Sitting of 19 December 1995

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

    Local Authority Housing
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage more local authorities to transfer their housing stock to alternative landlords.[4875]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): To facilitate the transfer of council estates in poor condition, I announced on 28 November a new deprived estates challenge fund worth more than £300 million over the next three years.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that large-scale voluntary transfers of housing stock have several benefits, including the diversification of housing stock, better management and faster repairs for tenants while providing capital receipts for local authorities which can be put back into social housing, used to pay off debts or used to reduce the council tax burden on council tax payers?
    Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am pleased to see that authorities such as Manchester are now seeking to use LSVT to ensure that they can tap the capital that is tied up in housing estates and use it for the benefit of tenants.

    Area Cost Adjustment
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the inquiry into the area cost adjustment to be concluded; and if he will make a statement. [4876]
    The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): It is our intention that the review team should report in June 1996. Professor Robert Elliott of the University of Aberdeen has agreed to chair the review of the area cost adjustment. He is an expert on labour markets and earnings in the public sector. The local authority associations have nominated Roy MacIver, until recently the Secretary-General of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. My right hon. Friend has nominated David McDonald, a former under-secretary in my Department.
    Draft terms of reference for the review are being discussed by members of the review team and local authorities' representatives. When these are settled, a copy will be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Fabricant: That sounds encouraging. Does my hon. Friend agree that there must be something
    1330
    intrinsically wrong with a system whereby a school in Staffordshire with 900 students receives more than £250,000 less than a similar school in Surrey which has similar costs? Is not it even more wrong that Labour-controlled Staffordshire council is sitting on huge reserves which it does not use? Is it not about time that we funded schools centrally from the Department for Education and Employment? Let us have central funding, but local control.
    Mr. Curry: I do not agree that something is intrinsically wrong with a system in which there are differences in funding. The fact is that there are schools in different areas, and the purpose of the review is to find out what the total additional costs are. On that matter, my hon. Friend and I will have to agree to disagree.
    As far as Staffordshire is concerned, a 3.1 per cent. permitted increase in budget and a 5 per cent. per capita increase in education funding should be fully adequate to fund increased demography and any reasonable teachers' pay award.
    Mr. Tipping: The Minister said that the report would be available in June next year. Will he now give a commitment that a new and fair system will be in place for the financial year 1997-98? Does he appreciate that local authorities want action and not words? The present system discriminates against Nottinghamshire and the east midlands, which just want a fair deal.
    Mr. Curry: Everyone wants a fair deal, but everyone disagrees as to what that fair deal is. There is a very good case for taking into account total employment costs around the country. In the review, we are trying to bring up to date this indicator, as we do with other indicators on a regular cycle. If the review team is able to come up with an agreed outcome which is robust and gives better answers than we have at the moment, we will seek to employ that at the earliest opportunity.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present system prescribes that a person who takes one step across the border of Cambridgeshire into Bedfordshire is suddenly deemed to be in a very expensive area? Is this not a crazy system which has gone on for far too long? I appreciate my hon. Friend's efforts in this matter, but will he make sure that there is no undue delay in the review? Will he consider using the travel-to-work area system, rather than the arbitrary county boundaries?
    Mr. Curry: We examined carefully the travel-to-work area system in the past year, and it did not prove sufficiently robust. The county councils tried to make their scheme of actual costs work, and that did not work either. That is why we have introduced an independent review, and we have appointed as chairman somebody who is an expert in labour market economics, because this is about costs in the labour market. I hope that the review will be able to produce a robust outcome that all the parties will agree produces the best system. That is perhaps the most optimistic part of my expectations.
    Mr. Dobson: Can the Minister confirm that, according to Government figures, if Staffordshire county council were to receive the same grant allocation for education per pupil as the Tory borough of Westminster, it would be able to recruit 4,895 extra teachers next year?
    Mr. Curry: Would the hon. Gentleman like to make the same calculation for Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Camden and Lambeth? What benefits Westminster benefits all the other inner London authorities, and it is about time that the hon. Gentleman realised it.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effects of the decision to raise capping limits on local authority expenditure. [4877]
    Mr. Gummer: The flexibility is to enable local authorities to meet priorities in education, and has been given in response to local authorities' requests and assurances that they will act responsibly.
    Mr. Spring: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed capping limits for Suffolk county council should prevent it from wasting taxpayers' money? Does he share my outrage at the squandering of council tax payers' money in the form of the council leader's Christmas card, which bears the red rose insignia of the Labour party? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such an utterly tasteless display of Labour propaganda at Christmas is an absolute disgrace?
    Mr. Gummer: I was surprised, as my hon. Friend was, to receive such a Christmas card from the Labour leader of Suffolk county council. I believe that the Opposition would be extremely annoyed if the Department of the Environment sent out Christmas cards with the Tory torch—even though that would be justified, as only the Government have an environment policy.
    Ms Eagle: As the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has admitted that the settlement for schools will be used up by increased numbers of pupils, salaries and inflation, and as the Treasury has also admitted that council taxes are expected to go up by 8 per cent., is not it therefore true that council tax payers will be paying more and getting less under the new settlement?
    Mr. Gummer: No, I do not think that it is. The hon. Lady would know that, if she looked at the facts and at councils that are properly run and that seek to make savings when unnecessary spending takes place. We have just heard about a small example in Suffolk. More than £2 million has been spent on signs for roads in Suffolk, and £250,000 on a road that will never be built. That is only in one county, and if that money were applied to education, much more could be done.
    Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the removal of capping restrictions, together with the 5.5 per cent. increase in the education budget for Lancashire, means that there is no excuse whatever for the county council not to pass on that money in full to schools; and that no justification from the controlling Labour group will be accepted as an excuse if parents, Members of Parliament and others see that that does not happen?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that everybody in Lancashire, as in every county in the country, now knows precisely how much extra money is available for schools. If it does not get through to the schools, it will be the Labour-controlled county council's fault.

    Empty Houses
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many empty houses there are in the United Kingdom. [4878]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): There are 845,000 empty houses in England.
    Mr. Cunningham: When will the Minister stop being complacent about the large numbers of homeless people? Specifically, what will he do about the Department of Trade and Industry's void properties and the Ministry of Defence's void properties?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman should know of the importance that we attach to reducing the number of empty Government-owned homes. We made that a priority in our White Paper; and the announcement of the privatisation of married quarters will also assist the process. The hon. Gentleman should also realise that, included in the total that I have given him, there are a large number of empty private properties, many of which have been brought into use in the private rented sector during the past few years as a result of our deregulation proposals. The Labour party always wants more regulation—that is the party's instinct—which would reduce the supply and reduce the amount of private rented accommodation available for homeless people.
    Mr. Dunn: Although I accept that a large number of empty homes are owned by local authorities, will the Minister confirm that 18 of the 20 worst local authorities in terms of empty homes are Labour-controlled?
    Mr. Clappison: Certainly. It is a shame that some local authorities with high numbers of vacant properties cannot reach the standards of those with low numbers. Hackney, Labour-controlled, has the highest number of empty properties—5 per cent. It is a shame that it cannot match the standards of Wandsworth, fewer than 1 per cent. of whose properties are vacant.
    Mr. Raynsford: Why will not Ministers acknowledge their failure to tackle the scandal of empty properties, instead of attacking local authorities? Incidentally, local authorities are the only organisations to have reduced the number of their empty properties in the past few years. Will the Minister recognise that the Government's record is the worst of all? The number of empty Government properties has increased scandalously, in fact. The Ministry of Defence has the worst record; its homes should now be offered to people in need instead of being privatised under the disgraceful deal which the Secretary of State for Defence is doing with his adviser.
    Mr. Clappison: It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman cannot join me in maintaining that the worst performing local authorities should try to reach the standards of the best. It is also a shame that he had to ride to the rescue of the beleaguered Labour-controlled Hackney council.
    We have attached great importance to bringing empty Government homes back into use, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The White Paper gives great priority to that, and to our proposal to auction surplus empty homes after they have been vacant for six months.

    1333
    The hon. Gentleman must decide, with the hostility to privatisation that he has just displayed and his commitment to more regulation, whether he is part of new or old Labour. At the moment he is certainly pitching his tent with old Labour.

    Planning Permission
    Mr. Michael Spicer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department will reconsider the powers of county councils and district councils to give themselves planning permission on their own land. [4879]
    The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): The procedures governing local authority development were revised in 1992. We have no plans for a further review at present.
    Mr. Spicer: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is almost exactly the same answer as I had to give when I was the Minister responsible for planning? It has not worn well with the passage of time. Does he accept that, in the interests of natural justice, the gamekeeper should in this context be separated from the poacher?
    Mr. Jones: I am glad that my hon. Friend accepts that the right answer should be given by successive Ministers. Of course we have looked at the matter; the last thing we want is abuse by local authorities. If my hon. Friend has any evidence of that and draws it to my attention, I shall certainly look at it closely.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that these circumstances could be dealt with by a more general change? There could be a right of appeal against planning permission that is granted, just as there is now a right to appeal against a refusal. There is a pressing case for such a balance generally, not just in relation to local authorities.
    Mr. Jones: The Environment Select Committee rejected that when it looked into the issue. It took a lot of evidence showing a conflict of interest, which is why the Government reviewed procedures at the time, in 1992.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: A couple of weeks ago I initiated a debate on this very matter to which the Minister responded. The practice is becoming more and more prevalent: in order to raise cash, local authorities with land are capitalising on it and then giving themselves planning permission. But because this is not a national issue, it has not been called in by the Minister. Something must be done about this bad practice.
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend has to recognise that the key thing is whether the proposals are in line with the local plan. If they are contrary to the local plan, they are referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and can be judged on their merits. On the other hand, if they are in accordance with the plan, the proper place to object to them is in the inquiry into the plan.
    Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister accept that his answer to his hon. Friend camouflages the crisis that affects our planning system? What is he going to do about the large backlog of cases at the planning inspectorate, the huge delays in processing appeals and the enormous cost of the
    1334
    planning appeals system? When are we going to have a planning policy that is coherent, consistent and cost-effective?
    Mr. Jones: I believe that we have exactly that. The point is that when we have all the plans in place for each local authority throughout the country, the situation will be much clearer and that will result in far fewer people having to test their planning applications at appeal because they will be able to judge them against the plan developed for that particular area.

    North Downs
    Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet the Secretary of State for Transport to discuss safeguarding the area of outstanding natural beauty of the north downs. [4880]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so. However, officials from our two Departments work closely together, particularly within the Government office for the south-east.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the area of outstanding natural beauty of the north downs there is a motorway construction site which is surplus to Department of Transport requirements? If Government rules prevent the Department from allowing Maidstone borough council to use that site for park and ride, there is a serious risk that it will be sold and, eventually, planning permission sought for a use totally inappropriate to an area of outstanding natural beauty. It will be his Department that will have to make that decision. Will he give an undertaking to discuss this difficult situation with the Department of Transport before it becomes very much more difficult to resolve?
    Sir Paul Beresford: As my hon. Friend is aware, I do not know the details of this matter. If they are as he describes, I would have thought that there would be some enormous planning hurdles to be overcome before planning permission could be given. Of course, if he is concerned, we will certainly discuss and look into the matter.

    Water Companies
    Mr. Purchase: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the procedure for regulation of the water companies; and if he will make a statement. [4881]
    Mr. Gummer: I have no plans to review the water industry's efficient regulatory system.
    Mr. Purchase: Consumers will be thrilled by that scintillating answer. Is the Secretary of State aware that the second Cadbury review of corporate governance is considering seriously the question of supervisory boards? Would it not be sensible for the Secretary of State to consider how best we might proceed, given the abject failure of the present regulatory system, so that local people could once again sit on the supervisory boards and have a proper say about and input into the way in which the industry is regulated?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten the whole history of the water industry. We have problems

    1335
    there at the moment because of the lack of investment under the Labour Government. I know that that is true because I read carefully the words of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who said that the Government had said that investment in the water industry had been cut under Labour. She said:
    "That is not true. The plans that we hoped to implement were not entirely fulfilled."—[0fficia Report, 30 November 1995; Vol. 267,c. 1385.]
    The fact is that they were cut, cut and cut again. Now, the investment is continuing and it is properly regulated.
    Mr. Barry Field: May I recommend to Mrs. Gummer that Father Christmas places in the Christmas stocking of my right hon. Friend a little pamphlet from Conservative central office which I wrote on this very subject to give my right hon. Friend a little light reading over Christmas? Does he agree that it is remarkable that no matter how much the Almighty allows it not to rain, the Opposition cannot bring themselves to agree that water metering is the best way forward for charging for water?
    Mr. Gummer: I shall look forward to the pamphlet, but it is interesting that the Labour party is in favour of all environmental things in general but none of them in particular. The truth is that unless resources are properly looked after, we cannot have sustainable development. That is why the Labour party has no environment policy whatsoever.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Can the Minister confirm whether he has had reports that there are likely to be considerable water shortages next year, given the lack of rain last summer and the relatively dry weather this Christmas? If so, what is he doing in negotiation with the water regulator and others to tackle that?
    Mr. Gummer: Those reports have one thing in common: they say that the shortage of water arises because of a shortage of rain. Unless the hon. Gentleman has a special way of delivering rain, discussions with the water regulator will make no difference. The water companies have an extensive programme of further investment and already spend extremely large sums. The retained profits and £3.5 billion of borrowing by the industry have financed that unprecedented investment. Much of it makes up for the lack of investment when the industry was nationalised, which is what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) wants to return to. I assure the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) that I am looking at the position in the south-west, which is one of the areas most affected.
    Mr. Nicholls: The fact that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission recently upheld Ofwat's decision to peg water charges in the south-west shows that regulation is working in terms of that aspect of the industry. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that the water company in the south-west cannot even deliver water to every house in my constituency and cryptosporidium affects water supplies, further regulation of the quality as opposed to the cost of the service should not be ruled out at this stage? Will he comment on that?
    Mr. Gummer: The drinking water inspectorate and the environment agency deal in their respective ways with quality. I am happy to point out to them, as I have in the past, my hon. Friend's views on those matters. I am glad that my hon. Friend points the House to the fact that the
    1336
    mixture of the water regulator and the opportunity to appeal to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission show the toughness of the regulation, the affect on South West Water and the insistence that South West Water meets higher standards immediately.

    Low-cost Housing
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to allow local authorities to build more low-cost rented housing. [4882]
    Mr. Clappison: Housing associations are now the main providers of new social housing. We expect around 70,000 additional lettings to be provided in 1995-96 through a mixture of public and private funding.
    Mr. Miller: How many new starts will there be in 1996 in the low-cost rented sector?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman would do better to concentrate on the fact that housing associations provide 27,000 new starts out of a total of 70,000, which does not take account of the value of new social lettings through tenants going on to buy their own homes and the refurbishment of properties. He would do well to look at the value of the housing associations' contribution to providing high-quality property through the involvement of the private financial sector.
    Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that, where social housing is provided, it should be of the highest possible quality? Will he convey to the Government the thanks of my constituents who have just received a 47 per cent. increase in the housing investment programme, which should be spent on improving the quality of existing council houses in Castle Point, which is currently substandard?
    Mr. Clappison: I am happy to convey my hon. Friend's message. He is right to say that we seek to provide high-quality accommodation to meet social need.

    Ministry of Defence Housing
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representation he has made to the Secretary of State for Defence over the planned privatisation of the Ministry of Defence's married quarters estate. [4883]
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has made to the Secretary of State for Defence over the planned Ministry of Defence's married quarters estate. [4884]
    Mr. Curry: We have made it clear that we wish to see genuinely surplus property used to provide homes for people. It will help to create sustainable and mixed communities if homes are available for both purchase and rent.
    Mr. O'Hara: Does the Minister share my concern that those perfectly good homes are being sold off like so much Army surplus stock when social housing, which is his Department's responsibility, is desperately needed?
    Mr. Curry: The important thing is to ensure that people live in the surplus houses that are available. There are about 70,000 MOD homes, of which 14,000 are

    1337
    empty. That is 14,000 too many. We must ensure that people can live in them. Whether that goes for social housing or for low-cost starter homes appears to me to be much less important. What matters is that they are used.
    Mr. Jamieson: Does the Minister recall that in July 1994, his Department's task force report described the MOD policy of having thousands of homes standing empty as short-sighted and anti-social? Is not it clear to the Minister that Defence Ministers have totally ignored the advice of his Department by having 14,098 empty properties—552 of them in the Prime Minister's constituency? When will he take firm action to ensure that the MOD releases those properties for social housing, as he has said repeatedly that it should?
    Mr. Curry: That is precisely what the MOD now proposes. It is manifestly the case that the programme of disposal has not proceeded quickly enough in the past few years. The MOD has had to cope with "Options for Change", which has meant much shifting of personnel and many changes in personnel in the armed forces, so it needs to ensure that houses are available. What matters now is that we ensure that those houses are used. Regardless of whether those houses are made available for rent, the eventual purchaser will have no interest in holding on to empty stock. He will want to dispose. It is immaterial whether he disposes into the private rented sector or the home ownership sector. What matters is that those houses are used.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that tomorrow—I am sorry, on Friday—on Thursday—[Laughter]—I shall present the keys to some MOD homes to new tenants from Magna housing association in my constituency. Many of those MOD properties will be sold to the private sector. However, where housing associations exist in districts where an enormous number of homes become vacant as a result of MOD changes in constituencies such as mine, will he ensure that they have the funds to recycle those homes into super housing association homes, and to get the very many people on the waiting list into them?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend has always been a stickler for terminological exactitude. [Interruption.] In other words, he knows what day of the week it is. He will know that some housing associations have already shown considerable interest in acquiring that stock and some of them, such as the North housing association, can do so with their own funds and do not need to apply for funding.
    I am sure that the purchaser of the properties from the MOD will have no interest in holding on to the stock but will want to dispose of it, some of it to housing associations, who are natural purchasers.

