part of the investigation—it could, for example, be a confession by somebody else in a totally different case—then surely that information, which has not been included in the prosecution material as the Minister defines it, should be available to the defence. I rather suspect that a number of the miscarriages of justice cases that have been overturned in the period running up to and following the Royal Commission rely on precisely that point. Here is material which is relevant to the case but does not fall within the definition prescribed in the Bill.
I am very interested in the Minister's remarks about the 1985 Act and other rules. I shall of course read them very carefully before deciding what to do at a later stage. This is not an issue on which, in the absence of confirmation that is firm on one side or the other, I wish to seek the opinion of the Committee. However, it is an issue that is quite live and deserves further attention. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 6, line 30, at end insert (', or
(c) which falls within subsection (3A).
(3A) Material falls within this subsection if in pursuance of a code operative under Part II the prosecutor must, if he asks for the material, be given a copy of it or be allowed to inspect it.').
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 40 and 41:
Page 6, line 32, leave out ('believes') and insert ('concludes'). Page 6, line 34, leave out ('need') and insert ('must').
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Continuing duty of prosecutor to disclose]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 6, line 41, leave out from ('it') to end of line 43.
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks the simple removal from page 6, line 41 of the Bill of the words:
'and…before the accused is acquitted or convicted or the prosecutor decides not to proceed with the case concerned'.
It relates to a very important consideration indeed. Clause 9 is concerned with the continuing duty of the prosecutor to disclose. Subsection (2), which is the substantive subsection in Clause 9, refers to the duty of the prosecutor to keep material under review. However, that is constrained by subsection (1), which states that it applies only between the time of compliance with
1490
Section 3—that is the primary disclosure. I now realise that I should have tabled an amendment to take out the words 'purports to' as well, but I failed to do so. But the duty stops at the time of acquittal, conviction or a decision not to proceed with the case.
I turn back to what I said on a previous amendment. A very substantial number of the miscarriages of justice which rightly gave rise to public concern and then to setting up the Royal Commission related to evidence which became available after conviction. Because there was no procedure for continuing obligations, those miscarriages of justice have had to be dealt with in a most unsatisfactory way. There have had to be appeals to the Appeal Court and to the Home Secretary for directions for the matter to be brought before the Court of Appeal again and those procedures have taken not months but years—in some cases many years—before they resulted in a correct conclusion. Some of them have not yet come to a conclusion.
This amendment states that there is a continuing responsibility on the prosecutor after acquittal or conviction, or after a decision not to proceed. It may be asked: who is the prosecutor who can do that? As was pointed out earlier, the prosecutor is an authority—in other words, the prosecutor is, in effect, for this purpose the Crown Prosecution Service. Surely it is not impossible for the Crown Prosecution Service to have a continuing obligation to review matters which might cast doubt on a previous conviction.
In legislation over the past two years we have dealt with other aspects of the miscarriage of justice. I suspect that this is an issue that has been overlooked. It would in fact be economical and efficient to continue the obligation for review on the prosecutor rather than resort to the remedial measures which are provided for in other legislation.
If my interpretation is wrong, I shall listen, as always, to what the Minister says. But it seems to me that there is at least a possibility or probability that this legislation is not in line with other legislation which has been reviewed by this Chamber in recent years. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that I am able to allay the noble Lord's fears. In particular, this measure needs to be taken in conjunction with other legislation.
Clause 9 imposes a continuing duty on the prosecutor to keep prosecution material under review and to disclose it if he thinks that it might undermine the prosecution case. Subsection (1) sets out when the duty starts and when it ends. It starts when the prosecutor makes primary prosecution disclosure. It ends when the proceedings are concluded either with an acquittal or a conviction, or because the prosecutor abandons the case.
This amendment removes the end point. It means that the duty to keep material under review and disclose any material which might undermine the prosecution case continues for ever. The prosecutor must keep all his case files open even though the case has ended, and must keep them all under review in case something happens

1491
in future which leads him to conclude that material not disclosed during the trial now might undermine the prosecution case—if indeed there was still a case to undermine. He would have to do this even if the accused was acquitted. That is an impossible task for the prosecutor to perform.