    Contaminated Land
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding contaminated land. [4885]
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman is among those who have made representations, and I am sure that the whole House appreciates the campaign that he has mounted on behalf of those people affected by the asbestos tragedy in Armley. I hope that, for his part, the
    1338
    hon. Gentleman will appreciate what the Environment Protection Act 1995 has done in pressing home again the important principle that the polluter should pay.
    Mr. Battle: I am grateful for the Minister's comments at the start of his answer. When will the Government publish the contaminated land guidance to the Environment Protection Act? In Leeds, there are about 929 hectares of derelict land, about a quarter of which is believed to be contaminated. Would not it be a wise investment now to give the resources to the local authorities to allow them to survey that land and bring it into productive use for homes and jobs?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman knows of the statutory guidance that must be issued, and that consultation must take place before it is issued. We are expecting that consultation to be carried out early next year. In the meantime, those people in Leeds who have an interest in the tragedy of the contamination by asbestos, especially Leeds city council, would do well to reflect on the important principle that the polluter should pay, and the relevance to that principle of recent legal findings on other areas of liability affecting the asbestos tragedy.
    Mr. Ashby rose—
    Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."
    Mr. Ashby: I thank the House. Does my hon. Friend realise that there are many pieces of contaminated land in inner-city areas, which are an eyesore? We cannot really wait for land values to catch up with the cost of dealing with the contaminated land. Does not he realise that there must be some public input in order to remove such eyesores in inner cities?
    Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is aware that we have stuck firmly to the principle that the polluter should pay. He will realise the importance of the definitions that we established in the Environment Act 1995 and the regulatory machinery that we put in place to enforce that. I share the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend: we should deal effectively with the problem of contaminated land in inner city areas and develop those areas.
    Mr. Barnes: Does the Minister agree that opencast mining is not the natural way to deal with contaminated land with coal reserves beneath it? Avenue coke works in my constituency has been closed and the land is highly contaminated—British Coal Property should be aware of the principle that the polluter should pay and should clean the area without inconveniencing local people by introducing opencast mining provisions.
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman will realise that we have issued much tougher planning provisions to deal with that issue. Every case will be considered strictly on its merits in the context of those tough provisions.

    Anti-social Tenants
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his proposals to help local authorities deal more effectively with anti-social tenants. [4886]
    Mr. Curry: On 18 July and 18 October I announced a substantial package of measures to help local authorities

    1339
    to deal more effectively with anti-social tenants. After discussions with the housing association movement, I intend to extend that package to housing associations.
    Mrs. Lait: Many of my constituents, who have been badly affected by the behaviour of anti-social tenants, welcome the measures. Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that many of the victims of anti-social tenants feel unable to give evidence because they are intimidated? Can he give the House an idea of how the victims will be protected by the package?
    Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend. Something that I hear repeatedly as I travel around the country is that people know who cause the problems on estates—it may be just one or two families or their kids—but cannot find a way of dealing with them. Those involved may be taken to court and put on probation or their case may be deferred and they return to the estate and cause problems again. We intend to introduce new powers involving injunctions associated with arrest so that people can take action without fear of intimidation. We also intend to make it possible to use professional witnesses, as some local authorities—mainly Labour authorities—are already doing, to try to remove the element of intimidation so that people can enjoy the right to live peaceably in their own homes.
    Ms Ruddock: While the Government's proposals are welcome as far as they go, is it not a scandal that it has taken a decade of rising complaints and 17 deaths in noise disputes to get the Government to act? Does the Minister accept that every citizen has the right to enforcement of the law on noise? If so, when he gives responsibilities to local authorities why does he say that the level of service will depend on local conditions and resources? Where is the money to come from?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Lady confuses noise nuisance with anti-social behaviour. The latter is by far the more serious problem as no one has been materially injured by noise in the way that people have been injured by some anti-social behaviour. Both problems affect the quality of life on housing estates and both must be tackled and I hope that both sets of measures will receive a wide welcome. It is distressing that a number of Labour local authorities appear not to want even to implement the package on anti-social behaviour that we shall make available to them, although sensible authorities such as Manchester will implement it. I hope that the laggards will learn from the winners.
    Mr. Hawkins: Following the point that my hon. Friend has rightly made, does he agree that in many of our seaside resorts Labour councillors and Labour activists are themselves unscrupulous landlords? They encourage people from outside the area, who become extremely anti-social tenants when they move in, and cause many of the social problems. Is that not the reality of Labour local government and does it not show, once again, that Labour is unfit to govern?
    Mr. Curry: I am conscious of the problems in seaside resorts around the country caused by the changing nature of activities in those areas and by the people who settle there to collect benefit. We have taken measures under the planning system to resolve those problems and we shall take further measures to deal with houses in multiple occupation. I shall listen to the views of those who believe
    1340
    that additional measures should be taken so that seaside towns can enjoy the prosperity which has been theirs historically and which they deserve for the future.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his most recent estimate of the number of homes to be insulated in the coming year under the home energy efficiency scheme; and if he will make a statement. [4887]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: We expect more than 400,000 homes to be insulated under the home energy efficiency scheme in the coming year, bringing the total number of homes insulated under the scheme to more than 2 million.
    Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister explain why he has cut the home energy efficiency scheme budget by £31 million in direct breach of a Government and ministerial promise to everyone involved? Is he aware that that will lead to the insulation of 200,000 fewer houses next year, the loss of 1,000 jobs in the small business sector and the loss of £12 million to manufacturing industry? In view of the economic, health and other effects of his decision, will the Minister now reconsider?
    Mr. Jones: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Some £30 million was added to the scheme in anticipation of the acceptance of value added tax at 17.5 per cent. As he knows, the House voted against that measure, so the £30 million figure has now been reviewed.
    Mr. Gallie: My hon. Friend the Minister has anticipated the point that I intended to make. The home energy efficiency grant for last year was linked to the VAT increase. On that basis, given the uptake of the award, should the Government not be congratulated rather than criticised?
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is clearly in favour of that excellent scheme. The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) failed to appreciate the fact that we have protected the most vulnerable groups while continuing to offer a substantial discount to those people who do not qualify for the free service.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: How can the Minister justify a 20 per cent. reduction in energy efficiency in homes around the country when, as Chairman of the Environment Select Committee, he recommended increased expenditure on home energy efficiency schemes? Was it not a cynical exercise to increase expenditure for only one year in order to justify the imposition of VAT on home heating, which has hit the poorest and the worst off in our community?
    Mr. Jones: That is clearly not the case, as we have protected vulnerable groups and increased the scheme considerably over the years. I remind the hon. Lady that there was no such scheme under the last Labour Government because they did not care about energy efficiency. We are determined to ensure that homes become more energy efficient in the coming year through a variety of measures, not least through the Home Energy Conservation Bill, which will encourage local authorities to make sure that people take up those schemes.

    Rented Homes
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes for rent were started by local authorities and housing associations in 1978-79; and what is his estimate for 1996-97. [4888]
    Mr. Curry: In 1978-79 local authorities started about 62,000 homes for rent and housing associations started about 17,000. This year we estimate that about 49,000 social homes for rent or shared ownership will be started by housing associations, or released through home ownership grant schemes, and about 1,000 will be started by local authorities.
    Mrs. Prentice: In view of the statement earlier by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that only 27,000 homes will be started by housing associations in 1996-97 and the fact that under the last Labour Government 112,000 new homes, on average, were started each year, will the Minister tell us this Christmas time exactly how the Government intend to house the homeless?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Lady is confusing two points. With regard to the general provision of housing, what matters is that properties become available for new lettings. The only thing that concerns a family needing a home is whether a house is available and whether they will have a roof over their heads.
    The housing associations are the main flag carriers of new social rented housing in this country. We also have an effective rough sleepers initiative to deal with the homelessness problem. The hon. Lady will know that we are developing that initiative and that we are consulting about how we should take it forward. It is operated by the Government and the housing charities in a unique display of very effective co-operation.

    Local Government Finance, London
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to discuss the standard spending assessment formula with representatives of the London boroughs. [4889]
    Sir Paul Beresford: Standard spending assessments are discussed throughout the year with the local authority associations in the settlement working group and in the standard spending assessment sub-group. Currently, we are also available to meet authorities to hear their representations on our proposals for the 1996-97 settlement, including those for standard spending assessments.
    Mr. Dykes: Does the Minister accept that the working of that complex formula can adversely affect outer London boroughs such as Harrow? Its proximity to Heathrow airport and its many ethnic minority communities mean that it has to bear extra costs of social provision, education, housing for the elderly and other services. Will my hon. Friend look again at the formula to see whether Harrow can have a fairer deal?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I would dispute any suggestion that it has not had a fair deal. The shift of expenditure under the formula shows that Harrow has had a reasonable deal. I am sure that, with my hon. Friend's assistance, the local authority will be able to meet the demands well.
    1342
    A comparison of local authorities around the country shows a massive variation. Labour authorities, in particular, seem to spend an enormous amount of money for little value. I am sure that my hon. Friend can assist his local authority.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December. [4905]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Government rejoin the future large aircraft project urgently? Does the Prime Minister understand that the French and the Germans are increasingly sceptical of our approach to the project and may move to exclude us? Is he also aware that 2,000 Airbus workers in my constituency have lost their jobs and that the remaining 2,000 are desperate for Britain to rejoin the project? Given Britain's pathetic economic growth prospects, surely the Prime Minister wants a strong aerospace industry.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me an indication of the subject that he intended to raise and I appreciate his concern to protect jobs in his constituency. On the substantive point, the Government are committed to joining the future large aircraft programme provided that our conditions concerning price, performance and affordability are met. That matter is under discussion with the United Kingdom industries concerned and with our European colleagues.
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December. [4907]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Shaw: In the next few days I shall be visiting the hospitals, the homes for the elderly and the retired and the nursing homes in my constituency. I shall visit many businesses and voluntary organisations. [Interruption.] All those people have benefited from additional resources as a result of the recent Budget. Can my right hon. Friend also give me some words to tell our customs officers in Dover, who are thoroughly against the policies that the Labour party would introduce in terms of the legalisation of cannabis and drugs? [Interruption.] Our customs officers have provided a valuable service in keeping Britain free from drugs. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he supports the customs officers in Dover in that action? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I will give the hon. Gentleman an Adjournment debate next year.
    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend has just had one, Madam Speaker. I very much agree with him about the excellent work carried out by customs officers at

    1343
    Dover and elsewhere in tackling drug trafficking. My hon. Friend can tell them categorically that we have no intention of legalising cannabis. We do not believe that it is the right way to proceed. As the chief constable of West Yorkshire said in the past,
    "Legalisation or decriminalisation just isn't the answer."
    He continued:
    "I've not yet met a heroin, or ecstasy or crack cocaine user that didn't start on cannabis".
    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister tell us what he has repeatedly refused to deny, which is that the costs of rail privatisation—the costs of the sale and of the extra subsidy—are set to amount to $1 billion over the next two years? Would not that £1 billion be better spent on improving a public rail service?
    The Prime Minister: No. Even with the spirit of Christmas, I must say that the right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. On a like for like basis, overall Government funding for the railways after privatisation is expected to be broadly similar to the levels of recent years. The precise level will depend on the privatisation process and on the outcome of competition for the franchises. Instead of criticising the funding, the Labour leader would be better employed examining the £10 billion worth of investment that Railtrack plans, which would not occur in the public sector. If the right hon. Gentleman is so opposed to privatisation, will he tell us how he would replace the £10 billion worth of investment in British Rail? Which taxes would he increase? By how much would fares have to rise? Or will he at last realise that privatisation will produce a better service for customers?
    Mr. Blair: We could start by taking the £1 billion and investing it in the rail service. Let us see whether the Prime Minister can answer one simple question: will he guarantee that the level of service which now obtains will be the same after privatisation in the privatised services—not hope, not wish, but guarantee?
    The Prime Minister: I note that the right hon. Gentleman had no response whatever to the £10 billion worth of investment. He talks about £1 billion, but £10 billion is promised. As for future services, he can see what is already beginning to happen. The passenger service requirements provide a guaranteed level of service. That has never existed in the past. Services to the passenger are already improving—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I will tell Opposition Members where. The operating companies are offering a range of new services. They are responding to their customers more quickly. There are new information services. To give Opposition Members a practical example, completely new train services are being provided—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where"?]. I will tell Opposition Members where. For example, over 100 trains a day have already been added to SouthWest Trains' timetables. When will the Leader of the Opposition realise what is happening and realise also the opportunities for improving a service that has been too bad for too long?
    Mr. Blair: We shall realise it when the Prime Minister guarantees that service levels will remain the same—[Interruption.] Yes, when he guarantees it. What is more, have we not just—[Interruption.] We shall listen to the Government when they guarantee that the service will remain the same, but they are not prepared to do that. Is it not right that at the end of the week—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The barracking is intolerable.
    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister keeps telling us about his plans for British Rail. Is he not the man who planned no increase in value added tax and then increased it? We are not interested in his plans. Have not his rail plans been overturned by the courts, his chief inspector of prisons walked out of his first prison inspection, members of his party are at each other's throats over Europe and the Government cannot get the national lottery right? Has not the right hon. Gentleman's year ended as it began—in weakness, chaos and incompetence?
    The Prime Minister: Whenever the right hon. Gentleman loses the argument, he changes it. He has lost the argument on privatisation. He had no response to the £10 billion and no response to the fact that there has never been a guaranteed minimum service until now. Now the service is being improved and he cannot bear the fact that we are winning the argument in terms of improving services right across the public sector. All that he can do is to run down everything that happens in this country on every conceivable occasion for his own partisan political interests.
    Mr. Garnier: As more than 13,000 British troops are deployed to Yugoslavia, will my right hon. Friend send the best wishes of the House to them? Does he agree that, had the Labour party won the last election, we would not have had one tenth of the soldiers to send to that place, given the savage cuts that Labour would have introduced?
    The Prime Minister: And would probably try to introduce were it ever given the chance again. We know the Opposition's record on defence and we know their capacity to hide their long-term affiliation to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and we know that the armed forces know and the people of this country know that the armed forces would not be safe in their hands.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister understand why the possibility of a lone British veto tomorrow against a European subvention to help to privatise Irish Steel is regarded by the Irish Prime Minister as inexplicable? Will he explain? Will he assure us, in particular, that he fully understands the damage that could be done by that to British-Irish relations at a crucial moment in the Irish peace process?
    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should examine the whole matter; it is a very complex issue involving the interests of Irish Steel—very important to Ireland—and British Steel, and the matter is under discussion. We are seeking—and I hope that it will be possible to reach—an agreement that safeguards the United Kingdom's interests. That matter is under discussion at the moment. It would not be productive for those discussions for me to pursue the matter now, but there is an interest both in Ireland and in the United Kingdom. We are seeking, and have done for some weeks, to reach an agreement which meets the interests of the steel industry both in the United Kingdom and in Ireland. I hope that we shall be able to reach such an agreement. If we cannot, it will not be for lack of trying on this side of the channel.
    Mrs. Gorman: Has my right hon. Friend seen the newspaper report that Labour Members of the European Parliament, in supporting the French strikers, blamed their plight on the fact that the French Government were supporting the single currency? Does he not find it surprising that Labour MEPs should be supporting his own sceptical point of view? Is he not even more surprised that their position differs radically from that of Opposition Front-Benchers, who support the European Parliament and all its works?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the very wide and deep divisions in the Labour party on Europe were clearly apparent in the statement that I delivered to the House yesterday afternoon, when one Labour Back Bencher after another stood up and, in essence, flatly contradicted what the leader of the Labour party has been saying for weeks. As for Labour party policy, my hon. Friend may be interested to know that there was more than one summit in Madrid last week. The summit of socialist leaders, attended by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy leader of the Labour party, must have been very amusing. The right hon. Gentleman agreed to a significant extension of qualified majority voting, support for a European strategy on immigration, the social chapter, and restrictions on how long people can work. What he did not discuss were the details of fishing policy—and he a Member from Hull.
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December. [4908]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pickthall: As the national lottery regulator was warned by the Ministry not to take free air trips on his visit to the USA, but nevertheless did so, and given that the Secretary of State for National Heritage knew about that but refused to comment on it at Question Time yesterday, does the Prime Minister not think that it is time that both of them were sacked?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is considering the matter and will make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1979 only 30 per cent. of people in Scotland were home owners? Is he aware that the figure is now 57 per cent., and a Shelter report published today suggests that 77 per cent. of Scots aspire to home ownership? Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Conservative party will drive towards that objective?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. Surveys show that more than 70 per cent. of Scots aim for owner-occupation, and that is particularly true among younger age groups. Since the right to buy was introduced in 1980, well over 300,000 houses and flats have been sold to their tenants, and owner-occupation has increased from 35 per cent. to 57 per cent. The right to buy has been immensely successful—introduced by a Conservative Government, opposed by gut instinct by the Labour party then, and still, in truth, loathed by it now.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During last night's debate on the preposterous proposal to privatise the Stationery Office, the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), was a little naughty—I put it charitably—in his statements about the Clerks Department, as can be seen in column 1317 of Hansard. Was that brought to your attention, Madam Speaker, and can you clarify the position of the Clerks Department, which by tradition is neutral and does not become involved in matters of political controversy?
Madam Speaker: There may still be misunderstanding in some quarters about the position of Officers of the House in the process leading to privatisation of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made clear yesterday, the House of Commons Commission has authorised Officers of the House to participate in the process of preparing the contract that would be necessary to protect the interests of the House after privatisation, and in that context to attend meetings of the privatisation steering group in an observer capacity.
The choice of the firm whose bid will be accepted is purely one for the Government. That said, Officers of the House will be available to give information to representatives of the Government about the special nature and the special implications of the work that the House requires, and will continue to require to be done by whoever is responsible for its printing services. That information may help the Government to make their choice, but neither the House nor any organ of it will make that choice.
As soon as any name of a firm that is to take over the functions of HMSO is announced, it will be for Officers of the House—acting on behalf of the House of Commons Commission—to negotiate the terms of an appropriate contract. Preparatory work for that eventuality is already under way. It will be for the Commission itself, at the end of the process, to approve the terms of any contract that is drawn up. I hope that I have made that abundantly clear.

BILL PRESENTED
  EMPLOYMENT (HOMEWORKERS)
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley, supported by Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Andrew Welsh, Mr. Alex Salmond, Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Ms Roseanna Cunningham, presented a Bill to provide safeguards for homeworkers and for associated workers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 January and to be printed. [Bill 36.]

Fisheries
[Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 10409/95, on the annual report by the Commission on the multi-annual guidance programme, 10862/95 relating to guide prices for fishery products in 1996, the unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 27th November 1995 relating to the EC/Morocco Fisheries Agreement, on 12th December 1995 relating to the Community observer scheme in North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) waters, on 12th December 1995 relating to joint international inspection in NAFO waters, on 12th December 1995 relating to control measures in NAFO waters, on 12th December 1995 on a pilot satellite tracking project in NAFO waters, on 12th December 1995 relating to Community catch possibilities in NAFO waters for 1996, on 12th December 1995 relating to reciprocal access and 1996 quotas with Norway, and on 12th December 1995 on amendments to the criteria for the decommissioning of fishing vessels.]
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
There is great pressure to speak in the debate, so I have imposed a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches. I plead with Front Benchers to keep in mind the number of hon. Members who I know wish to speak.
3.33 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum, submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8th December 1995, relating to the fixing of total allowable catches for 1996 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for British fishermen consistent with scientific advice and the need to sustain the stocks for the benefit of future generations of fishermen.
On Thursday the Fisheries Ministers of the European Union will meet to decide the 1996 quotas for fish stocks. Today's debate allows the House to consider these matters and to scrutinise the relevant documents, which are set out in the Order Paper. Already this year the House has had a number of debates on fisheries. Earlier in the year and again in October, it considered proposals for limiting fishing effort in waters west of the United Kingdom. More recently my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) succeeded in raising his concerns about the common fisheries policy in an Adjournment debate.
The main focus for today's debate are the proposals which the Council of Fisheries Ministers will consider later this week in Brussels to determine the fishing opportunities for the various fleets of the Community next year. I am delighted to have this opportunity to open the debate. As I made plain when I attended the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers in October when the final critical decisions were taken on the arrangements for western waters, I attach great importance to the prospects for the industry which is so important to remote communities, not just in Scotland but around the whole coastline of the United Kingdom.
I was brought up in Arbroath on the north-east coast of Scotland and I well recall the vibrancy of the harbour and the fish market, and the community spirit that was encapsulated in the local fishing fleet. It is a great sadness to me personally to see how the industry has changed over the past 20 years. Looking back only 10 or 15 years, one

1349
sees that the volume of the main white fish landings in the United Kingdom was little short of twice the volume that we can expect next year.
If there is to be a single measure of the success of the European common fisheries policy it should be the health of our fish stocks. On that, plainly, the jury is still out. Some 60 per cent. of those stocks are considered by the scientists to be at risk biologically. That means that the stocks are below or at about the lowest level which has been seen over the 30 years during which they have been subject to close scientific monitoring. That statistic tells its own story about the performance of the common fisheries policy.
Some hon. Members may argue that the state of the stocks is not as bad as the scientists advise. There may be some truth in that because fishery science is not an exact science. At the Council we shall certainly take into account the views of the fishermen in pressing for changes to the Commission's proposals, but I do not think that anyone can dispute the overall conclusion that our stocks are not in the same healthy state as they were 10 or 15 years ago.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the fundamental problem with the common fisheries policy is the principle of equal access to the common resource? Does he agree that that works very much to the detriment of the British fishing industry? Will he assure the House that the Government will go to the intergovernmental conference next year determined to see this written out of the regulations? Will they serve notice now on our European partners that that is our bottom line?
Mr. Forsyth: I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. I think his point is that the idea of equal access to a common resource is more of an aspiration than a reality. In practice the principle of relative stability, for example, has been contrary to that. I assure my hon. Friend that the Minister of State will fight hard for British interests at the Council meeting, as he has always done in the past.
Mr. Gill: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way again. I listened with interest to his answer but I should like to press him on the point. Will he serve notice now on our European partners that we will accept nothing less than a writing out of the fisheries regulations all the references to equal access to a common resource?
Mr. Forsyth: We have never had equal access and we have no intention of accepting that principle. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend to some degree.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way—he has been most courteous as usual. Is not the fundamental problem that fisheries policy is subject to qualified majority voting? For the British, who have maritime interests just like the Icelanders and Norwegians, of paramount national importance is the fact that land-locked countries such as Luxembourg and Austria, and Mediterranean countries too, can have a vote on our Atlantic fisheries, which is clearly preposterous.
Mr. Forsyth: I read with interest my hon. Friend's comments in the Adjournment debate that he secured some weeks ago. I can say to him only that there are,
1350
of course, deficiencies in the common fisheries policy, but that, at the end of the day, we simply must find a means whereby we can meet the requirements to conserve stocks. Whatever the system, whether we are out of the CFP or not, we will have to proceed by negotiation and agreement. There is the opportunity for my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to achieve a good deal for Britain's fishermen. I am sure that he will take that opportunity when it comes.
Mr. Tony Marlow: While my right hon. Friend is giving way, it is probably helpful if he gets interventions out of the way at the same time. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) talked about the intergovernmental conference. I do not think that anyone in the House finds the common fisheries policy satisfactory. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that the Government will consider putting the problems of that policy before the IGC?
Mr. Forsyth: I am not sure what my hon. Friend is seeking to get me to do. If he is suggesting that we should seek to amend the treaty, with his own knowledge of these matters, he will know how difficult that would be to achieve, and I will deal with that later. Of course, there is the opportunity by regulation—which, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, requires agreement by qualified majority voting—for us to achieve the forms and changes. I hope that I will take those opportunities, as will my hon. Friend the Minister of State as the negotiations proceed.
There is only one answer to our predicament: the need for more effective conservation. Fishing activity is the single biggest factor in deciding the fish mortality level. We must collectively face up to the need to reduce fishing's impact on fish stocks. The need to limit fishing activity's scope was recognised many years ago, long before the United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community, and well before the common fisheries policy was agreed. In the 1960s, the establishment of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission brought together the countries in this part of the world to co-operate on fish stocks conservation. That commission, not the European Commission, brought together Fisheries Ministers, with the benefit of scientific advice, to decide total allowable catches for the main stocks of interest to the commercial fishing fleets.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: If the Secretary of State is not going to campaign for radical common fisheries policy reform by way, for example, of greater emphasis on regional and national management of local fisheries stocks, will he give the House an assurance that he will campaign for far tougher policing on fishing grounds? What discussions has he had recently with Norwegian authorities in terms of tougher policing, the doubling of fines, the confiscation of licences and the banning sine die of vessels caught fishing illegally?
Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we have effective enforcement. We are spending some £26 million on that and my hon. Friend the Minister is anxious to improve our performance in that matter. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the scientific aspects of the matter, what will be done to induce Poland, Japan and Korea to become signatories to the United Nations conference on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, an important resolution that we have agreed and that they have not?
Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is raising a slightly different issue from that which we are discussing this afternoon, but he makes a crucial point: the importance of international co-operation in dealing with fish stocks and of recognising in this debate that fish do not recognise international boundaries. Despite that fact, I am sure that—with your indulgence, Madam Speaker—my hon. Friend the Minister of State will address the hon. Gentleman's question when he winds up the debate.
The proposals that Fisheries Ministers—
Mr. Alex Salmond rose—
Mr. Forsyth: I shall give way, but for the last time.
Mr. Salmond: Many observers would accept the fact that Spain, from within the European Union, and Norway, negotiating from outside, seem to be remarkably more successful in achieving their fisheries objectives than are Her Majesty's Government. Can the Secretary of State explain why, and tell us what he intends to do about it?
Mr. Forsyth: As on so many subjects, such as the Scottish budget, I refute the hon. Gentleman's analysis. He lives in a world in which he believes what he wants to believe; he does not seem to take account of the facts.
The proposals—
Mr. Calum Macdonald rose—
Mr. Forsyth: I said that I was giving way for the last time, but as it is the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) who wishes to intervene, I shall make an exception. But this really is the last time.
Mr. Macdonald: With regard to the imbalance in enforcement between Spain and the United Kingdom, why is it justifiable and acceptable to the British Government that Spain has only 12 fisheries officers to police its regime, whereas we have more than 200?
Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is not right about that.
Dr. Godman: He is.
Mr. Forsyth: He is not. The Spanish have been increasing the number of their fisheries officers—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many are there?"] However, I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's concern that that should be done, and my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I do not know what Opposition Members are shouting about. They were the first to come forward and argue for Spanish accession, and I do not recall any of them saying anything about fishing during those debates.
The proposals that Fisheries Ministers will consider this week—
Rev. Ian Paisley: If what the Secretary of State says is true, why does the European Community's own document inform us that the annual number of surveillance hours by Spain is 50, whereas for our country the figure is 4,800 hours?
Mr. Forsyth: Well—[Interruption.] Any advance on 50? I said that the numbers were increasing and I entirely agree about the importance of that development. Opposition Members' concern for the policing of fisheries interests is somewhat belated—I shall deal with that subject later.
The proposals that Fisheries Ministers will consider this week are, and have to be, based on the scientific advice received by the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management. The United Kingdom plays a full part in contributing to that international scientific advice.
The advice that we received this year points to the need for major new restrictions on catches of herring and mackerel, and on the plaice fisheries in the North sea. The scientists have also advised that we should continue to restrict catches of the main round fish stocks—scod, haddock and whiting—throughout the seas around the United Kingdom.
The Commission has had to take account of that advice in developing its own proposals. For stocks that the Community manages jointly with Norway, there has been a series of bilateral negotiations, which were conducted toughly on both sides. The agreement reached in the early morning of 9 December provides for a two-year programme of phased cuts in the total allowable catch for herring, mackerel and plaice. The cuts in quota for those species next year will be about 30 per cent. The agreement also provides for broadly stable TACs for cod, haddock and saithe, but for a significant cut in the North sea whiting catch.
Mr. John Townend: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Forsyth: I said that I would not give way again. I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but this really must be the last time, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Townend: I have some sympathy with my right hon. Friend; he cannot be blamed for the betrayal of the British fishing industry by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). Does my right hon. Friend accept that the common fisheries policy, as based on the representations of the scientists, proves that the fisheries policy has been an unmitigated disaster?
If the system had worked, we would have seen quotas increasing year on year. But when it dictates that tens of thousands of good fish be discarded back into the sea to die, there is something wrong with it. Surely the final nail must be when the House legislates to protect the British fishing industry, and is then taken to court and asked to pay £30 million in damages. That is surely the end.
Mr. Forsyth: It is not within the power of this House to legislate to put more fish in the sea. Our basic problem is that we are having to deal with too many people chasing too few fish. I do not think that the sort of comments which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) has made about my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) add to the debate or get us further forward in seeking to address the difficult problems. Whether we were in the CFP or not, the issue of stocks would have to be addressed, and I hope that we can turn our attention to that matter this afternoon.

1353
The other fishing opportunities which the Community has negotiated with third countries, such. as Iceland, the Faroes, Greenland, in the north-west Atlantic and north Norway offer our fishermen broadly the same opportunities as applied this year. Fisheries Ministers in the United Kingdom have maintained a close dialogue with the fishing industry throughout the run-up to the negotiations in the Council, and the Government will have regard to the advice that we have received from the industry.
We recognise that the cuts implied by the Commission's proposals entail sharp and large reductions in quotas and, in the short term, such swings must undermine confidence. We recognise that these cuts in quotas will have serious implications for fishermen's incomes, and all of us are sympathetic to their position. Some of the cuts will be offset by increases in prices, and that is apparent in the mackerel market at least.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State will be fighting hard to get the best deal possible for our fishermen, consistent with the need to protect the longer-term interests of the industry. I am also aware that hon. Members have a number of specific concerns on matters of particular interest to the fishermen in East Anglia, in the south-west of England and in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend will of course address these.
The Government share the values of the British fishermen. We respect their qualities of independence, enterprise and self-reliance. We believe in minimising the burden of regulation by the state, and allowing fishermen as much freedom as possible within the constraints necessary to conserve fish stocks. We demonstrated that only days ago when we withdrew the obligation on fishermen to report in as they crossed the 4 deg. west line in the north of Scotland.
I am well aware that many fishermen do not believe that they have been well served by the Community's common fisheries policy. Most of them recognise that the CFP has not been successful in conserving fish stocks. They point to the burden of regulation under which they now work. They do not believe that that burden is being applied fairly throughout the Community. They feel that their fishing rights are increasingly insecure because they believe that the CFP is founded on a principle of equal access by all Community fishermen to fish stocks throughout the Community waters. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) made that point.
I understand fishermen's fears, but we should not underestimate our success in maintaining relative stability, in limiting access to our territorial waters and in applying effective controls on Spanish access and fishing efforts in western waters. These are successes which we have achieved within the Community, and which cut across the principle of equal access.
Those who argue that we could deal with these threats to the rights of our fishermen by abandoning the CFP need to consider carefully the practicalities and the costs of that course. I am sure that my hon. Friends who advocate this do not want the UK to act in breach of treaty obligations entered into with the approval of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh yes we do."] My hon. Friends are the first to argue for the rule of law.
Renegotiating the treaty to exclude fisheries from the scope of Community competence would be a monumental and probably impossible task. It would require unanimity
1354
and ratification by all member states, and that could be bought only at a huge price. We cannot assume that we would be successful in such a high-risk strategy. Reforming the CFP only requires changes in regulations by qualified majority voting. We also need to recognise the practical needs of managing fish stocks that we share with our neighbours, which means that some sort of common fisheries policy will still be needed.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Forsyth: I have been generous in giving way, and Madam Speaker is keen that we make progress. I know that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) does not share the view of Opposition Front-Bench Members on these matters.
It would be far more realistic and effective to work for improvements within the CFP, and that is our strategy. Those who argue that we should seek to co-operate behind the barriers of 200-mile fisheries limits must have forgotten the lessons learnt painfully during the early years of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. The common fisheries policy offers us a substantial improvement on the voluntary and ineffective system epitomised by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. Those who think that Norway offers us a model for managing our fisheries should study that model more closely before they assume that it could be easily or costlessly replicated here.
The fishing industry does not need bogus options. What is needed is the courage to face up to the real issues, and to recognise the practical realities and the real opportunities to improve the working of the common fisheries policy. That is why Fisheries Ministers have initiated a review of the CFP. This is a review not by the Commission, but by an independent British group. It has been drawn from the fishing industry, the processors, the scientists and the environmental interests. I understand that members of that independent group expect to report early next year. I look forward to seeing their findings, because there will be opportunities to carry forward changes to the CFP without waiting till the next major review, in 2002.
That is also why the Government have committed substantial sums—£53 million over five years—to decommissioning older fishing vessels, and reducing fishing capacity towards the targets which we have accepted in the multi-annual guidance programme. It is also why the Government have led the fight to resist the cumbersome and bureaucratic proposals that the Commission advances for fisheries management, most recently for regulating fishing efforts in western waters. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to talk about some of those initiatives and opportunities later in the debate.
Underpinning all that work is a fundamental need to ensure that the fishermen and their representatives are drawn more closely into the process of managing their fisheries. That is something to which Fisheries Ministers in the United Kingdom are firmly committed.
I despair of the Opposition amendments. This month the Liberals are suggesting that we advance the next review of the CFP. Only last month, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) saw no need for that in an Adjournment debate.
Mr. James Wallace indicated dissent.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he said:
"The common fisheries policy should comprise a host of other detailed matters. I welcome the review group and look forward with interest to the outcome. The year 2002 will come upon us sooner than we think, and we must begin to put in place the measures that we want to see by then."—[Official Report, 22 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 585.]
As for Labour, whose members pose as the fishermen's friend, what has it understood about fisheries policy? Nothing that I can see in the amendment. What has it to contribute to the reform of the CFP? Does not it recall its acquiescence in the 1986 Iberian Treaty of Accession? The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said:
"We welcome the accession of Spain and Portugal. It is the right move for the Community and for Spain and Portugal. We welcome it because we recognise the merits of those two new democracies joining the rest of Europe and facing Europe's problems with us."
He continued:
"The Opposition do not welcome accession blindly, ignorantly or oblivious of the difficulties and anxieties."—[Official Report, 10 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 883.]
The Opposition seem all too keen to gainsay what the hon. Gentleman said then. That treaty provided for the special protection of the Irish box to end at the end of this year. If the Government had done nothing, the Spanish boats would have been free to enter the whole of the Irish box outside territorial waters. Do not the Opposition understand that the deal that we negotiated last year maintains some protection for these sensitive waters; that it maintains the exclusion of the Spanish from the North sea; that it caps Spanish fishing effort in the west at the levels provided for in their Act of Accession? There is no Spanish armada, and that is a measure of our success: not walking away from the CFP but improving it from within.
What of conservation? I do not recall much about that in the Labour party's last manifesto—(Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) knows that there was nothing in it. Nor was there anything in the manifesto for the European Parliament, or in Labour's actions when in office during the 1970s. Indeed, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) was a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the time. I do not recall that he or his colleagues did much to assist the fishing industry then.
Of course we recognise the need for effective conservation. We have committed £53 million to decommissioning. We have pursued the difficult agenda of limiting fishing effort.
There is a difference between the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and the Opposition Front-Bench amendment. My hon. Friends are motivated by conviction and a passionate concern to ensure that the Government fight for British interests. I am prepared to accept that some Labour Members are similarly motivated; but the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition is in another league altogether. It seeks to criticise the Government for not getting a good enough deal for our fishermen, yet every time the Government put the UK's interests first and fight for them, Labour leaders are to be found lining up with their socialist friends on the continent to denounce Britain for standing alone. When the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and his colleagues
1356
were in office, so afraid were they of standing up to our partners that they allowed Brussels to filch massive sums from the pockets of UK taxpayers. Only when Baroness Thatcher took office was a substantial rebate secured.
To be fair, a handful of Opposition Members could, in all sincerity, have put their names to the amendment—but they are not among those whose names appear on the Order Paper. The amendment has not been framed to keep the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on side—far from it. It is simply a squalid exercise in synthetic patriotism by those whose sole objective is to try to entice some of my hon. Friends to withhold their support from the Government, so that the Opposition can hasten the day when they obtain power to deliver these islands, lock, stock and barrel, to the forces of federalism.
It is nauseating to see the party which for decades has clothed itself in the red flag now seeking to wrap itself in the Union flag; whereas in reality Labour would sail under a white flag and be forced to abandon our fishermen to the party's vision of an ever more integrated Europe.
I am the first to acknowledge the degree of concern among my hon. Friends. I must tell them and the communities they represent that we understand their anxieties, and that we have fought, and will always fight, for their right to fish the waters around our shores—consistent with maintaining adequate fish stocks. My hon. Friends' determination will command respect among the fishing communities of Britain, but I appeal to them not to risk compromising that respect by associating themselves with a bunch of sell-out merchants whose earlier crimes have already resulted in a sentence of 16 years on the Opposition Benches. Nothing in their behaviour suggests that they deserve any remission; indeed an extension of the sentence would seem to be the only answer.
The Minister of State will speak for the United Kingdom's fishermen. He will fight for their interests and for those of the United Kingdom generally. Let this House send out the clearest signal that we are united in our determination not just to get the best deal on quotas but to achieve a long-term solution which offers this vital industry the security that it deserves.
4.3 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"believes that the agreements of the Council of Fisheries Ministers, allowing Spanish fishing vessels into the Irish Box and allowing increased access for Spanish fishing vessels to the waters of the west of the United Kingdom, present an unacceptable threat to the long-term economic viability of fishing communities in England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, and place unsustainable pressure upon the fish stocks in these already sensitive waters; recognises the failure of the United Kingdom Government to implement a decommissioning policy until 1993, and notes that Ministers only abandoned their unfair, unpopular and unworkable days-at-sea proposal after the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations challenged the Government in the European Court of Justice; concludes that the United Kingdom Government has not effectively represented in Europe the interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry, and has failed to implement in the United Kingdom a fisheries policy that is in the interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry; recognises that the over-riding priority of the Common Fisheries Policy must be the conservation of fish stocks, for only through healthy stocks can the fishing industry survive; believes that the Common Fisheries Policy in its present