As the Bill is drafted, the disclosure requirements in Part I end when the trial ends. If there are subsequent proceedings, for example, because the accused has appealed against conviction, the Court of Appeal will have access to all papers in the case and will be able to decide for itself whether prosecution material should have been disclosed. Even if there are no subsequent proceedings, if the prosecutor becomes aware that undisclosed prosecution material might have rendered a conviction unsafe, he will take whatever action is appropriate, such as bringing the material to the attention of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. But that is very different from requiring him to keep all case files open and all cases under review for ever, as this amendment would require. As I have said, it is impossible for the prosecutor to do that.
In the light of that explanation about taking this Bill in conjunction with other measures that are appropriate if someone finds himself in that position, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I readily accept that the amendment is defective in the sense that it provides for indefinite retention and disclosure of material after acquittal or after a decision has been taken not to proceed. It is quite difficult to ask the Minister to try to draft something which provides for the duty to continue only after conviction.
I am still worried about this matter. It seems to me that there are still elements of the prosecution case whose importance only becomes apparent when new evidence becomes available after conviction. We might think about having a restriction—a closing date ending after a decision has been made not to go to appeal or after all rights of appeal have been exhausted. That might be a solution to the problem. But I cannot believe that there is any doubt that much of the justified concern about miscarriages of justice has been about cases in which the new material becomes available which may or may not under the rules of the Court of Appeal lead the case to be referred to the Court of Appeal; or may or may not under the legislation for the criminal cases review authority lead it to be considered by that authority; but which might be hindered if the information available to the prosecution at the time before conviction was no longer able to support or refute it.
I feel that there is an issue here which needs further consideration. It may be that it is a matter to which we shall have to return. For those who are in prison and believe that they have been wrongly convicted, the idea that when files are closed there is no continuing duty on the prosecution to help them seek justice is a deeply unpleasant and damaging thought. We have to bear in mind, as I said earlier, the concerns which have properly existed about miscarriages of justice and we have to make sure that we do not land up in the same position
1492
in which we found ourselves before the Royal Commission and the legislation following the Royal Commission: that there are technical obstacles to the retention and disclosure of evidence which is relevant to an appeal whether or not the information was gathered before the conviction took place.
As I said, I shall read carefully what the Minister said. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 45 and 46:
Page 7, line 32, leave out ('believes') and insert ('concludes'). Page 7, line 34, leave out ('need') and insert ('must').
The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 and, with the leave of the Committee, will move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Faults in disclosure by accused]:
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 7, line 39, leave out ('the accused') and insert ('either party').
The noble Baroness said: Clause 10 deals with faults in disclosure by the accused and provides sanctions where the accused fails either to give a statement or to produce a statement within the specified period; or where he sets out inconsistent defences in that statement or at trial puts forward a defence which is different from that set out in the defence statement given. There are additional provisions in relation to alibis.
For the convenience of the Committee, when moving Amendment No. 47 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 48, 49, 51, 52, 55 and 56. I do not pretend that they are perfectly drafted. I can see at once that there are a number of clear errors. But I hope that they will flag for the Minister a point of principle which needs attention when she and her department consider what has been said in the course of the Committee stage.
The present Clause 10 provides for sanctions to be applied where the accused fails to give a statement, does so late, gives one which contains inconsistent defences or, at trial, advances a different defence from that contained in the defence statement. I do not quarrel with any of that. However, as presently drafted, the Bill contains no equivalent provisions for the prosecution. If the object is to be even-handed as between the defence and the Crown; if it is to ensure that the scales of justice are evenly balanced or—to borrow a phrase used by my noble friend Lord McIntosh earlier in this Committee stage—to provide 'equality of arms', then there must be sanctions which apply also to the Crown for similar transgressions. If it is right to provide the power for there to be adverse comment where the defence depart from the defence as indicated in the defence statement at trial, surely such sanctions must also be available in relation to the Crown.
These amendments propose simply to put the prosecution and defence on an equal footing and to ensure that similar sanctions apply to the failures of the Crown. The sanctions provided under this section are that the court, or any other party with the leave of the court, may make adverse comment about them; and that that the court or jury may draw such inferences as seem proper in deciding whether or not the accused is guilty.
I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that, in the light of what was said in particular by a number of noble Lords at Second Reading, this is a point that requires attention even though the amendments may not be in perfect form. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I can understand why Members of the Committee tabled these amendments. On the face of it, the sanctions in Clause 10 appear to be rather one-sided. An inference may be drawn if the accused fails to comply with the requirements of defence disclosure in several respects, but no inference may be drawn from any failure by the prosecutor. I shall try to explain why the provisions in Clause 10 are as they are.