1357
form does not adequately meet this priority; and calls on the United Kingdom Government to work in Europe to secure reforms of the Common Fisheries Policy to ensure the conservation and fair allocation of fish stocks throughout the European Union, with effective enforcement by all member states."
The House will be aware that this is the major annual fisheries debate of the parliamentary year. It precedes the important December meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers, which is to agree total allowable catches, quotas and other changes to the workings of the common fisheries policy.
I welcome the Secretary of State for Scotland to our debate. I hope that there is nothing to be read into the fact that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food left halfway through the Secretary of State's remarks. We shall assume that he had another engagement.
The Secretary of State referred to the 1992 Labour party manifesto. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who will wind up for the Opposition, may refer to the fisheries document we issued, but I do not think that we should spend much time arguing about the 1992 manifestos. [Interruption.] There is a difference between a Government who win on their manifesto, and a party that loses on its manifesto. [Interruption.] Perhaps Conservative Members do not know the constitutional position. Oppositions are not bound by their manifestos; Governments are.
The Conservative party manifesto for 1992 states:
"We are determined to see that the renegotiation of the Common Fisheries Policy protects the interest of UK fishermen and retains our share of the Community's fishing opportunities."
Who in the House believes that the Government have delivered on that? Not a single fisherman in the country does. I have spoken to fishermen's leaders from Plymouth to Lerwick today, and they support the amendment standing in the name of Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Phil Gallie: I do not believe that fishermen's federations, certainly in Scotland, support the Opposition's amendment, for one reason in particular. The debate is about total allowable catches. There is not one mention of them in the Opposition amendment. Would the hon. Gentleman like to explain that?
Dr. Strang: Yes, I will come to the issue of total allowable catches and quotas. I know that the Government would like the debate to be only about the quotas which are set every year, but it is not just about them. Everyone who knows about the protracted arguments and discussions that have taken place since the agreement last Christmas knows perfectly well that the arrangements which will come into force on 1 January 1996 are of crucial historic importance to our fishing industry, as I shall explain.
Right hon. and hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies will be well aware that the stocks in those waters are already under immense pressure and are crucial to our fishing industry. The priority must be to conserve our stocks. There should be less, not more, fishing effort in those areas.
As this is the right hon. Gentleman's first UK fisheries debate as Secretary of State for Scotland, may I draw his attention to the words of the then Minister of State, who is now Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on going into the negotiations in October 1993 on the question of additional Spanish access to the waters around our islands?
1358
Far from saying that increased access and effort was inevitable, the hon. Gentleman said that Spanish and Portuguese fishing activities should be confined as closely as possible to their historic patterns, and that there should be no access to the Irish box. He was quite right. Access to those waters should have been based on historic fishing activity. The fact is that the deal was a reflection of the Government's failure to represent the UK national interest in Europe.
The Government had had since 1985, when the Spanish terms of accession were agreed, to secure support in Europe for a just deal. In the event, the then Minister of State was not able to persuade a single other member state to refrain from voting in favour of the deal. It is true that, under the Spanish accession treaty, it was necessary to renegotiate the Irish box by the end of 1995, but we did not have to make arrangements for additional Spanish access to other waters around the UK by that deadline. Under the accession treaty, those arrangements did not have to be in place until 2002.
Ministers have still not adequately explained why the Government accepted that additional Spanish access should be effective from 1996 as opposed to 2002— [Interruption.]
Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
Dr. Strang: I heard the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) make a sedentary intervention, but, as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is on his feet, I shall give way to him.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I do not wish to be unkind, because I like the hon. Gentleman very much—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I mean that sincerely. As no British Government, irrespective of which party is in power, have the right now to make decisions of that sort and say what will happen with regard to Spanish access, would it not be wiser to try to help the fishing industry out of this absurd constitutional mess rather than engage in political games? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that no fishermen, whether in Scotland or England, will be happy seeing their politicians slinging mud at each other when there is little that any British Government can now do?
Dr. Strang: I do not accept that there is little that any British Government can do, and nor will the fishermen's leaders. However, the hon. Gentleman's point has some merit. I agree that the fishermen's leaders, and fishermen who are watching this debate, do not want to see mud slinging, and I do not intend to sling mud, but I must explain what has happened in recent years.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Dr. Strang: I shall give way for the last time.
Mr. Nicholls: How on earth can the hon. Gentleman expect the fishermen or anyone in the House to take seriously his suggestion that something radical should be done, when, during the five years that he was a Fisheries Minister, at a time when we were not crippled by qualified majority voting, he achieved precisely nothing?
Dr. Strang: I was never a Fisheries Minister, but I accept collective responsibility for all the decisions of that Government.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: What were you, then?
Dr. Strang: I shall tell the Minister where I was. I was in the Department of Energy and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I do not want to spend much time discussing history, because, as the hon. Member for Southend, East rightly reminded the House, the fishermen are not looking for mud slinging. I remind the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) that that Labour Government did not take the crucial decisions on the common fisheries policy. Indeed, previous Ministers of Agriculture have criticised the Labour Government for not settling. The House will understand that the settlement came after the Conservative party came to power.
I wish to be fair. The decisions implicit in our entry into the European Community under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) were important in relation to setting the stage for the common fisheries policy. But let us stick to the historical facts. The Government have not represented the interests of our fishing industry in Europe, and their record at home is just as bad.
In the past three years, four Ministers of Agriculture have each made their mark on our fishing industry without dealing with any of the problems facing the industry. First, the present Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), was the mastermind of the unfair, unpopular and unworkable tie-up regime. The Government's tie-up regime was so iniquitous that the High Court referred it to the European Court of Justice. So this year, we had the demeaning spectacle of the UK Government fighting the UK fishing industry in the European courts.
On 17 October, the Minister of State, who is in his place, finally announced that the Government would not, after all, implement the tie-up regime. We welcomed that announcement. The Secretary of State for the Environment also deprived our industry of a decommissioning scheme for many years while other industries in Europe had that option. Five years ago, he said:
"decommissioning is not the way to reduce the pressure on fish stocks".—[Official Report, 13 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 1171.]
The right hon. Gentleman was running scared, following the appalling mismanagement of the Government's previous scheme.
Finally, the Minister bowed to pressure—from the industry, from Members of Parliament representing fishing constituencies and from the official Opposition—and introduced a decommissioning scheme in 1993. Unfortunately, that scheme was so small that the Agriculture Select Committee concluded that the cuts achieved would
"be more than offset by efficiency gains in the remainder of the fleet".
Then we had the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and her bright new dawn. She was going to listen to the industry. In July 1993, the Government invited the industry to submit conservation proposals for technical conservation measures. The industry co-operated, and submitted detailed proposals. Two and a half years later, not a word in response has been heard from the Government.
1360
Then we had the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave). It was he who negotiated the deal on Spanish access—and abstained on it, and came back and told the House what a great deal it was.
To the right hon. Gentleman's credit, however, he made one commendable commitment. In January 1995, as hon. Members will recall, the Labour party forced a debate to condemn the deal on Spanish access. To prevent a Government defeat in the House of Commons, the right hon. Gentleman announced that £28 million would be added to the £25 million that had already been allocated for decommissioning.
Decommissioning is not a panacea. It has an important part to play in reducing fishing effort to help conserve our fish stocks, but surely the Secretary of State for Scotland and his ministerial colleagues understand that it is unacceptable that we should be decommissioning vessels to facilitate additional fishing opportunities in waters around the UK for the fishing industry of one of our European partners—in this case, Spain.
I guess that that additional money provided for decommissioning made the vote in the House of Commons on 18 January 1995 one of the most expensive votes that the Government have ever had in the House of Commons.
Of course, the Government give with one hand and take away with the other. Our new Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), slipped into this year's Budget the announcement that the Government are to refuse to launch in England the European Union grant schemes for fisheries processing and marketing, port facilities and aquaculture production. The Minister also scrapped the national fishing harbour grant scheme.
That is the Government's record. They have imposed unfair and unworkable regulations on our fishing industry. They have failed effectively to represent the industry in Europe. The real problems and issues that have confronted our fishing industry for many years remain unaddressed by the Government.
One outstanding matter is an obligation to cut our fleet. Like all other EU member states, the UK must cut its fleet capacity under the multi-annual guidance programme. The present round began in 1992 and must be completed in 1996. As a result of the Government's past failures, we are expected to cut our fleet by 19 per cent. from 1991 levels by the end of next year.
The European Commission estimates that, by the end of last year, we had reduced our fleet by only 5 per cent. The latest figures show that, by the end of next year, we shall have reduced our fleet by about 10 per cent. in total.
That leaves 9 per cent. of the fleet that the Minister is supposed to get rid of between now and the end of 1996. I address my remarks to the Minister of State, who will reply to the debate, although I can understand that he has slipped back a row or two. Will the Minister describe to us the way in which he proposes to find the extra 9 per cent. fleet reductions? Is he just waiting for our fishermen to go bankrupt? I hope that, when he winds up, the Minister of State will set out what he expects the consequences to be if the Government fail to meet the UK's requirement under the multi-annual guidance programme.
It is becoming clear that the current common fisheries policy is fundamentally flawed. Its priority must be the

1361
conservation of fish stocks, but that is not the priority. Across Europe, too many boats still chase too few fish—that is not controversial.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman rose—
Dr. Strang: I did say that I had given way for the last time, but I will give way to the hon. Lady, so that she can make an intervention rather than interrupt me from a sedentary position.
Mrs. Gorman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, where there is a common resource such as the fishing territory, there will always be exploitation? If he genuinely wants to prevent our fishing fleet from being cut still further, he should support the amendment tabled in my name and that of 17 of my colleagues. It calls for a 200-mile exclusive fishing zone around our coast where adequate, or to the median line, which would give our fishermen the equivalent of private territory in which to continue to ply their trade.
Dr. Strang: I think that the hon. Lady understands that the Opposition do not support the policy that I believe she espouses: withdrawal from the common fisheries policy, and possibly, withdrawal from the European Union itself. I should have thought that there was common ground on the subject of the additional Spanish access, and perhaps on other aspects of which I have been speaking this afternoon.
All member states have recognised the over-capacity, as has the UK fishing industry. As the Minister of State advised the House last month, nearly 60 per cent. of the main stocks in the waters we fish are at risk of biological collapse. The contentious issue is how to tackle the problem. The UK Government must take their share of the blame. Their recalcitrance over decommissioning, and the consequent failure to reduce pressure on stocks, will further hinder the chances of matching fishing effort to fish stocks.
Tonight we are debating proposals for next year's total allowable catches, which contain some heavy cuts which will be felt hard in various sectors of the UK fishing industry. There is particular concern at the effect of the cuts in North sea sole and plaice total allowable catches on our east coast industry. That is one problem that Ministers will face in the Fisheries Council later this week. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will address those matters in greater detail. It is not enough for the fishing industry across Europe to be hit by short-term annual attempts to rectify a long-term and worsening problem.
The common fisheries policy needs to be reformed, to make conservation the priority. There is clearly a need for a review of quota management.
Mr. David Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Strang: No, I will not.
The problem of discards has to be addressed; the need for conservation cannot be squared with the throwing back of dead fish. There is also a scientific aspect: total allowable catches and quotas should be based on scientific advice, and tempered by a political assessment of socio-economic needs. With that in mind, it makes no sense to cut the resources available to our scientists responsible for assessing the health of fish stocks.
1362
As the fiasco over the Government's tie-up regime made clear, fisheries policy cannot be reformed in the face of united opposition from the fishing industry. As I have said before of the common fisheries policy, the priority of conservation is far too often overridden by the drive to eliminate any preferential treatment of the various national fleets. Fishing industries in all member states must have absolute confidence that the management of their fisheries is carried out in their interests. The Labour party has been arguing for some time that there is a powerful case for greater national control for each member state within the framework of a reformed common fisheries policy.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House what he means by the phrase "the whole of national management"?
Dr. Strang: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there is no prospect for reform of the common fisheries policy. I shall tell him what the phrase means, and in time I shall develop it further. It means that, in practice, we must move towards a system of management that is closer to our coastal waters and to our fishing communities. We suggest that that will mean greater involvement by national Governments. The hon. Gentleman may not understand what the phrase means, but the fishermen understand that we cannot go further down the same road.
The amendment is designed to advance the case of the fishing industry and the fishing communities throughout the United Kingdom. I appeal to all right hon. and hon. Members to support it.
4.24 pm
Sir Edward Heath: Once again, the Government have devoted inadequate time to a debate on a very important subject. As a result, Madam Speaker, you are compelled to limit all speeches to 10 minutes until the wind-up. That gives those hon. Members who wish to do so little opportunity to discuss the subject seriously.
However, in my brief contribution I propose to deal with the abusive remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), who ought to be ashamed of the way in which he degraded himself with his interruption. His comments follow the maniacal article by Christopher Booker, which appeared in yesterday's edition of the Daily Mail. The article's assertions are entirely false, and I shall deal with them now—although I shall have to go back in history further than other hon. Members have done so far in the debate.
Mr. Booker begins his article by referring to components of the "great fisheries disaster" of which he says:
"the first, of course, being Sir Edward Heath, in 1972, signing away all the fish in Britain's waters as 'a common European resource'".
There is no truth whatever in that statement. The principle was laid down by Act of Parliament, as were all principles. However, the policies to be followed were not laid down, and there was no common fisheries policy at that time—nor was one being discussed. That did not occur until 1983—10 years after I left office and my Government left power.
Mr. Nigel Spearing rose—
Sir Edward Heath: There is no time to allow interventions.
That is an entirely false statement about what happened at that time. Mr. Booker continues:
"So secretively was this done (the House of Commons was kept in the dark) that Britain's desperate fishermen now openly accuse him of 'treason'".
I make two points in response to that. First, my actions were not secretive; I have a record in my own papers. The principle was published, and it was open for debate in the House. We debated our proposed entry into the Community day after day in both Houses of Parliament. Anybody who knew about the principle and who wished to discuss it had an opportunity to do so. As the records show, the issue was not discussed by anyone because no one regarded it as objectionable. Therefore, it is a lie to say that we were secretive and held back information from the House.
Mr. Booker refers to fishermen now openly accusing me of treason. I take that assertion with a grain of salt. I was born by a fishing port. On my way to school, I would watch the fishermen coming into port, and I would stop to talk to them. There were no fishermen after the war; that had all finished. I then spent 15 years ocean racing, and for most of that time I captained British teams. [Laughter] It is no laughing matter; I had close contact with fishermen at that time. We could owe our lives to fishermen in certain circumstance; we knew that, and we maintained good relations with them. I am not a traitor to my country, although the hon. Member for Bridlington may think I am.
The policy formulation followed. We retained the 12-mile rule: six miles entirely for us and six miles for other fishermen. Under the negotiations, the latter six miles were limited to fishermen who were already fishing in those waters. So the countries with fishermen already there could keep them there. It was a perfectly workable arrangement that everyone accepted.
At the time, it suited us to keep the six-mile rule for other countries because our fishermen were getting a large amount of their catch in Icelandic waters, not in local waters. The bitter war over Icelandic fishing when we were in Government led to the stretch of Iceland and the matter was finally dealt with in 1976—after we left office—by the Hague agreement in which the stretch was extended to 200 miles for every country.
Now we are hearing glib suggestions that we should all go back to a 200-mile limit. Anyone can see that it is not workable today, as any fisherman will agree. The waters covering the European Union, the Mediterranean and the North sea overlap to such a large extent that we have to have an arrangement and the way to reach an arrange is through the European Union. That is what we are doing. The Government are quite right to pursue that endeavour and it can be achieved successfully.
The other argument concerns the amount of fishing that is possible. Any dispute between fishermen and those responsible should be sorted out by mutual discussion. The scientific adviser says that there ought to be some limitation. I heard fishermen say on television yesterday that there are masses of fish wherever they go. That can be sorted out without having an open row and suggestions that the fisheries policy should be abandoned. It is so unnecessary.
1364
After the Hague agreement in 1976, the first common fisheries policy was established in 1983 and has continued. People talk about the losses experienced by our fishermen as a result of the Government policy in 1970-73, but I have the figures that show the changes.
In 1970, the total catch by British vessels was 963,000 tonnes; in 1971 it was 964,000 tonnes; in 1972 it was 942,000 tonnes; in 1973 it was 998,000 tonnes and in 1974 it was 954,000 tonnes. Those figures are very similar and my Government were responsible for that power. It is why the article is false and the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington were abusive and I strongly object to them.
When we listen to the views of some of my hon. Friends today, we should note that there is a complete difference between the fishermen and the Euro-sceptics. Earlier today, a spokesman for the fishermen said that they wanted nothing whatever to do with Euro-sceptics. The fishermen value the European Union, and want a satisfactory arrangement within the European Union. The last thing they want to do is damage it.
Sir Richard Body: My right hon. Friend has been speaking to the Spanish fishermen.
Sir Edward Heath: I quite realise that some of my hon. Friends want to damage it. They can laugh all over their faces, because they do not have to think responsibly about the effect on other people.
I want to say something to my hon. Friends who represent the fishing industry. There is an important vote tonight. It may be quite important, not because it will change the position, but because of its political effect on the Conservative party. That is quite plain.
Of course my hon. Friends must take notice of the fishermen in their constituencies, but I also remind them of the remark by Burke so many centuries ago that is often repeated in the House. The purpose and responsibility of a representative is to look after the interests of his constituents, but he must also consider the interests of the country and the community. That is the basis of our work here.
Every hon. Member owes his constituents not only his energy "but his judgment". Those were Burke's words. We can offer our fishermen our energy, but my hon. Friends have to make a judgment tonight as to whether it is an event and a matter that justifies their defeating the Government. That is the crucial question to be answered. I do not think that many of our constituents, other than fishermen, would agree with that course of action. Indeed, I do not think that fishermen want to destroy the Government. Therefore, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to give careful thought to what they will do at the end of the debate.
4.34 pm
Mr. Calum Macdonald: The Minister said that the key element is conservation, the key problem being too many boats and too many fishermen chasing too few fish. There is agreement on both sides of the House about the importance of conservation, and the key to successful conservation is enforcement.
If there is to be successful enforcement, there must be the perception of a level playing field, as it were, on which all the Community's fishing fleets operate. That is

1365
not the current perception. British fishermen feel that they are bearing the brunt of enforcement in achieving conservation. They feel that other fleets and other fishermen are escaping their fair share of responsibility. As a result, there is growing demand for withdrawal from the common fisheries rather than reform. I agree that withdrawal from the CFP is not practicable. It is not possible without withdrawal from the European Union. It is not, therefore, a serious option to be considered. But no one should underestimate the anger that is felt in fishing communities and which leads them to opt for withdrawal.
The Minister seemed to be asking for details to flesh out a package of reform. Most importantly, we need allies. It is striking that the Government seem to be isolated on fisheries policy year after year. They seem to be consistently outvoted when they argue their case with the other fisheries Ministers. It is not difficult to understand why the Government are consistently isolated. They are out of step on almost every other issue within the European Community. For example, they are out of step on the social chapter. As we have seen over the past couple of days, they are out of step on economic and monetary union. They are out of step also in discussions on foreign and security policies and moving them forward. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the Government find themselves isolated on fisheries policy and unable to acquire the allies that are necessary if we are to defend British interests and obtain a fair deal for British fishermen.
The secretary of the Western Isles Fishermen's Association, which covers the Western Isles fleet, visited Madrid last week with a BBC television crew. He went to the big fish market there and found small, immature fish openly available for sale. He saw juvenile fish that should not have been landed. They should not have been for sale in any EU state. Apparently he saw hake only 4 in long. Whatever rules and regulations we write, they will mean nothing unless there is fair enforcement overall. If they mean nothing, the confidence of our fishing community will be undermined and eroded. As I said to the Secretary of State, the latest figures that I have show that there are only 12 fisheries officers in the whole of Spain.
Mr. Baldry rose—
Mr. Macdonald: Perhaps the Minister has the latest figures.
Mr. Baldry: In fact, there are 30 fisheries inspectors working for the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture; in addition, some 240 fisheries inspectors work for the autonomous Spanish regions, and 300 civil guard personnel devote part of their duties to fisheries enforcement work. Spain has 31 patrol vessels of the Spanish naval marine unit. Some 106 vessels are operated by regional Governments and the marine civil guard—all on fisheries protection work—and there are six aerial surveillance helicopters, so that is quite a substantial input by the Spanish Government in enforcing their fisheries regulations.
Mr. Macdonald: In that case, how can such a vast force fail to notice four-inch long fish being sold in the main market of the capital city of Spain? The Minister cannot simply recite figures and say that the number of fisheries officers in Spain has increased from 14 to 30,
1366
compared with 200 in the UK, without also acknowledging that there is a real problem: the perceived lack of a level playing field, whereby British fishermen have to work within the rules, because of the very tight and efficient enforcement of the rules in the United Kingdom, while Spanish fishermen get away with landing juvenile fish and breaking the rules time and again. That reality underlies the fear in relation to Spanish access. The Minister must address that point, and he must get allies—this is the key point—in the Council of Fisheries Ministers to help him to do that if he is to satisfy British fishermen.
Another aspect which plagues, troubles and depresses British fishermen is the existence of the Spanish flagships, which are counted against the British register, and their impact on the whole decommissioning process. Some 28 per cent. of the UK-registered fleet of more than 10 metres are now Spanish owned; they are crewed by Spaniards and land their catches in Spain. That exceeds the amount by which Britain is supposed to reduce its overall fleet to meet the EC guidelines. The UK is required to decommission 19 per cent. to meet EC targets. Unless we do that, our fishermen cannot get any aid to help to rebuild and renew their fleet. Yet the Spanish-flagged element counting against the British fleet is far in excess of what we have to decommission.
Worse than that, hardly any of the Spanish-flagged vessels are decommissioning. They make a massive contribution to our perceived overcapacity and yet make no contribution whatever to the solution of decommissioning. Where is the level playing field? A disaster is looming, of which the Minister must be aware. If it is not causing him sleepless nights, we fear for the future of the British fishing industry. If the decommissioning target of 19 per cent. is met exclusively by the real British boats within the British fleet, by the end of the decommissioning process, almost half the British-registered fleet will be Spanish owned. I fear what the reaction in British fishing communities will be if that were to happen.
I ask the Minister, when he replies, to address himself specifically to that question, because those vessels are making a mockery of the common fisheries policy, the British Government and their protections. It is still going on. Spanish boats are still being added against the British register. I appreciate that the British Government tried to find a solution. They were warned at the time that it would fail and it did, because it went against EC guidelines. It is vital that the British Government address that problem and find a solution. I suggest that one possible solution would be to have a real linkage between boats that are registered in Britain and which have to operate economically in Britain—that is, establish some kind of economic linkage. For example, boats would have to make a proportion of their landings, say three quarters—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
4.45 pm
Mr. David Harris: I sometimes think back with nostalgia to the rather cosy debates that we used to have a number of years ago, when only Members who represented fishing industries, like myself, took part. On the other hand, I warmly welcome the wider focus now given to the fishing industry, because we will begin to find a solution to the plight—that is the only word to

1367
describe it—of our fishermen and the difficulties that they face only through the concern of many hon. Members or, indeed, people in the country.
I do not suppose that there has ever been a debate on this subject in the history of the House in which a former Prime Minister has spoken, and I very much welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has done so. I shall say a few words about his concluding remarks, because for all I know, they may have been aimed at me or, indeed, my colleagues who have the honour to represent fishing communities, and he was right to point out the precise dilemma that we face.
I do not want to vote against my Government tonight. I do not want to see my Government defeated. That would not be in the interests of my country or of the fishing industry. However, it is incumbent on people like myself to speak up for the industry and to fight for it, and in my years in the House that is what I have sought to do. One television interviewer said tonight, "Surely you want to be popular with your fishermen." I would like to be popular, but if one goes into politics one cannot always be popular, and at the end of the day one has to do what is right. What makes me despair is what has happened in recent years to our fishing industry and to the fishing industries of other countries.
That brings me to the amendment tabled by a number of my hon. Friends who are usually known as "Euro-sceptics". I welcome their interest in the fishing industry because it focuses attention on the difficulties of that industry. Having said that, I think that their amendment is misguided, particularly in the context of today's debate, because what the debate should be about is, of course, what will be before the Fisheries Ministers when they meet in Brussels on Thursday and Friday in relation to the setting of quotas for the coming year. That will affect in the immediate term the livelihood of fishermen in my constituency, because some pretty massive cuts are proposed for individual quotas and total allowable catches.
I refer to one of the reductions that the Commission proposes on species that are of direct concern to the fishermen of the south-west of England, and Cornwall in particular. I will not go into the precise details, but in the English channel a reduction of 41 per cent. is proposed for the allowable catch of sole. In the Bristol channel, a reduction of 27 per cent. is proposed. For plaice, a reduction of 34 per cent. is proposed. Those reductions follow on from reductions in previous years. What we are seeing, therefore, is cheating on a massive scale, because fishermen have to cheat to survive. They do not do it willingly; they loathe cheating, but that is the system that we now have. The problem is, what on earth can we do to change that system?
In their amendment, the Liberal Democrats ask for the review of the common fisheries policy to be brought forward. That may sound attractive, but unless the voting system is altered there will be a repetition of what happened on 23 December last year, when the United Kingdom was outvoted and the rest of the Community voted—under qualified majority voting—to allow 40 Spanish boats to fish in the waters of the former Irish box, where stocks were already under pressure. Where is the conservation in that? My friend—I regard him as my
1368
friend—the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the Liberal Democrats' agriculture and fisheries spokesman, is a sensible man. His party wants to abolish the veto altogether. I want to restore it, however, for the purposes of the review of the CFP.
For the past three days, people have been asking me, "How are you going to vote?" I am not sure how we are going to vote. I must face up to the dilemma posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup: the balance between what I regard as in the national interest—maintaining the Government—against the importance of speaking up for the fishermen in my constituency. I make no secret of the fact that, together with my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks)—who, I am sure, shares my views entirely—and my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), I have spent a good deal of time talking to Ministers. We have presented them with a number of proposals, in particular on the central issue that should be debated here tonight—the reductions in quotas. I have received certain assurances, which I value very much, on what I believe will be the negotiating position of Her Majesty's Government when the Fisheries Council meets at the end of the week. I am fairly confident that, just before Christmas, we shall not be faced with reductions such as those that I mentioned earlier.
In my amendment—which, of course, has not been selected—I have asked my hon. Friends in the Government to negotiate changes upwards in the case of quotas which are not based on hard scientific evidence. The fishermen's organisations reckon that there is scope for that. I accept that in some instances cuts will have to be made, because the scientific evidence points irrefutably in that direction. I accept the conservation argument.
The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) mentioned fairness, and that is at the root of the fishermen's anger: they do not think that the system is fair. Let me give an example. I am glad to see that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is present. In the wake of the Budget, the Ministry decided to abolish harbour grants in England, but not in Scotland nor, I believe, in Wales. That is not fair.
Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is right. I have listened carefully to colleagues' views over the past few days, and my hon. Friend—along with my hon. Friends the Members for South Hams (Mr. Steen), for South-East Cornwall, for Falmouth and Camborne and for Wyre (Mr. Mans)—has made the importance of the harbour, marketing and processing grants to local fishing industry. I see the force of their case, especially their arguments that expectations had been raised about the giving of those grants earlier in the year. In the light of their representations, we have decided to reinstate the grants.
Mr. Harris: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. The decision will be particularly welcome in Newlyn, where an application of long standing was being rejected because of the cuts.
All hon. Members on both sides of the House must find a way forward so that we can restore real confidence to the fishing industry. I wish that we could put aside party politics, and politics involving the future of Europe, and concentrate on achieving a solution. That is what our fishermen need and deserve.
4.54 pm
Mr. James Wallace: I share many of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), whom it is my privilege and pleasure to follow in so many fisheries debates.
This debate has attracted a wider audience than usual. Despite all the media speculation, we would do the fishing industry a gross disservice if we did not spend some time focusing on issues of particular interest to that industry at the Council meeting that will take place on Thursday and Friday this week. As the hon. Member for St. Ives pointed out, there are to be considerable reductions in total allowable catches of a range of species, and that will have serious consequences for the industry as it plans for 1996 and the future.
As has been said, there is growing concern—there has always been concern, but it seems to be increasing annually—about the scientific basis on which some of the TACs are decided. Only a few years ago, the fishing industry was being told that the North sea whiting was a predatory fish, and that it would therefore be helpful to catch as many as possible. Dangled before the industry was the possibility of smaller mesh sizes and lower minimum landing sizes—which, in fairness to it, it resisted. In 1990, the TAC for whiting was 135,000 tonnes; although the fishermen were told to fish as much whiting as they could, the TAC has now been reduced to 67,000 tonnes. There is something wrong with that.
The Minister will be aware that the Scottish industry in particular would like the Hague preference to be invoked in respect of North sea whiting. Is that on the Government's agenda for Thursday's negotiations?
Mr. Baldry: Yes.
Mr. Wallace: I welcome that news. Let me add that, when the Hague preference has been invoked in the past, there has been a tendency to average it out rather than bringing it up to the full amount; the industry will be looking for the full amount.
Western mackerel is an important species in my constituency. In terms of quota allocation, tonnage and horsepower, 30 per cent. of the United Kingdom's pelagic fleet is based in Shetland, but what has happened to the TACs for western mackerel? In 1992, they were increased by 15 per cent., in 1993 by 10 per cent. and in 1994 by eight per cent. On the basis of those growing TACs, over the past two or three years and into next year, constituents of mine will have invested some £50 million in new vessels. That is an important business decision.
If a Japanese company had invested that amount in microchips, no doubt there would have been a press conference at the Scottish Office, with the Secretary of State cutting the first sod for the factory. It is a substantial investment, which has been made on the basis of what were originally growing TACs. However, they were reduced by 20 per cent. this year, and it is predicted that they will be reduced by 33 per cent. next year. That is no long-term basis for stability on which the industry can make serious investments.
It appears that this year Norway has gone forward by the lowest common denominator, on the basis that it sees opportunities in the Atlanto-Scandian herring negotiations. If he has time, will the Minister confirm that the United Kingdom—the European Union, indeed, but
1370
with the United Kingdom receiving a share—will seek a share-out of the winter herring, now known as the Atlanto-Scandian herring, in the waters to the north of Shetland? A premature allocation would be regrettable; it would be better if UK vessels were allowed to fish the stock as they have in the past.
We may well find that a substantial part of that stock can be caught in European Union waters, which would entitle the European Union and, in turn, the United Kingdom to a substantial share in the future. That would help to offset some of the disappointments and lost fishing opportunities that have resulted from the cuts in mackerel and herring TACs.
The hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned plaice. The reduction in plaice TACs has had a serious effect on the east coast, and there has been a knock-on effect because of the fewer opportunities for swaps. That applies not only to the east coast, but all around the channel ports and into the south-west. Those in the south-west fear that, if opportunities in regard to quota stocks of Bristol channel and North sea plaice are cut, many of the non-quota stocks fished by fishermen in the south-west will be under ever greater pressure. It is important to take that dimension into account.
I could go into many details, but I shall deal finally with the west coast nephrops precautionary total allowable catch, which was originally set at 16,000 tonnes. That TAC was based on very little scientific evidence. My understanding is that the scientists do not know when prawns spawn or how long they live: it is an inadequate science. Over the years the TAC was reduced to 12,600 tonnes on no more detailed or sophisticated scientific evidence than that for some time that was what was being landed. It appears that that amount was fished out early this year and it is thought that returning to 16,000 tonnes, which was satisfactory in the past, would give adequate fishing opportunity to those who fish the west coast nephrops. I ask the Minister to consider that in his negotiations later this week.
Underlying all these problems is the unsatisfactory nature of the TAC arrangements. There is no proper mechanism to channel into the decision-making process the fishermen's experience of stocks and the change in behaviour. I understand that there were substantial quantities of cod in the Humber in the latter part of this year when boats were tied up and the fishermen could not go after it.
In the 1992 changes to the common fisheries policy there is reference to a scientific, technical and economic committee. But economic and social consequences seldom seem to be taken into account. As I have said, the roller-coaster approach is damaging not just the catching sector but the processing and marketing sectors. If we could take forward the multi-annual strategic approach that was agreed in 1992 it would encourage scientists to look to the longer term when considering TACs and not base their conclusions on just one year's findings. That could lead to greater stability in the industry.
I reject the idea that a 200-mile limit within which Britain would have complete sovereignty would be a solution to our problems. As I said in the debate on 22 November, a 200-mile limit off Canada has not stopped the collapse of the cod industry on the Atlantic seaboard nor has it stopped the overfishing of pollock on the Russian pacific coast. A limit is no panacea.

1371
I regret, although it is no reflection on the Chair, that we cannot vote on the amendment that was tabled by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and his hon. Friends because it would have been bombed out of court. By a long way there is no majority in the House for Britain to renege on its international obligations and withdraw from the common fisheries policy. The policy requires a thoroughgoing reform along the lines that I suggested in the debate on 22 November, and there must be proper enforcement.
During the Secretary of State's speech the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) intervened and spoke about the hours of enforcement. That was one of the most telling points in the debate because if the fisheries policy is common its enforcement must be common as well. That has been missing and the fishermen perceive gross injustice and unfairness. We need to address that as efficiently, effectively and vigorously as possible.
My hon. Friends and I will vote against the Government. There are a good number of reasons for doing that and many of them have been set out in the amendment. The Government had a late conversion on decommissioning although hon. Members in all parts of the House mentioned it time and again in fisheries debates. European taxpayers' money is funding the modernisation of the Spanish fishing fleet, but we are not allowed to have access to funds to modernise the British fishing fleet. The days-at-sea legislation had a damaging effect and it was abandoned only after recourse to the European Court of Justice.
I went through the Division lists and it would be interesting for other hon. Members to do that to see how many of the 17 hon. Members who signed one of the amendments on the Order Paper voted in favour of restrictions on the amount of time that fishermen could spend at sea. There is also the whole question of Spanish access and the issue of a secret deal. The Secretary of State referred again to the fact that the House agreed to Spanish and Portuguese accession in 1986, but he failed to mention that the terms of that agreement were secretly changed. The House has never been properly told why that happened. The fact that there was no support for Britain last year on the detail of Spanish access shows how we have lost friends, and that in turn damages our ability to support our fishing industry.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said that from outside the Community Norway seems to have a better deal for its fishermen. Within the Community, Spain seems to do well for its fishermen. The Government invite the House to back them and say that they will support the best interests of British fishermen, but many of us long ago gave up on the Government knowing what are the best interests of British fishermen.
5.4 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: There is no doubt that the dictated common fisheries policy is driving the fishing community in Northern Ireland and in other parts of the United Kingdom into severe decline. Fishing in Northern Ireland is worth more than £20 million a year and offers employment to more than 2,000 people, 1,200 of whom are actively engaged on trawlers. It is an
1372
important industry but every year it receives further body blows that are forcing fishermen out of the industry altogether.
The main concern of Ulster fishermen is the allocation of quotas in the Irish sea. In past years Northern Ireland's fishermen have witnessed those allocations being greatly reduced. For instance, since 1990 the total allowable catch in the Irish sea has been reduced by 40 per cent. The whiting allocation has been cut by 44 per cent. and the TAC for prawns, which are the foundation of the Ulster fleet, has been cut by 25 per cent. Government policies in alliance with the European Union mean that Northern Ireland fishermen cannot build vessels that are capable of fishing the deep waters to the west of Ireland and Scotland. It is ridiculous that Northern Ireland fishermen have to sit idly by while fishermen from other parts of the European Union are able to exploit those resources.
The strong feeling among many fishermen is that they are forced into quotas which bear no relation to the fish that are to be found in the fishing grounds. On top of that, the depleted quotas are further hit by the detrimental effect of the Hague preference on United Kingdom allocations. That preference, which is part of the common fisheries policy, awards fishermen in the Irish Republic extra fish at the expense of their northern colleagues.
In 1995 British fishermen in the Irish sea lost 805 tonnes of cod to the Irish Republic, which annually fails to catch its own allocation. That example is repeated in other stocks. Consequently, the United Kingdom has to swap away some of its other quota allocations so as to regain some of the fish without which vessels would be tied up at the quays. Despite the return of cod quota British fishermen are still 290 tonnes short of the previous year's allocation of Irish sea cod. The Hague preference along with drastic quota cuts mean that Ulster's fishermen are being driven from their traditional fishing grounds.
A major factor complicating matters this year is the uncertainty surrounding the future of international swaps. It is important that those swaps should proceed because by means of them fishermen are at least able to gain access to a quota that would not otherwise be available. The nettle of the iniquitous Hague preference system, which acts to the detriment of Northern Ireland fishermen, must be grasped. Additionally, we have the prospect, from 1 January next year, of the entry of up to 40 Spanish fishing vessels into the Irish box, while restrictions are placed on people who have fished in the Irish box for generations. Spanish fishing vessels, renowned for disregarding fishing controls and regulations, are being allowed in.
In relation to 1996 total allowable catches and quotas, it is the same depressing story of more cuts. Something needs to be done about the haddock TAC for the Irish sea. The ridiculously small quota allocated for haddock means that fishermen are not able to take advantage of the tremendous haddock fishery. There is a proposal to have further cuts in cod to the tune of 6.9 per cent. Cuts are also proposed for plaice and sole. Those are unacceptable to Ulster fishermen.
Although Northern Ireland and United Kingdom fishermen are having quotas cut and are being rigidly regulated and policed by the authorities under European Union regulations, the same cannot be said of other EU countries, which makes fishermen very angry. A recent comparison of member state enforcement resources,