The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice recommended that the accused should be required to disclose information about his case. It foresaw the possibility of the accused attempting to evade the requirement in some way. And so it recommended sanctions in the form of the drawing of inferences in certain circumstances. Those were putting forward a defence at trial without giving any indication in advance; or relying on a different defence at trial from the one disclosed earlier; or disclosing in advance a number of inconsistent defences (recommendation 136). The Government accepted that recommendation, and Clause 10(1)(a), (c) and (d) gives effect to it. These amendments depart from the Royal Commission in applying sub-paragraphs (a) and (d) to both parties to the proceedings, and removing sub-paragraph (c) altogether.
In relation to sub-paragraph (c), the effect of removing it is that it will be open to the accused to set out any number of inconsistent defences in a defence statement, so as to trigger the maximum possible disclosure of additional material by the prosecutor, whether or not he intends to rely on any of those defences, and to do so without any sanction. The Royal Commission disapproved of that abuse and so do we. The noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, saying on an earlier occasion, during the debate on the humble Address, that in so far as the Bill followed the Royal Commission it would have his support.
In relation to the other amendments, the Bill does not provide for an inference to be drawn if the prosecutor fails to serve any information about the prosecution case, or serves information late, or departs from his case. There are good reasons for that. The prosecutor is already required to serve a notice of the prosecution case or a notice of transfer under existing statutory provisions. If he does not do so, two consequences follow. One is that the accused is not required to make defence disclosure in Crown Court cases at all, and no
1494
inference can be drawn. That is the effect of Clause 5(1)(c). The second, and more likely, consequence is that the case will not be allowed to proceed. Similarly, if the prosecutor serves the information late—that is, has not done so before the appropriate time for defence disclosure—the accused is not required to give a defence statement. That is because the time limits for these procedures will link defence disclosure to the disclosure of unused material by the prosecutor rather than to the service of the prosecution case. The prosecutor will need to ensure that he complies with the other statutory requirements in relation to the service of his case in good time.
The position is a little different in relation to a departure from the prosecution case. In the light of new information after pre-trial disclosure has taken place, the case for the prosecution may change. If there is new evidence against the accused, the prosecutor is under a separate and long-standing duty under the existing law to serve it on the accused so that he is not taken by surprise at trial. If the prosecutor does not do that, the accused may apply for an adjournment. If there is new prosecution evidence or a change in the prosecution case, the defence case may change. But the Bill already caters for that in Clause 10(4), by requiring the court to have regard to the extent of the difference from the defence statement and the reason for it, before deciding whether to comment or draw an inference. If the change is a consequence of something done by the prosecution, it is unlikely that the court will allow an inference to be drawn. On the other hand, if the change results simply from a desire by the accused to surprise the prosecution, and the prosecution case itself has not changed, it is more likely that the court will allow an inference to be drawn.
I have spoken at some length to the amendments and hope that, in the light of that lengthy explanation, the amendments will not be pressed.
Baroness Mallalieu: Before the noble Baroness completes her response, can she say what is the sanction under the Bill as presently drafted if the Crown departs at trial from the case that is set out in its case statement? I cannot see any such sanction, despite what the noble Baroness indicated.
Baroness Blatch: I mentioned some of the sanctions, though they are not sanctions as such. For instance, the case may be adjourned or it may be abandoned; the defence can challenge as to why the case departed from the statement and why the prosecution is not following the lines it set out in its statement of case. I gave some arguments against it. Perhaps the noble Baroness will read what I said, just as I shall read carefully what she said. If necessary we can return to the matter.
Baroness Mallalieu: I shall certainly read what was said and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for indicating that she will look at what was said on this side also. As presently drafted, as the Minister conceded when she began to deal with this series of amendments, the clause appears to be one-sided. I am not entirely satisfied that what she said allays my fears. However, I

1495
shall look at it and return to the matter in due course if the noble Baroness does not. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 7, line 42, leave out ('specified period') and insert ('period mentioned in section 5(7)').
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 8, line 12, leave out ('specified period') and insert ('period mentioned in section 6(3)').
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 8, line 24, after second ('court') insert ('following the making of an application made in the absence of the jury').