1373
undertaken by the EU itself, showed that the United Kingdom was devoting far more resources than any other member to enforce the fishing regulations.
I refer to a paper issued by the EU on the European Commission's estimate of existing resources and their utilisation. I find that, annually, Belgium puts in 15 surveillance hours, Denmark none, Germany none, Spain 50, France 500, Ireland 700, the Netherlands none, Portugal 100 and our own nation 4,800. Those are not my figures, but EU figures. That must alarm everyone in the fishing industry. It is a pity that there are not a few Nelsons back in the fishing industry to put a telescope to a blind eye and to let the fishermen get a proper quota. We are told that we should not say those things, but if the law is unfair, it must be dealt with, and this law is unfair. No wonder our fishermen are angry and frustrated, not only at the EU laws that have created the framework for their industry's destruction, but at the zeal with which these regulations are policed by our own authorities.
On a separate, but not entirely unrelated, issue, 1995 saw the European Court judgment on the fishing industry's judicial review of Her Majesty's Government's proposed days-at-sea legislation. Although the court's decision came down on the Government's side, it was clear to many people that the industry won a moral victory through the withdrawal of the proposals. The industry. however, incurred the legal costs. Why will not the Government say that they will not demand that money from the fishing industry? Today, one concession has been given. That on the legal costs would be a good concession to give to the fishing industry.
That is another difficult burden for the industry to bear at a time when it is coming under increasing pressure. The Minister should consider waiving the Ministry's legal costs associated with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations' legal challenge to the Government on this issue. It is all right for a former Prime Minister to tell us that all fishermen are for the European Community. He should come on some of the ships that I have been on and he would hear a different story altogether. Many fishing industry members are outraged at what is happening. I agree with a colleague sitting along this Bench, the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). As we have handed away power after power to Europe, we are not now going to be in a position to remedy this situation.
5.14 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: In the course of a largely knockabout speech, the Secretary of State for Scotland aimed a sideswipe at the Euro-sceptics by saying that much of their interest in the fish industry was "belated"—I think that was the word he used. Of course that is correct—it is belated. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) for answering the question asked by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and pointing out that, of the 17 hon. Members on the Euro-sceptic amendment this evening, 13 voted with the Government on fishing industry tie-ups on 9 December 1992.
Many of us, including the Secretary of State, may not have records that we would like to remember in relation to the fishing industry. I remember a debate in 1991 on tie-ups, when, as a junior Scottish Office Minister, he sat with his feet on that Dispatch Box, sniggering, while
1374
many of us tried to argue a case about fishing safety and safety at sea in the fishing industry. Unfortunately for him, that debate has not been forgotten around the communities of Scotland.
There has been some entertainment this evening for those of us who have observed the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food touring the Back Benches, speaking to the potential rebels in the vote tonight. Now we know that the inducement that is being offered is to restore the financial instrument for fisheries guidance, which was cancelled only last month in England. I am not sure whether the fishing harbour grant scheme, which was cancelled last month in both Scotland and England, is to be restored as well, but the night is still young.
My advice to the potential rebels on the Tory Back Benches tonight is, "For goodness' sake, do not be bought cheaply, as so many of your predecessors have been in fishing debates." I remember a previous Minister of Agriculture standing at that Dispatch Box, saying that he gave his word to the House that under no circumstances would the regulations elsewhere in Europe be any different from those pertaining on United Kingdom fishermen. How many of us believe that that commitment has been kept and honoured in the past few years?
Therefore, my advice to Conservative Members thinking of rebellion is, "Watch your votes," because what is said in honeyed words now might be different from what is said once the danger of the vote has passed.
I want to ask the Minister three specific questions, and I hope that he will deal with them in summing up. Earlier, in an intervention, I made the point that it seemed evident that Spain, from within the common fisheries policy, and Norway from outwith the CFP, have secured a better deal for their fishermen than the UK has in the past few years.
The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), reminded us of the Hague preference, which is another example that is worth remembering. That preference, which has been so useful to our fishermen, was achieved because of the intervention of Garrett Fitzgerald when he was Irish Foreign Minister in 1976. It was the Irish who secured the Hague preference, which has been so useful to fishermen north of Bridlington in the past few years. Substantial evidence exists, therefore, of the point that was made earlier in the debate.
One reason why the Norwegians have been dictating the pace of the negotiations is that they, in relation to the pelagic side, have the comfort of the new 1 million tonne revived stock of Atlanto-Scandian herring. I want to ask the specific question: as that is an international stock, what percentage of it does the Minister believe the UK and the Scottish pelagic fleet will be entitled to when it comes back on stream in the coming year?
Mr. Baldry: On the part of the stock that is in international waters, those negotiations will start in the new year, and obviously, we will seek to obtain the largest possible quota for the UK industry—it is as straightforward and as simple as that. One must remember, however, that a sizeable part of that stock is in Norwegian waters.
Mr. Salmond: I will take that as an indication that the Minister appreciates the importance of that stock in a circumstance where the pelagic fleet will face tough times as a result of the Norwegian negotiations.

1375
The second precise point is on cod and haddock. From scientific evidence, it seemed to fishermen representatives that there was room for an increase in cod and haddock total allowable catches, but the TAC was restricted for cod, and there has been no increase for haddock. There is an important point here. Many of us believe that a relaxation in the TACs would result in fewer fish being caught and being discarded. Will the Minister return to that point, given that the scientific evidence does not seem to support the tough stance that the Norwegians successfully forced on the European Commission two weeks ago?
Thirdly, I want to emphasise the point about whiting made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. It is impossible to fathom the Commission's thinking on the whiting stock. A few years ago, it was defined as a predatory species that had to be fished down, and the minimum landing size had to -be reduced so as to cut its numbers, so why is its TAC now being sharply reduced? Does the Minister intend to invoke the Hague preference to try to ensure that there will be at least some fishing opportunities in the coming year for that important stock for the Scottish industry?
I am greatly concerned about structural support for the fishing industry. In a memorable phrase, Cecil Finn of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation said that the industry was
"still wallowing in the broken water of the do nothing years".
He was talking about the years between 1987 and 1993, when—because of the obduracy of the then Minister of Agriculture, who set his face against decommissioning schemes because of his personal experience as a Minister in previous years—although the United Kingdom industry had 12 to 15 per cent. of the overall European fleet, it received only about 2 per cent. of the structural funding.
That put our industry and our communities at a huge competitive disadvantage. It now looks as though, in both objective 1 areas, and certainly in my area of Grampian, the PESCA scheme, which was introduced to try to compensate fishing-dependent communities for the effects of the difficulties that the industry has faced over the past few years, is also being jeopardised. That is happening because of the Scottish Office's refusal to allow local authorities the additional cash required to qualify for European funding. I hope that the Minister will pick up that point, too, in his summing up.
My third key point about structural support is that it would be helpful to clarify whether the harbour scheme is back on for this year. That was not clear from the exchange between the Minister and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris).
Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening, because the rest of the House heard, and clearly understood, that I have heard and carefully considered the representations by some of my hon. Friends, and that the harbour scheme has been reinstated.
Mr. Salmond: For Scotland too?
Mr. Michael Forsyth rose—
Mr. Salmond: Just a nod will do.
Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman will give way, I shall happily answer the question.
Mr. Salmond indicated assent.
Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Scottish position was that we did not follow the English on FIFG—the financial instrument of fisheries grant. But yes, the harbour scheme will be open.
Mr. Salmond: We know about the FIFG. That is why I asked about the harbour scheme, and I thank the Minister for confirming the position there.
The question marks over structural support at this difficult time for the fishing industry, and the track record on decommissioning, represent one of the Government's great failures over the industry. But the Government have had many other failures, too. The failure on flag of convenience vessels was a policy failure, which caused the industry huge difficulties and totally wrecked any hope of reaching the multi-annual guidance programme targets. The Government's entire strategy floundered because of that decision. I served on the Committee on the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, and the Government were warned that the use of nationality as a basis might flounder in the European Court, but they went ahead just the same.
There was also a failure concerning accelerated access for the Spanish. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) gave way to the wrong Euro-sceptic, when, earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was about to tell us of the secret deal that resulted in the Spanish being allowed, almost unilaterally, to revise their own treaty of accession, and thus to secure accelerated access to western waters. The hon. Lady was about to reveal to the House what the Government had had in mind, and whether there had been any concession by Spain on qualified majority voting. She should have been encouraged to continue.
The Government's biggest failure has been their failure to bring about a coherent fisheries policy. Today we have heard that a review group is to meet, and is expected to report early next year. However, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is still awaiting the formal reply to its submission of September 1993, which contained a series of suggested ways of approaching the problems of the industry.
Time and time again, the fishing industry has offered the Government a strategy, and time and time again, the people at the Dispatch Box have greeted it with deaf ears. That is why, when fishing communities all around the coast have been sold down the river so many times by Ministers, if the Government are defeated on their fisheries policy tonight, there will be rejoicing in every fishing port the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.
5.24 pm
Sir Richard Body: My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government can be assured that they will have a majority tonight, because members of the Labour party intend to demonstrate their support for the fishing industry by staying at home—preferring, I regret to say, a rather longer Christmas holiday than they would otherwise have.
Of course, there are some notable exceptions, such as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). The hon. Gentleman and I can remember when fishing was an important industry for Lincolnshire; no one can claim that it is now. Fishing is in serious decline. I believe that fewer

1377
than 20 boats now go out of Grimsby, and in Boston we have only 40 boats in all, only a fraction of which go out at any one time.
Those who argue on behalf of the fishing industry have said again and again that the common fisheries policy will cause the total allowable catch to go down and down, because it contains no effective conservation measures. I shall draw attention to two main factors. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has been considering them, and I hope that he will argue them effectively on Thursday.
The first problem is the size of nets. We are now catching immature little fish that have had too little opportunity to grow. Most of the cod we now catch are half the size that they should be. From a conservation standpoint, that is woeful.
Secondly, there are the discards; I am sure that you know all about them, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Discards are the fish that are thrown back dead into the sea, because we are not allowed to catch them. If those were only a few fish, no one would much mind, but various estimates have been made of their numbers, and the best is that discards probably account for about 1,000 million fish a year. Surely that is a crime against conservation. I hope that the Minister of State will raise that matter vigorously on Thursday, and press instead for a levy on excess catches.
Hon. Members with some part of the inshore fishing industry in their constituencies know that, as matters now stand, despite what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said—I do not know where my right hon. Friend has met fishermen, but I suspect that it cannot have been in this country—no fisherman has any confidence in the future of the industry after the year 2002.
Fishermen know that, when that day comes, their existing rights will have to be renegotiated, and they have no idea where they will stand then. That has created appalling uncertainty in the fishing industry. Fishing has been largely a father-to-son affair. No father in the fishing industry with a teenage son will encourage his son to join him as he will have joined his own father years before.
Moreover, even with the old dilapidated boats that we have in Boston and elsewhere, no fisherman is going to replace his boat—partly because, in the present uncertainty, no bank will lend him the many thousands of pounds that that would cost. Indeed, hardly any fishermen I know are willing to spend large sums on maintaining their boats as they should be maintained if they are to continue fishing for a few more years.
Many inshore fishermen in their forties ask me whether it is not time to get out of fishing now, rather than wait for 2002, when they will be in their fifties and it will be far more difficult for them to find another occupation. The year 2002 may seem far away to many of us, but for people concerned with inshore fishing, it is drawing close.
My hon. Friend the Minister knows that last year, at a representative gathering of fishermen in Lowestoft, I said that the common fisheries policies was so absurd, and acted so unjustly against our fishermen, that I was convinced that the Government would renegotiate it. I was pressed about that, and I said that I felt so certain about the matter that I would not reapply for the Whip until the Government renegotiated. I only hope that, on Thursday, my hon. Friend the Minister will enable me to put that matter right.
5.29 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: It is somewhat ironic that, at a time of year when most of commerce and industry is looking forward to the festive season, we are debating an industry that is in a state of depression and is wondering what fate will befall it after this week's EU conference. It has been a momentous year in fishing, with traumas, successes and legal victories.
Decommissioning, which is a reflection of the depression in the fishing industry, should not be taken as a victory. It has certainly helped in trying to eradicate some of the hardships in the industry, but it is not a victory in itself. Northern Ireland's fishermen are worse off than most other UK fishermen.
My constituency has three of the four fishing ports in Northern Ireland, and they depend very much on the fisheries in the Irish sea area VIIa. Local fishermen must cope with quotas—which, they say, bear no relation to the fish to be found in the area—but the depleted quotas will be further hit by the detrimental effect of the Hague preference allocations. Unfortunately, this year new complications have crept into the equation in the shape of the uncertainty surrounding international swaps. It is vital that the swaps proceed. They provide a much-needed lifeline that sustains viable fisheries in area VII, and their importance in the wider western waters area is crucial.
My constituency is unique as it has a water border with the Republic of Ireland. Fishermen from my constituency, who are restricted by quotas, can see their colleagues just a couple of miles away in the Irish Republic merrily fishing. They are not catching the quotas allocated to them under the Hague preference. It is important that the international swaps are negotiated in such a way that Northern Ireland fishermen get the better part of their traditional access to the Irish sea fisheries in area VIIa. The swaps must not be used as a back door for additional Spanish or other European fishing fleets to gain access to protected waters.
I understand that evidence given by the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management at a recent meeting seemed to be based on fairly weak foundations. The ACFM seems to contend that if a TAC is not caught, the fish do not exist. That is nonsense and it has no scientific base whatsoever. The vast majority of countries annually fail to catch their TAC, and sometimes only 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the catch is taken up. On that basis, scientists propose to make further cuts, which seems to be totally unscientific and illogical. The cuts will have little or no impact on nations that do not catch their TAC, but a very substantial impact on those countries whose TAC is so restricted as to be minimal.
Northern Ireland's fishermen have been crying out for some time for something to be done with the area VII haddock TAC. Fishermen tell me, and I have no reason to doubt them, that there is a very substantial haddock fishery, but as the United Kingdom quota is so small—it is only some 600 tonnes—they have been unable to take advantage of the abundance of stock. Despite all their efforts, they have been told that the stock merits only a brief mention in this year's report by fisheries' scientists, despite the fact that the scientists agree that the fish are there. What are fishermen supposed to do? Why is the scientific community not as quick to advise on increases in quotas as it is to advise on cuts?

1379
The second matter to which I should like to refer is cod area VIIa. The ACFM advised that there should be almost 7 per cent. of further cuts in this TAC. The cut is not as severe as in previous years, but fishermen in Northern Ireland have no confidence in the ACFM's proposals. Catches during 1995 in the species and sector have been as good as, if not better than, in previous years, so how distinct to area VIIa is the cod stock?
Has any calculation been made of the consequences of decommissioning? One of the consequences is that there will be a reduction in the effort put into fishing. Have these points been taken into consideration? I contend that if they had, the proposed 6.9 per cent. reduction in cod for area VIIa would not have been proposed.
Fishermen have little confidence in the ACFM's proposals for plaice and sole because, again, it appears that an unscientific approach has been taken to the problem. There is substantial evidence of well-recovered stocks of haddock, cod, plaice and sole in the sector.
I hope that in their negotiations towards the end of the week, Ministers will take the matter on board and challenge the evidence that has been given. It seems that our European partners do not take proper cognisance of the scientific evidence, which is freely available, and they seem panic-stricken as they go for further and further quota cuts.
I referred earlier to the relationship between the fishermen of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland. We have heard from other hon. Members that some of the quotas are simply not caught in the Republic of Ireland. Each year, the Department of Agriculture at the Northern Ireland Office enters into negotiations with its counterpart in the Republic of Ireland to arrange for local swaps of those parts of the quota that will not be caught.
Could not the Government enter into a more meaningful and long-term agreement with the fisheries department in the Republic of Ireland, whereby there could be an exchange of unfished quotas between the two fishing fleets? After all, until a few decades ago, the fleets had a common approach and common fishing areas, and they still have the same interests. Could not the Government make this a more meaningful and permanent arrangement, so that the element of uncertainty between the north and south of Ireland could be eliminated?
I hope that there will be an increase in quotas for cod and whiting in area VII, and that the quota arrangements for haddock in area VIIa will be enhanced to take cognisance of the scientific evidence, which seems to show that fishing shoals have returned there. Finally, there is a need for more permanent swap arrangements with the Republic of Ireland.
5.39 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: I have no interest to declare in the debate, other than that as a practical butcher and farmer, I have enormous sympathy with the plight of that other group of intensely practical people—British fishermen—as a result of the machinations of the common fisheries policy. I have not hidden my ambition to see this country leave the CFP, which is also the object of the Save Britain's Fish campaign, to which I and several of my colleagues have pledged our support.
1380
Some in the Chamber will seek to question my motives for supporting the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). I do not impugn the motives of the integrationists on these Benches, and I trust that they will desist from impugning mine. Some people recognise the danger that the renegotiation of the CFP by 2002 would, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris),
"mean the end of the fishing industry as we know it".—[Official Report, 22 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 581.]
However, if those people, perversely, do not support amendment (b), suffice to say that the ballot box will be the final arbiter.
I have spent some time reading and re-reading the Official Report of the debates that took place on 23 October and 22 November to refresh my memory of the arguments deployed by the Minister of State in defence of the CFP. I accept that his basic position is as set out in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter), when he stated:
"Withdrawal from the common fisheries policy is not an option, either legally or practically."—[Official Report, 17 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 969.]
I will deal with those points in due course.
My hon. Friend's case against withdrawal from the CFP seems to hang on three points: first, the time that it would take the Government to negotiate satisfactory bilateral agreements with other countries; secondly, the absence of any especially strong or co-ordinated objections to the CFP in the past; and, thirdly, the legal problems associated with disengagement.
I trust that the House will recognise that none of those arguments is sufficient in itself to justify the perpetuation of a regime that is so obviously defective in that it is precipitating the demise of British fishing industry, failing to protect fishing stocks, encouraging short-term exploitation at the expense of genuine conservation, making criminals of otherwise honest people alienating public opinion and perpetuating the situation in which a vital British interest is compromised by the process of qualified majority voting.
On the point about negotiating satisfactory bilateral agreements, it is a fact that the Government are concluding such agreements with all sorts of countries on all sorts of issues as a matter of routine. Does my hon. Friend the Minister of State accept that, in the calendar year to date, the Government have concluded no fewer than 81 bilateral treaties and 28 multilateral treaties? The time that Ministers and civil servants expend in the process has never previously deterred Governments from pursuing their objectives. That is an entirely spurious argument to advance as a reason for doing nothing about the common fisheries policy.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State has asserted that there have been no protests in the past about the CFP. In 1971, however, the fishing industry was assured by the Government that its interests would be protected. Indeed, I have a photocopy of a letter dated 4 October 1971, signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), in which he said:
"For our part, as the White Paper said, we are determined to secure arrangements which will safeguard the interests of British fishermen."

1381
When the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, no less, gave such a categorical assurance, the whole industry was entitled to believe that there was no cause for concern.
Fishermen at that time, and subsequently, were entitled to believe that their interests really would be protected. It is only now that the realisation is dawning that this never was—and under the terms of the CFP never could be—the case. The fact that it has taken 20 years or more for the duplicity of a previous generation of politicians to manifest itself cannot in any way justify my hon. Friend's determination to preserve the present arrangements.
I also submit that any person looking dispassionately at the present unsatisfactory situation would recognise that the reason why there were no strong objections about fisheries, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State avers, at the time of the Spanish and Portuguese accession is in good measure because the Spanish and the Portuguese were not scheduled to gain full access to the CFP until 2002. It is the bringing forward of their full membership of the CFP to 1 January 1996 that has precipitated the present outcry.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gill: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, we are limited to 10-minute speeches and I am anxious to make several points. I hope that he will have an opportunity to make his contribution to the debate.
Whatever the Government may say about the Spanish accession, a deal was done at the time of the later accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden to the European Community whereby full membership of the CFP for the Spanish and Portuguese was accelerated by six years. At no stage were right hon. and hon. Members informed that that was being done, nor the reasons for doing it.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State's assertion that Members of Parliament were fully aware of the ramifications of the United Kingdom's entry into the CFP is questionable. Furthermore, I question whether hon. Members were able to follow the Government's more recent footwork in accelerating the full entry of Spain and Portugal into the CFP. I wonder how many parliamentarians, even today, are aware that the CFP is not spelt out in treaty form, but exists only by dint of EC regulations.
I turn now to the Minister's statement that it is not practically possible to withdraw from the CFP. Indeed, he addressed that problem in an earlier debate. He is on record as saying:
"It is politically unrealistic to imagine that a new deal can be done that will result in other countries in the European Union giving away fishing opportunities to the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 22 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 591.]
Precisely. It is inconceivable that any other member of the European Union would vote for any substantial change in the present arrangements, under which the majority of European Union countries get a bargain at the expense of the United Kingdom.
We get what can only be described as a raw deal, notwithstanding the fact that this country contributes more than 60 per cent. of the European Union's fishing stocks. My hon. Friend the Minister recognises that, under qualified majority voting, it is practically impossible to
1382
obtain any redress for Great Britain. Those who believe that the application of a veto will alter that situation are deluding themselves and misleading the people whom they represent.
On the subject of the legal obstacles to withdrawal from the CFP, I remind my hon. Friend that the political reality is that, at the next general election, the electorate will not stop to consider the legal niceties, but will simply vote in accordance with their perception of what is right or wrong.
I conclude my remarks by reminding my hon. Friend the Minister that Cicero's maxim
"salus populi suprema est lex"—
the good of the people is the chief law—is, in the context of his present difficulties, the overriding political imperative in the run-up to the next general election. This fisheries policy is not the will of the people: it is the diktat of bureaucrats and their political apparatchiks.
5.48 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: An interesting paradox of these debates is the fact that the stronger the opposition in the fishing industry to the common fisheries policy grows, the more vigorously Ministers come here to defend it—inadequately and disingenuously—and the less they can deliver. They busily defend it in the Chamber while obtaining little that will benefit the fishing industry in the United Kingdom.
Today the Government are putting the squeeze on their supporters and telling them not to rock the boat or damage relations with Europe. Their line is that if we rock the boat on the common fisheries policy it could endanger our whole relationship with Europe. Meanwhile the Conservatives' leader, the Prime Minister, goes to European Councils, rocks the boat and damages our relations with Europe. In other words, the Government are telling their Back Benchers not to behave like the Prime Minister.
Instead of coming here to deliver their laboured defences of the common fisheries policy—as witness the Minister's opening speech—Ministers would be better employed getting some achievements for the British fishing industry. They should be as virile in Europe in obtaining something for our fishermen as they are in the House when defending the CFP to their own Back Benchers. I do not want to pursue that path today, but most of the debate has centred on it.
Our fishing industry is in crisis, and nowhere more so than in Grimsby, whose fleet, as the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) suggested, has shrunk below the limits of viability. The same is happening all over the country. As British vessels go out of business, their track records are bought up by quota hoppers. Most of the fishing done in excess of our targets is done by foreign companies which arrive and buy up British quotas because they are over target in their own countries. So they escape their targets by buying up the British quotas, and if flagship vessels went out of business we would find ourselves below target.
Ministers are imposing a double whammy on the industry. First, it is hit by the common fisheries policy. That is inevitable; our fishing grounds are the richest in the world, so we shall face intense competition if we turn a larger European fishing effort loose on them. If the CFP

1383
were effective in terms of conservation, we would not be holding today's debate because the industry would not be facing the problems of over-fishing and shrinking stocks.
Ministers have not defended British interests at all. When it comes to negotiations, something else is always more important so they give way on fishing—on Spanish access to our fishing grounds, for instance, to get Norway into the European Community. Always the higher aim results in fishing being sacrificed. To that extent, Ministers do not defend British fishing interests in Europe.
At the same time as the CFP is damaging our industry, Ministers are failing to provide it with the sort of backing and support which our competitor countries give their industries. They are our competitors, not our partners. The French fishing industry still gets the fuel subsidy to which Ministers have been objecting. That subsidy helps with the fuel costs of French fishing boats which come to fish in our fishing grounds—and it comes from the French Government. No such support is forthcoming from our Government.
Other industries such as the Spanish receive Government support for modernising their fleets, which then compete with our aging fleet which receives no Government support of that kind. Nor does our industry have the benefit of ports of landing facilities, which are provided as a local government service to the Danish and Dutch fleets. We pay heavy landing charges for which there is no Government help.
The industry might be able to put up with one or other—with the depredations of the CFP on the one hand or the lack of Government support on the other. The ports of landing in Europe are inadequately policed, so that there is no real control over the catches taken from our waters. The fishing industry might be able to cope with the slow anorexia that the Government are imposing on it, but it cannot cope with both problems at once.
It is wrong for Ministers to come here and vigorously defend the CFP when that defence is no more than a cloak for their inactivity and inadequate support for the industry. The industry cannot support the double whammy being imposed on it. When we lament the coming cuts in quotas, Ministers always tell us in these debates that they intend to go to Europe and get a good deal for our interests. They then come back after Christmas and apologise, saying that they were outvoted and could not get their way—they could not get the deal that we had been led to expect. The same will happen again this time.
We are being asked to accept substantial reductions in the total allowable catch of plaice; that will be disastrous for Grimsby, which relies mainly on cod but also on plaice. The problem would be compounded if the Minister engaged in the yearly swap agreed with the Dutch on plaice quotas. If plaice quotas are to be reduced, we cannot agree to any further such swaps with the Dutch. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will not go ahead with it this year.
What is needed is greater stability. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations is asking that year on year swings be moderated to 15 per cent. The industry needs that certainty to be able to plan ahead. We should not enforce sudden, massive quota cuts on the industry, sometimes based on scientific advice which is
1384
not good at year-by-year predictions but which is very good at predicting long-term fluctuations in stocks. The problem with year-on-year predictions is that they do not take into account the perceptions of the industry. Many skippers complain to me about scientific advice which is not borne out in the fishing grounds, where stocks are much greater or smaller than scientists say. Hence scientific predictions need to be combined with the knowledge of the industry in a process of consultation before being enforced.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will commit himself to moderating year by year swings and to ensuring that scientists consult the industry before quota cuts are based on advice that may be wrong. In its pathetic and shrunken condition, the industry needs Government support of the kind provided for the competing industries in Europe. It also needs stability and certainty so that it can survive to inherit the better years which must lie ahead.
5.57 pm
Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay): A proportion of those who still work in what survives of the fishing industry in the south-west live in my constituency and work out of Brixham. They tell me that there are more MAFF inspectors than police officers there. That is a sad indictment of what has gone so terribly wrong in our industry.
There is an overwhelming recognition by everyone in the industry of the need for conservation. People understand it because it represents their future and their children's future. At any rate, that is what they believed. There is no fisherman in the country who does not understand the need for conservation. Despite the gloom cast over the House by the Secretary of State's predictions of likely future quota cuts, the fishermen to whom I have spoken are all perfectly willing to accept those cuts—if they are limited to what they would refer to as the British fishing fleet. That is where the real problem lies, because around 28 per cent. of the tonnage of the British fishing fleet is not British at all, but Spanish. If we could get over that problem, many of our difficulties would disappear.
Two quite separate problems face the Government. The first is conservation and the need to reduce our fishing effort. Everyone accepts and understands the arguments for that all too well. We can do something about that, perhaps, in a common fisheries policy.
The second problem exposes the impotence of the Government. Following the judgment in the European Court of Justice, the Government cannot insist that British vessels are precisely that: British owned, British registered and with British flags. The real problem is that 30 per cent. of those vessels are owned by foreigners who are quota hoppers and who are living off the backs of our fishermen and destroying our industry.
The first problem is one with which my hon. Friend the Minister is well qualified to deal. I wish him well on Thursday when he goes to Europe. He has a difficult task, but, like his predecessors, he has done a good job for the industry in fighting our corner. The real problem lies with the quota hoppers.
As I voted with the Opposition on the last occasion when the matter was before the House, I listened carefully to the Labour party's proposals. It seemed to me that the

1385
hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) proposed, first, that total allowable catches should be based entirely on scientific evidence. The second plank of his argument was that scientists should be given more resources so that they can understand precisely what the problems are and make accurate assessments. The third part of the argument was that we should ignore the scientists on socio-economic grounds.
Many Conservative Members wanted to understand what firm proposals the Opposition had to get us out of the dilemma, but there was nothing there. For those of us who in the past had tried to get some comfort from Opposition proposals on this difficult issue, there was none to be had.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's speech could be summarised as, "Brace yourself because there is bad news to come." He tempered this with the slightly good news that harbour improvement grants would be restored. I welcome that, but I would like my hon. Friend the Minister of State in his winding-up speech to say that he will take another look at the way in which the Spanish and the Dutch in the North sea have been exploiting our quotas. That is the key to the problem.
I accept that the lawyers say that we lost last time and that the law is against us. Fine—but I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of man to find a way around that conundrum. I judge that the compromises that have been made in the past, to the detriment of the industry, were made by the Foreign Office because it does not regard the industry as significant or important. Invariably, compromises have been reached and the industry handicapped because the Foreign Office has decided that other issues are more important. When it comes to qualified majority voting, it believes that the fishing industry is dead and buried and insignificant, so we abstain on fishing to get Spanish support on some more important topic. That is unacceptable.
I urge hon. Members who do not have fishermen in their constituencies to accept that there can be nothing more distressing than to see a fishermen having to go down to his boat, not with a net and a lifejacket but with a chainsaw, to destroy it. That is what the Spanish and Dutch are forcing our industry to do. It is distressing, wrong and short-termist. That is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled an amendment.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Can my hon. Friend say whether there is any other country in the European Union whose fishing industry has been dealt with in such a devastating and damaging way as has the UK fishing industry?
Mr. Allason: My hon. Friend puts his finger on the point. Not only have we been handicapped in that way, but it appears that it is our money that has been spent on improving the Spanish fleets. There is nothing more upsetting for our fishermen than to know that funds paid by them through their taxes have gone to our competitors. They may be our partners in the European Union, but they are competitors and they are putting us out of business with our own taxpayer's money.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister of State to give an undertaking to take another look at the abuse of flags of convenience. In those circumstances, I would reconsider the way I voted last time the issue came before the House. I wish my hon. Friend the Minister well on Thursday, but
1386
I urge and beg him to fight for British interests because if he does not, no one else will—certainly not the Foreign Office.
6.5 pm
Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) said that this was the most important fishing debate of the year. If the Labour party thinks so much of the subject, why on earth did it not get a full day's debate out of the Government, rather than a half-day? That does not say much for its negotiating skills. I am sorry to have to start on that note, because there was much in what the hon. Gentleman said with which I agreed. If the matter is important, let us have a full day's debate next time.
If it were possible that the Government might be cajoled into following the course of action suggested in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), I would urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support them. That is no secret. However, that will not happen—or at least, not yet. Our fallback position will be that set out by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris)—with, of course, particular reference to the interests of Northern Ireland.
Every year on this issue, there is nothing more or less than a further instalment of crisis management. Far too much catch capacity is chasing too few fish. Allied to that is a lack of accurate information about the quantity of fish present in the sea. We have to expect that the efficiency of the vessels will continue to increase. There will be fewer and fewer vessels chasing the same number of fish.
If I have a quibble with what the hon. Member for St. Ives said, it is on his comment about firm scientific advice. Experience has shown that scientists' assessments can be wildly astray. It may well be that a large margin of error is always involved, but if, on top of that, the sort of, cheating to which the hon. Gentleman referred is added in, it is no wonder that the assessments go astray. In fact, it would be a miracle if the scientists got it right. Unless everybody is prepared to play by the rules of the game, there is no chance whatsoever of coming up with firm estimates of the numbers of a species in an area at a given time.
For instance, last year, the advice was that cod and whiting in the Irish sea were in a parlous state. This year, the advice is optimistic, but only the status quo for catches is being allowed. I hope that my remarks will be read in conjunction with those of the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for North Antrim, (Dr. Paisley), who touched on aspects of what I am trying to put across to the House.
We need to be willing to reassess the situation as fishing returns demonstrate the abundance or scarcity of a particular species in a given fishery.
As the United Kingdom Minister can argue for only three species at a time, although there are 18, his ability to debate the entire range is somewhat limited. Is the information that has been given in that respect correct? For instance, we are told that this year the Irish sea contains a huge amount of haddock. The hon. Member for South Down referred to that matter in detail. We know from the returns that the fish are there, but we are not allowed to catch them. The figure mentioned is 600 tonnes, but the scientists say, "Well, perhaps we could catch up to 2,000." So why should not Northern Ireland fishermen catch them?

1387
So long as we proceed with short-term, ad hoc, arrangements, we shall get nowhere. Short-term changes must be measured against the general framework of total allowable catches and quotas, which are out of tune with the real position in the Irish sea.
Despite what the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said, much of the United Kingdom's problem stems from its failure to defend its interests when we entered the EEC. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman rejecting that argument, which was put rather brutally by one of his right hon. Friends. I have been told that, although the principle was agreed, embodied within the principle was the whole concept of qualified majority voting. If that is so, whatever case the United Kingdom put forward, it would never have been accepted. It had not a snowball's chance of getting anywhere.
Whenever we return to the position in the Irish sea, we find that the Irish Republic never catches the high quotas that it is allowed for cod and whiting, for instance. The reason for that is simple: it was given twice its true entitlement on historic fishing returns. That seems to me and the fishermen in Northern Ireland to be mad, and something needs to be done about it. If we do not catch the quota, the uncaught fish will act as a magnet to other nations looking for fish. That is unavoidable. We must have sufficient swaps to ensure that those quota are caught.
Will the Minister assure us that the promise made by Earl Howe in the other place on 26 October 1992, that the Government will continue to reduce any disadvantages to Northern Ireland and Wales—by, for example, utilising the system of quota exchanges with other member states, which traditionally enabled the United Kingdom to obtain additional quantities of fish in the Irish sea—will be carried into effect? Has that promise been buried? If so, it is regrettable, because it was a firm promise, and the Government should give an undertaking this evening to honour it.
I hope that, when the Minister goes off later this week to argue the case for the United Kingdom, he will persuade the Irish Minister to co-operate with Her Majesty's Government this year, so that the maximum number of available fish can be harvested from the Irish sea by those who earn their livelihoods there. As the Government of the Irish Republic failed to support Her Majesty's Government last year when we were trying to defend the Irish box, they owe us one. The problem that my hon. Friends and I face this evening is how we can best strengthen the Government's hand in their negotiations later this week.
6.12 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: I always find it sad when a Minister with a fine mind deploys his cerebral skills and undoubted rhetorical talents in an intellectually unsustainable argument. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland fulfilled that unenviable task with great courtesy, and I listened with rapt attention to what he said.
It may help the House if I subject the amendment tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends to textual analysis. It
1388
"requires Her Majesty's Government to issue at the forthcoming Inter-Governmental Conference a statement of its intention to declare an exclusive fishing zone out to 200 miles or to the median line and of its decision in principle to withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy to be endorsed by the British people at the next general election."
The intention behind the use of the verb "requires" is to assert the primacy of this Parliament. This Parliament must be sovereign if we are to recover the proper relationship between our country and the European Union. We must utilise any opportunities for genuine dialogue with our Community partners to our advantage.
The intergovernmental conference, which begins on 29 March, is a classic case in point. It is an opportunity not to be missed. Many people will allege that fishing is not on the agenda, but I am sure that the conference, which is likely to continue for several months, will have some "any other business", and that, in the course of the proceedings, we can make it known that the United Kingdom Government intend to declare an exclusive fishing zone up to 200 miles—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that his amendment has not been selected for debate. Therefore, while an allusion to his amendment is in order, a detailed analysis of what is written on the Order Paper is not.
Mr. Wilkinson: In that case, I shall seek to deploy arguments which are germane to the whole debate.
Our country must make it clear to our European Union partners what we intend to do, so that they may make appropriate representations to us to secure the necessary bilateral fishing agreements in traditional fishing areas within our waters.
The Icelanders and Norwegians have found that a 200-mile limit is essential to safeguard their fishing interests. At the time of the cod war, I went to Iceland with the North Atlantic Assembly military tour. I was struck by the fact that relations between peoples were not adversely affected, as both sides recognised that vital interests were at stake.
With the benefit of hindsight, no one can reasonably suggest that what the Icelanders bravely did was wrong. I believe that they were right. Others will say that the Canadian— example—Canada has a 200-mile limit—proves that a 200-mile limit does not necessarily secure the conservation of stocks. That is true, but if, having asserted a 200-mile limit, we fail to conserve, the fault will be entirely ours. We shall pursue a conservation policy that is manifestly in Britain's interests, so it should have the support of fishing communities, because they will understand that they benefit.
Mr. Marlow: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a note that I have received, prepared by the Library for my Whip? This sentence is headed:
"The Argument against the CFP",
and the statement made in the note is:
"The problem is, rather, that it has a poor record on conserving fish."
That is the Library's objective view.
Mr. Wilkinson: It is also the objective view of my extremely honest right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who expressed it loud and clear in his