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to set out what shall happen when a party makes an application to the court for leave to comment adversely in the circumstances set out in Clause 10. The words which it is sought to insert in Clause 10(3)(a) are,
'following the making of an application made in the absence of the jury'
If such an application were to be made by the Crown to comment adversely on, for example, a change of tack in the defence case and that application were to be made in the presence of the jury, but to be rejected by the court, then clearly prejudice would result which might well result in the trial itself being aborted. So all this amendment seeks to do is to clarify the procedure that is to be followed whenever there is a suggestion that any other party, as opposed to the court itself, will either wish to comment or seek to draw inferences in the course of the trial. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am not sure that this amendment achieves the intended effect. Let us examine what will happen in practice. The accused will advance a defence in court which is different from a defence in the defence statement. After he has finished, the prosecutor will turn to the judge and ask for the jury to be sent out. Some time later the jury will return. Either the trial will carry on as if nothing had happened or the first thing the prosecutor will do will be to comment adversely on the fault in disclosure by the accused. It will not be very long before juries realise that they are being sent out because the prosecutor intends to seek permission to comment on such a fault. They will know that there has been some fault in disclosure by the accused, which they are not allowed to know about. It is not difficult to imagine the subconscious effect on the jury as they ponder their verdict. This would defeat the purpose of the amendment.
1496
In my view it would be better for the prosecutor to comment in open court and for the judge to direct the jury in his summing-up about the inference they may -properly draw. That seems to be fairer to the accused than the consequence of this amendment.
Baroness Mallalieu: I do not know whether the noble Baroness and I are at cross-purposes. She indicated, as the subsection does, that it will be necessary for the prosecutor to seek the leave of the judge before making any comment and indicated that a prosecutor would ask for the jury to go out, in following my amendment. I am bound to say that I would have thought that most prosecutors would have taken that course any way, given the likely prejudice that will result if the application is heard in front of the jury. However, it seems to us to be worth while making it plain on the face of the statute that that is the procedure.
It is of course right that when juries are sent out they quickly become aware that matters of law are being dealt with. It is abundantly clear that many juries are aware that matters of admissibility of evidence, for example, are being dealt with. There seems to be no way around that. I cannot believe that it is right, in effect, to place the matter in front of the jury at the outset when prejudice is certain, rather than to say that it will be possible for them to speculate if they are kept out while the legal argument takes place.
The normal rule is that matters of law are for the judge. When those have to be dealt with, and if there is any prospect of the jury's view of the facts being contaminated by the argument, the jury go out. All that we seek to do with this amendment is to state on the face of the statute that that will be the normal procedure in dealing with what is in effect a matter of law for the judge to determine—in other words, whether the circumstances of this case mean that the provisions of Clause 10 and the adverse comment should be permitted. When the noble Baroness comes to look at what I have said, I hope she will feel that there is some merit in the suggestion I make. With that hope, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 8, line 36, leave out subsection (6).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Public interest: court to review orders]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 8, line 45, at end insert—
('(IA) In summary proceedings the duties set out in this section shall fall on the clerk and 'the court' shall be construed accordingly.
(1B) The clerk to the justices to whom subsection (IA) applies shall be present on all occasions when the court makes an order under sections 3(6), 7(5), 8(4) or 9(8) and should see all relevant information.').
The noble Lord said: I hope that this is an amendment of practical utility, which deals with the problems which will undoubtedly arise in the magistrates.' courts. They

1497
are entirely different to the Crown Courts, where, in most large centres these days, as is well known, there is a liaison presiding judge who is likely to be present on many occasions in a given year. The problem in the magistrates' courts is that the magistrates are not full time and therefore are not likely to be in a position to carry out this work of review.
We have looked at the present clause and commend, of course, the provision of continuous review, but inquire and offer remedy as to who can actually keep matters under review. We suggest that it is fruitless to simply leave it to the magistrates' courts. Everyone who has practised in them knows that on different occasions the Bench will be differently constituted. In the smaller courts it is quite impossible to have the same constitution for one set of reasons, and in the larger courts for different sets of reasons, and again problems arise.
Therefore this is a mechanical amendment to bring about what it seems the Government desire; namely, that there shall be effective, continuous review. On that basis we have suggested that it is better for the clerk to the court to have the specific responsibility of continuous review rather than' the court, which can consist of different trios of magistrates on different occasions. We suggest to the Committee that it is quite impossible to expect a Bench of magistrates, perhaps over a period of nine months, 12 months or more, to keep the matter under constant and continuous review. The clerk is much more likely to be able to carry out the work efficiently, consonant with the spirit of the clause as we understand it. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The decision whether it is in the public interest to disclose sensitive material to the accused in criminal proceedings has so far been reserved to a judge or magistrate. Given the difficulty and importance of that decision, I think it is right that it should he taken by a judge or magistrate. The effect of this amendment is that in some circumstances that decision will be taken by a clerk to the justices. Although the clerk may be very experienced in the law, and may advise the justices, he has no judicial authority to determine questions of law or to determine guilt or innocence. I simply do not believe that he is the right person to decide whether sensitive material should be disclosed.
This amendment would also set the authority of the clerk higher than the authority of the justices themselves. The original decision whether disclosure is in the public interest under Clauses 3, 7, 8 or 9 is made by the court, rather than by the clerk. Clause 11 is concerned with a review of that decision. If the clerk decides on reflection that the court has got it wrong, he will order disclosure. There will be no opportunity for the court itself to consider the matter.
The noble Lord may have in mind the difficulties that can arise when a magistrates' court is asked to rule on the disclosure of sensitive material which clearly demonstrates the guilt of the accused. In such cases they are likely to take the view that the public interest in protecting the source of the information must prevail.
1498
The material will not be disclosed and will not be part of the prosecution case against the accused. But they will be aware of it when they come to decide whether the accused is innocent or guilty. This problem does not arise in the Crown Court because the jury will not know about sensitive material in these circumstances.
This is a problem which the courts already have to grapple with. As the law stands at present, magistrates who hear an application for the non-disclosure of sensitive material have a discretion in the interests of justice to order that the case should be tried by a different Bench. That was the decision in a judicial review earlier this year, R v. South Worcestershire Magistrates, ex pane Lilley. With respect, that seems to me to be the proper course, rather than providing for such decisions on disclosure to be taken by the clerk to the justices. This is not simply an administrative matter; it is a matter of justice, and the clerk to the justices is not an appropriate person to whom such work should be devolved.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I entirely understand the reasoning which the Minister put forward. Unfortunately, it is not reasoning directed to the problem which I sought to identify. There are problems when a Bench of magistrates looks at material which points to guilt which is then not disclosed. I entirely agree with the Minister that it is appropriate in those circumstances that justice should be seen to be done. Therefore, an alternative Bench of magistrates must try the substantive issue of whether or not guilt is proved. However, that is not my point.
My point—I must return to this because I believe that many magistrates throughout our countries of England and Wales share my concern—is whether, when one speaks of the court keeping under continuous review, the Minister intends that that court—namely, three magistrates—should have the same constitution on every occasion. If not, the system cannot work. I ventured to suggest on an earlier occasion that there will be endless problems in the magistrates' courts, which try significantly more than 95 per cent. of criminal cases in this country. Those significant problems will be added to unless the Minister thinks carefully about this.
I think that there is a sensible argument that questions of public interest disclosure should always be tried by a Crown Court judge rather than by magistrates. If that is not to be allowed for in the Government scheme of things, how will it work? Are the three magistrates to be identical? If not, the work of review is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
I am grateful for the Minister's response, but it is not the whole cause of my concern. I entirely take the point that it may not be seemly or appropriate that a clerk to the justices could overrule his own Bench. What one wants is efficiency in the continuity of review. That is why we tabled the amendment. We simply wanted to alert the Government in a spirit of good nature and seasonal good will, which is always found—certainly from me.
Baroness Blatch: I can concur with that. The noble Lord has suggested that this is a problem. Perhaps I

1499
could go away and think about the nature of the problem and whether there needs to be a response to it. If I need to, I shall contact the noble Lord between the two stages of the Bill. If not, I have no doubt that the noble Lord will return to this at a later stage.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am most grateful for that approach which reciprocates ours. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 9, line 10, leave out ('and the accused').
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 60. The amendment to Clause 11, and the related amendment to Clause 12, are designed to remedy a deficiency relating to applications to the court for rulings on whether it is in the public interest to disclose material.
The current procedure for such applications derives from the 1993 case of Davis, Johnson and Rowe. Depending on the level of sensitivity of the material, the prosecution either tells the defence it is applying for a disclosure ruling, indicating the category of material in question; and the defendant has an opportunity to make representations to the court at an inter partes hearing; or if the material is more sensitive, tells the defence it is applying for a disclosure ruling, without indicating the category of material in question; and the application is heard ex parte; or in a highly exceptional case, makes an ex parte application to the court without giving any notice to the defence. Those procedures have worked well and we intend to embody them in rules made under Clause 12.
As the Bill stands at present, if the court decides, having reviewed the matter, that it is no longer not in the public interest to disclose certain material, it must make an order for disclosure and inform the prosecutor and the accused of its order. But a difficulty would arise if the material were so sensitive that the prosecutor initially made an ex pane application and the court decides on review that the material must be disclosed. In such cases the prosecutor may want to abandon the proceedings without the accused knowing that an ex parte application had been made, so as to protect the source of the material. Clause 11 does not allow him to do that because the accused must be informed of the order, which would defeat the purpose of making an ex parte application in the first place.
Accordingly, Amendment No. 59 to Clause 11(4) provides that, if the court does order disclosure, it must inform the prosecutor but not the accused of its order. That will give the prosecutor an opportunity to decide whether or not to abandon the proceedings. If he decides to continue with the proceedings, it will of course be necessary to disclose the material to the accused, and to inform the accused of the order made by the court.
Amendment No. 60 to Clause 12 completes what is needed by providing for rules of court also to be made governing the practice and procedure to be followed in relation to an order made under Clause 11(4). I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I can feel the ghost of the late, revered Franz Kafka sitting on my shoulder. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, points behind me, but it is not visible at the moment. I dissent from the proposition, as I believe most criminal practitioners would, that ex parte applications to courts work well at the moment. They do not. They cause a good deal of trouble and concern, not least to the judiciary. Secrecy is the enemy of justice, and secrecy, if it is required, should be dealt with in very small packets indeed.
I suggest that there is no difficulty in the present circumstances, with the present draft Clause 11, in making a notification to the accused that the court now no longer believes that it is not in the public interest to disclose material. To put it at its kindest, I find severe internal contradictions in the Government's approach. This again, if I may ask the Minister to do this, is an occasion when there should be some rethinking of whether an accused's rights must always be subordinate, and whether or not the balance is not in danger significantly of slipping too far away from the accused's interests, which, in fact, should be coincident with the interests of the community as a whole.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord has me at a disadvantage, in that some considerable thought has been given to these changes. I have no reason to dissent from the system not working well at the moment. I bow to the noble Lord's considerable experience in these matters. Given that we have another stage of the Bill, I invite the Committee to accept the amendment now, and no doubt the noble Lord will return to the issue at a later stage of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.?
On Question, Whether Clause 11, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall speak briefly on Clause 11 stand part at the behest of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who, I believe, has been in discussions with the Minister on the point to which I am now going to refer. He is concerned that there are many cases before the courts in which the particular case is, or may be, part of a larger inquiry or investigation. At the beginning of the case it may appear that the case is separate from the larger inquiry, but, as investigations proceed, it becomes clear that the inquiry is larger and wider, and that material in the hands of the police may not have been collected as part of the original investigation, but may become relevant to the case as it develops.
The noble Viscount has suggested that there should be amended wording to what I thought I took down as paragraph 7.4 of the code, but I do not believe that that can be right. The wording he suggests is:
'Relevant material should include any other material which derives from activities of the police or investigating authority in the course of investigations which led to the prosecution'.
The noble Viscount has left to write a summing-up speech in a case now before his court and therefore I am not able to consult him on the detail. The Minister knows of it as a result of the meetings which she has

1501
had with him. I do not wish to hold up the Committee at this stage but I ask that the Minister gives further consideration to the case which the noble Viscount made to her and considers whether he or she should propose further amendments at a later stage of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for pressing the point on behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. Not only have we been in correspondence but we have met, and I thought that he was satisfied about the matter.
All material that police have is to be given to the prosecutor and therefore there is no discretion to hold back material. Clause 11 requires the court to keep under review whether it is still not in the public interest to disclose material which it has ordered should not be disclosed. This requirement applies at all times after the court has ordered that it is not in the public interest to disclose certain prosecution material and before the accused is acquitted or convicted or the prosecutor decides not to proceed with the case. If the court at any time no longer believes that it is not in the public interest to disclose material it shall so order. That continuing duty is also a feature of the current law which is preserved by the Bill.
The particular point on which I believe the noble Viscount was satisfied was that of certification. There will be formal certification of the police having handed the material over and of the prosecution handling it in a way that is consistent with the code of practice.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Rules of court]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 9, line 21, at end insert ('or in relation to an order made under section 11(4) (whether or not in pursuance of an application)').
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Common law rules as to disclosure]:
[Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may inquire of the Minister what she says the effective consequence of Clause 14(1) will be.
Baroness Blatch: It may be better if I speak to the whole of Clause 14 because I understood that it was to be generally opposed. It provides for common law rules as to disclosure, with one exception, no longer to apply.
The rules of common law which were effective before the appointed day and which relate to the disclosure of material by the prosecutor will no longer apply regarding things falling to be done after the relevant time in relation to an alleged offence; that is, when the accused pleads not guilty in a summary trial or when the proceedings are transferred to the Crown Court.
1502
However, this does not affect the common law rules as to whether disclosure is in the public interest. These relate to the consideration by the court of different aspects of the public interest in relation to the disclosure of certain information. For example, the court may balance the public interest in not disclosing the identity of a police informant against the public interest in ensuring that the accused receives a fair trial, in considering whether particular material needs to be disclosed.
Members of the Committee opposite do not believe that Clause 14 should stand part of the Bill. If it were removed the existing common law rules on disclosure would continue to apply alongside the statutory scheme created by this Bill. We would then have two disclosure systems; the current, unsatisfactory system, which was roundly condemned by the Royal Commission and which is based on developments in case law which themselves depend on common law rules, and the statutory scheme created by this Bill.
I believe that that would create immense problems for the courts in interpreting the law and for parties to criminal proceedings in applying it. The statutory scheme would generate its own case law, which would run parallel and in conflict with the case law developed under the existing scheme. That would be profoundly unsatisfactory.
Subsection (1) provides for the rules of common law which were effected by the appointed day and which relate to the disclosure of material by the prosecutor no longer to apply regarding things falling to be done after the relevant time in relation to an alleged offence.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the Minister but perhaps I may repeat my question. What do the Government say is the effective consequence of Clauses 14(1)(a) and (b)? I ask that in particular because, when my noble friend Lady Mallalieu spoke to Amendment No. 32, the Minister was at pains to say that the common law duties of prosecutors relating to disclosure would continue. I believe that she read out the ethical duties of a member of the Bar and the ethical duties of a member of the Crown Prosecution Service. That being so, my inquiry is simple—and I respectfully repeat it. What is specified to be the effective consequence of Clause 14(1)(a) and (b)?
Baroness Blatch: I do not understand the point which the noble Lord is trying to make. Clause 14(1) states:
'Where this Part applies as regards things falling to be done after the relevant time in relation to an alleged offence, the rules of common law which … were effective immediately before the appointed day, and … relate to the disclosure of material by the prosecutor, do not apply as regards things falling to be done after that time in relation to the alleged offence'.

1503
What is the specific point which the noble Lord seeks to make on this issue?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am sorry that I have not made myself clear and I am sure that it is my fault. What will be the consequence of Clauses 14(1)(a) and (b)? I cannot make my question more specific.
Baroness Blatch: I am not sure that I can give an answer which will satisfy the noble Lord. Perhaps he will allow me to take away his question and return to it between now and Report stage.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Of course, and I am most grateful.
Clause 14 agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past nine o'clock.

  Treaties: "Ponsonby Rule"
  Treaties: "Ponsonby Rule"
  ABM Treaty
  ABM Treaty
  Former Yugoslavia: Arms Control
  Former Yugoslavia: Arms Control
  Counter-Proliferation Initiative
  Counter-Proliferation Initiative
  Ministers: Public Speech
  Ministers: Public Speech
  Pensions Act 1995: Implementation
  Pensions Act 1995: Implementation
  BSE: Report
  BSE: Report
  UK Fishing Boats: Decommissioning Costs
  UK Fishing Boats: Decommissioning Costs
  Spanish Fishing Fleet: EC Funding
  Spanish Fishing Fleet: EC Funding
  Xylenol in Sheep Dips
  Xylenol in Sheep Dips
  Army Physical Selection Standards Research
  Army Physical Selection Standards Research
  Western European Time Bill [H.L.]:Compliance Cost Assessment
  Western European Time Bill [H.L.]:Compliance Cost Assessment
  Centre of Medical Law and Ethics,King's College: Grant
  Centre of Medical Law and Ethics,King's College: Grant
  Frozen Embryos
  Frozen Embryos
  Illegal Immigrants: Costs of Removal
  Illegal Immigrants: Costs of Removal
  Asylum and Immigration Bill:UNHCR Views
  Asylum and Immigration Bill:UNHCR Views
  Asylum Seekers in Detention
  Asylum Seekers in Detention
  Immigration Act: Detainees
  Immigration Act: Detainees