1389
opening remarks. That is why we say quite candidly that the common fisheries policy is a busted flush, and we should be no further part of it.
However, if we are to take such an important step, we must inform our Community partners, and we need the support of the British electorate. In the process of European construction, the last people to be consulted, and the last people who are carried along with the policy, are the voters, which is why the issue should be put to them in the Conservative party manifesto. They will then know that, if they vote Conservative, we shall pull out, we shall have a 200-mile limit, and British fishing communities will he protected.
That is not Labour party policy, which rests on reform of the CFP, a hopeless undertaking. The Liberal Democrat party's policy will do exactly the same. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) said, we need to look to 2002, to the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy and the enlargement of the Community. When Poland and the Baltic states join, their fishermen will, by treaty, be entitled to access to the common resource of our fisheries. This will cause further depredation of stock. It will lead to diminished quotas for our fishermen, and less chance of a sustainable livelihood for them.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland averred that it would be impossible for us to withdraw, and that we were bound by treaty to stay in. I challenge that argument. If the British electorate have clearly demonstrated that they wish our country to withdraw from the CFP, our sovereign Parliament should instruct our Government so to do.
If there were retaliation, what form would it take? It might take the form of action in the area of trade or other areas of mutual interest, but what would be our counter-retaliation? Perhaps it would be not to pay so much money to the European Union. We are the second biggest net contributor, and much of our net contribution goes to subsidising Spanish fishermen and others who are putting British fishermen out of work. We must confront the challenge head on.
Hon. and right hon. Members will have noticed British fishermen going to sea with the Canadian flag at the masthead. Something is seriously wrong if British fishermen go to sea with a foreign flag flying from the masts of their vessels. It demonstrates a degree of alienation, at the least, which I find horrifying.
Such displays have their good side. In my office, I have a Canadian flag proudly displayed, which was presented to me and some hon. Friends by our counterparts in the Canadian Parliament for the support we gave them when their Government challenged the European Union about fishing rights off the Newfoundland banks. I shall not go into the legalities of who was right and who was wrong; all I know is that the British people were wholeheartedly behi d our Canadian friends. To be candid, they were affronted that we appeared initially to take the side of the Spaniards.
On matters of this kind, emotions are important. We need to take account of the heartfelt feelings of our constituents and the fishing communities, and do what we know in our hearts to be right.
We are a maritime nation. It is appropriate that we should be responsible for the conservation of our own stocks. We should have an exclusive fishing zone out to
1390
200 miles. We should inform our Community partners that that is what we intend to do, and we should seek the endorsement of the British people for the policy. If we do that, we shall gain the political initiative, and be rewarded for it.
6.22 pm
Mr. Nick Ainger: I shall be brief, because I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) wants to start his speech at 6.30.
Those of us who represent fishing constituencies know that the industry is in crisis. Unfortunately, some of the contributions by hon. Members who do not represent fishing constituencies did not present practical solutions to the immediate, short-term and medium-term problems that confront the industry.
The withdrawal from the common fisheries policy and the establishment of a 200-mile limit will not solve the problems of people living in my constituency or many other fishing constituencies in the next few years, because it cannot be achieved.
We need to do what the Government have failed to do, at least during my time in the present Parliament, since April 1992—tackle the serious problem of effort versus stocks. It began with the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992, which tried to bring in the days-at-sea limitation, to limit effort that way, which was finally thrown out, not too long ago, by the European Court. The Government failed to accept what all the Opposition parties and the industry were saying at the time—that the only solution was a decommissioning programme that worked, which would reduce effort and compensate fishermen who decided to leave the industry.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said that the French and Spanish had been able to invest in their industry, in their equipment and in their boats. The reason for that is that they have been meeting their multi-annual guidance programmes and have been able to qualify for grant aid, which the Government have failed to do in each of the multi-annual guidance programmes. Therefore, British fishermen and the British industry have been unable to benefit from grant aid, and to upgrade and improve their equipment.
One reason why the quota-hoppers and flagships have been able to come in and pick up British licences is that British fishermen have not had the wherewithal and the support from the Government and the financial institutions to enable them to invest in new plant and equipment. We end up in the crazy position where we artificially try to control the amount of fish that is caught, rather than tackling the effort problem. We end up with the farce that the TACs and the quotas have become. We have that huge roller-coaster—the term that the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations used—of quotas and TACs.
Last year, the TAC for western hake was reduced by about 45 per cent., and it was understood and hoped that that would solve the problem in relation to that stock. Now we find that the proposal for next year is, not the status quo, not an increase, but yet another cut, of about 29 per cent. How can any industry that depends on one product, plan and invest in such circumstances? We have substantial evidence from the fishermen on landings of

1391
cod in the Irish Sea, where, apparently, there is an abundance of cod and of haddock, yet there is no change in the TAC.
I hope that the Minister will consider the issue relating to the Irish sea, in relation to both the failure on occasions of the Irish Republic fishermen to meet their TACs, and the fact that English, Welsh and Northern Irish fishermen are constantly up against the ceiling of the TAC that has been set.
Unless we tackle the problem of the other effort, we shall repeatedly have this debate, as we do every year, just before the Minister goes off to Europe to try to argue a case that we all know will fail. Unless we tackle that problem, we shall have the same debate yet again, and the arguments will be made yet again, the following year.
One reason why we have that serious problem in relation to conservation is that we constantly speak about total allowable catches when they are not that, as the Minister knows; they are total allowable landings. There is a massive difference between what is taken out of the sea and what is landed in the ports. I have been told that discards may be at least 40 per cent. of TAC; 40 per cent. that will have no benefit to the market or to the fishermen, fish that are dead and returned to the sea. Unless that issue is tackled, I am afraid that TACs will never work.
We need to tackle the problem of the flagships. I accept that many attempts have been made by the Government to consider that, but I seek from the Minister of State an assurance that the fishermen of Wales and of south-west England will not suffer any reduction in their quota as a result of the 40 Spanish vessels coming into that part of the Irish box that they will be able to enter from 1 January 1996.
We want an assurance that no British fisherman, whether Welsh or English, will suffer reductions in the quota for any species as a result of that measure. The Minister was asked to give that assurance the last time we debated the issue, but I am afraid that the answer we received was, to say the least, non-committal. The matter is vital for the south-west and the Welsh fishing ports.
I hope—I fear that it is a hollow hope—that the next time we have a debate, we shall be able to say that fishing effort has been reduced sensibly in co-operation with the industry. I hope that we shall at last be able to say that we are starting to match our conservation measures with effort and stocks. I hope that there will be a partnership between Government, Europe, industry and the scientists. It may be a forlorn hope, but unless we start tackling the problem soon, our industry is doomed.
6.30 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: This has been an important debate and there have been many useful contributions. I agree with the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) that it is an annual debate for which we should have more time. He will appreciate that the business timetable is in the Government's hands. But when we are in government he can be assured that we will listen sympathetically to his representations.
The Secretary of State for Scotland mentioned the 1992 manifesto: in 1992 the Labour party made suggestions for amending the common fisheries policy, working with the
1392
fishing community on conservation measures and campaigning throughout the fishing constituencies. The moves were covered in the fishing press. The Government are only now—three years later—considering many of those ideas in the review committee. We do not need lessons from the Government about what we have been doing.
In some ways today's debate is a re-run of previous debates. In the past, when the Government felt that they were under pressure, they suddenly came up with more money for the decommissioning scheme, which was welcome at the time. Now, when they are under pressure, we suddenly find that the harbour grant scheme has been reinstated—it is a more modest contribution than the decommissioning scheme, but it is welcome for all that. We shall not be churlish about it.
Much attention has been focused on the debate for many reasons. There is no doubt that the debate provides an opportunity to discuss European Union policy as it affects our country. It is completely legitimate to question the mechanics of the European Union, particularly how it applies in terms of the common fisheries policy—many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), have done so. But we must not forget the importance of the debate to the British fishing industry, and I shall touch on some of the serious concerns.
I shall first discuss the quotas set for individual species which the Minister will have to discuss at the Fisheries Council. Concern has been voiced in tonight's debate about the way in which the quotas seem to fluctuate wildly from year to year. That not only makes it difficult for the fishing industry in terms of applying effort and using opportunities, it does not help the credibility of science. I accept that there are difficulties in calculating fish stocks at sea. It seems strange that some stocks have increased dramatically over recent years, while others have been dramatically cut. It does not help when the Government make cuts in sectors of vital fisheries research, such as they have done recently on research into the impact of the industrial fishing of sand eels in Shetland. The Government also made research and development cuts across the board in the Budget, including cuts in fisheries research.
The Minister will be discussing species quotas. We certainly welcome the fact that there will be an 8 per cent. increase in the cod quota, but it is thought within the industry that the increase could be greater given the evidence of large numbers of cod presently in the North sea. It is strange that there is to be no increase for channel cod although it is accepted that the stocks of channel cod and North sea cod are linked to some extent.
A big issue for our fleets involves North sea sole and plaice. There is great concern about the 29 per cent. cut in that quota, which will hit our eastern, Northern Ireland, south-western and Irish sea fleets. The problem of swaps with Holland has been mentioned. If no swaps are to take place, I hope that the Minister will look at the total allowable catch for the western waters for those fish that we would normally obtain from a swap with the Dutch. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) made a clear case for western hake for his local fishing fleet. It would be helpful if the Minister would say whether such a swap would take place at the current projected total of 78,000 tonnes for North sea plaice or whether the total would have to be increased for the swap to go ahead.

1393
There is a severe cut of 22 per cent. in the whiting quota. It seems strange that in recent years it has been argued that the quota should be increased because whiting are predatory fish and affect the white fish stocks. But the present cut is so large that it could invoke the Hague preference. I hope that in his negotiations the Minister will ensure that the quota limits are set at a level that does not do so because of the problems involved in the Hague preference. That preference provides benefits for this country north of Bridlington, but also applies to the Republic of Ireland and therefore has implications for our Northern Ireland fleet and the fleet that fishes in area VII. The Irish Republic is trying to invoke the Hague preference on Irish sea cod and haddock, which has implications for our area VII fleet.
Throughout the debate we have discussed the common fisheries policy; we cannot talk about quotas and fisheries management without discussing how the common fisheries policy operates. The subject cannot be avoided as it is the framework for the fisheries management scheme. Our amendment recognises that there are severe problems with the CFP and that we need a radical approach to reform.
Much attention has focused on whether there will be a rebellion tonight and the reason for it in terms of the political agenda, particularly for those with Eurosceptic views. There is no doubt that the policy of voting against the Government on various European issues has been successful for the Eurosceptics. The debate has provoked the Foreign Secretary into taking to the airways to appeal to the dissidents. The Prime Minister has written articles in The Daily Telegraph that have been slanted towards the dissidents. Tonight, a former Prime Minister and the current Secretary of State for Scotland have spoken in the debate. There is no doubt that the Eurosceptics' tactics have been successful and are moving the Government towards their agenda, whether for good or ill.
The debate, however, is about the dire state of our fishing industry. To be fair, those who have spoken have had a genuine interest in the subject—they include hon. Members from Northern Ireland, from the nationalist and Liberal Democrat parties, and hon. Members from both sides of the House who represent fishing constituencies. Even those with Eurosceptic views have taken an interest in the problems of our fishing fleet. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) feels passionately about the subject and knows the effect of the policy on his local fishermen.
Problems with the common fisheries policy include those involving the Western waters and Spanish accession; the fact that Spanish and Portuguese vessels are to be allowed in from 1 January, six years ahead of schedule. There are also problems involving control measures on our south-western and Northern Ireland fleet; problems of bureaucracy; the flagships issue; the need to qualify properly the principle of a common fisheries resource—a key issue; problems of meeting the multi-annual guidance programme and effort control; problems of having an ageing fleet compared with those of other countries; enforcement problems, particularly with other countries; problems of implementing a conservation scheme that is tailored to our waters; and the problem of discards. There is a need for associated socio-economic measures and a need to consider the operation of the decommissioning scheme. Increasing pressure is being placed on many of the white fish in the
1394
North sea which fall within the two to three-year-old age group, which means that the potential of the larger species is never realised.
The Labour party calls for reform of the CAP and recognises that we must seek co-operation to achieve that; no one country can achieve it alone. We firmly believe that, even within the framework of the CAP, we can achieve greater national autonomy. We also believe that there is scope for greater involvement of fishermen in the management of stocks through their associations and producer organisations. There are structural conservation packages, many of which were put forward by organisations such as the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to deal with the practical problems of conservation. We need to gather allies and support for those packages and we must talk to the Commission. The Labour party has already begun that process.
Conservative Members must ask why other fishing countries such as Norway and Spain are so successful at negotiating good deals for their fishery sectors. The answer must be the pressure that is applied to their Governments in their respective Parliaments. A vote tonight for Labour's amendment would send a clear signal to the European Commission that neither the British Parliament nor the British fishing industry are satisfied with the present common fisheries policy or the current state of the industry. That is a perfectly respectable position for any Member of Parliament to take on the issue.
In that respect, a vote for our amendment is vital as a demonstration of the House's support for our fishing communities. Members of Parliament who represent fishing communities know that their fishermen want and expect them to support the amendment. For far too long, the British fishing industry has been isolated in terms of the support that it believes it should receive from Government. Tonight we have an opportunity to rectify the matter.
Mr. Gallie: Earlier this afternoon I asked the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) whether he had considered inserting some reference to total allowable catches in his amendment. I cannot understand why that has not been included in the amendment. In attempting to persuade Conservative Members, perhaps the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe could refer to that very important issue.
Mr. Morley: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present for the beginning of my speech, but I discussed in detail the quotas issue and the problems that the industry faces in that regard. I outlined how those problems could be dealt with. The quotas issue is open for negotiation. The Minister has some scope in that area and we hope that he will move the negotiations in the directions that I have outlined in some detail.
Members of Parliament who want to see reform of the common fisheries policy and European institutions—they are our objectives, although we may disagree about the detail—represent a strand of opinion in this country that expects them to support the amendment. The vote tonight should not be seen simply as a vote for a Labour amendment, an Opposition amendment or even a particular Government position. It should be seen as a statement of intent to the European Commission that change is needed. We must adopt a clear policy position that will reinforce the

1395
Government's position in the negotiations in Europe. Above all, it is a vote for an amendment which promotes the British fishing industry. In that respect, it is worthy of the support of all hon. Members.
6.42 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): As the United Kingdom Fisheries Minister, I have only one ambition: to represent the best interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), my noble Friend Baroness Denton of Wakefield and I shall attend the Fisheries Council meeting this week. I doubt whether any other member state will have in attendance so many Ministers who are committed to defending and promoting the interests of their industry.
Hon. Members must recognise that it is not foreigners that we should fear, but the straightforward fact that at present too many fishing vessels are chasing too few fish. There is no escaping the fact that the failure to conserve fish stocks poses the greatest threat to the fishing industry. We must have regard to the scientific evidence which suggests that a considerable number of our most important fish stocks could collapse within a matter of years without tough conservation measures. Some 60 per cent. of fish stocks are already below minimum biological levels.
I must ensure not only that our fishing industry has the maximum catch next year but that there are sustainable levels of fish in the seas for our fishermen to catch the year after next and in every year as we move into the next century. Co-operation with our European partners is essential in view of the overcapacity of fishing fleets and the fact that fish do not respect national boundaries. We fish in the waters of other countries and they fish in ours, so it is essential that there is collaboration and co-operation throughout Europe.
A number of hon. Members raised questions about specific fish stocks. I suspect that they have raised those questions at the behest of fishing organisations such as the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisation and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. My ministerial colleagues and regularly I meet those two organisations. We have lengthy detailed discussions with them.
I make it clear to the House that their priorities are my priorities; their concerns and goals in the Fisheries Council are mine also. The detail that they give me about individual fish stocks is the detail that I hope to take forward and argue for in Brussels this week. In some instances, that will mean moderating the reduction in quotas that the Commission has suggested, and in other instances the quotas may be increased. I shall go to Brussels—I hope in co-operation and collaboration with the industry—to seek to address what the industry sees as its most important priorities.
Mr. Keith Mans: Will my hon. Friend confirm the remarks that he made by way of intervention to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) in relation to marketing grants? He said that grants will be available to those at Fleetwood who have already applied for them and that they will be available to people in other ports who may apply for them in the future.
Mr. Baldry: As I told the House earlier, since my appointment as Fisheries Minister in July I have travelled
1396
around the country from Newlyn to Newcastle and from Hastings to Hull meeting industry representatives and with hon. Members who take a close interest in the fishing industries in their constituencies. I have been very impressed by the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans), for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), for South Hams (Mr. Steen), for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) and others. They have argued strongly that at a time when quotas are being reduced—with good reason—we must continue to support the industry through harbour grants and marketing and processing grants. I understand their concerns and we have looked carefully for new funds for a number of grants schemes. I am pleased to announce that the national harbour grants scheme and the European Union structural measures for port facilities and marketing and processing will apply.
Mr. Salmond rose—
Mr. Baldry: I can anticipate the hon. Gentleman's intervention: they will apply throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Baldry: I do not need to give way as I have confirmed that the grants will apply throughout the United Kingdom.
Returning to the quotas issue, I shall be arguing in the Council for quotas to be set at realistic levels that will do the least possible damage to the industry's prospects next year. I understand the argument that a number of hon. Members have made: of course we cannot expect the industry to cope with wildly varying quotas year upon year. After all, people have invested in their vessels and in their future; they cannot be expected to deal with wildly fluctuating quotas.
We should not try to remedy the damage caused by overfishing by cutting particular fish stocks severely in any one year. If stocks must be protected by reducing the fishing effort, I hope that that can be achieved over a period of years rather than by introducing severe yearly cuts. Badly depleted stocks must be rebuilt if we are to maintain a viable industry in the long term.
Mr. Gallie: A year or two ago there was a quota of 16,000 tonnes for prawns on the west coast of Scotland. The quota has been reduced in recent years, but the quality and the volume of the prawn catch has increased. Some have suggested that there are many prawns to be taken, although scientific evidence seems to refute that claim. Will my hon. Friend re-examine that issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) has already done this year?
Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He will know that, because of the wishes of the Scottish fishing industry, we revisited that issue this year and achieved an increase in the quota for prawns. I hope that that increase will be reflected in the negotiations later this week.
Mr. Harris: I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend responded to the points that I and other Members have raised and assured the House that he would press for the priorities put forward by the industry. Can he give the House any information on another matter of concern to the industry on which representations have

1397
been made? Is there any progress on the long-standing claims for compensation from Spain to fishermen from the south-west for the damage caused to their nets in the tuna war?
Mr. Baldry: In an earlier debate in the House, I promised to try to resolve the issue by Christmas. I am glad to inform the House that the Spanish Minister responsible for fishing has confirmed that United Kingdom fishermen will be offered compensation of £100,000 to be paid by the end of this year or early next year, so I hope that the House will feel that I have fulfilled my promise.
Mr. Salmond: May we return to tonight's inducement? If the Minister believed that the financial instrument for fisheries grant and the harbour grant scheme were so important, why did he agree three weeks ago to their cancellation?
Mr. Baldry: I never cease to be amazed at how ungrateful some Members can be. Here I am, the week before Christmas, restoring marketing, processing and harbour grants, and such an ingrate individual quibbles about it. The only person who is more ingrate than the hon. Gentleman is the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who comes to the House complaining that not enough is done for fishing ports [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman never listens. I know of no more ungrateful Member than him. He complains to the House that not enough is spent on fishing ports when Grimsby is awash with money that the Government have invested in the port. Nearly £969,000 in Government fisheries grants will have been made available to Grimsby in two and a half years. That is the largest such allocation to any port in the United Kingdom. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman cannot recognise that.
Later this week I shall seek to ensure the best possible quotas and the best possible deal for the United Kingdom fishing industry, but consistent with the scientific advice which demonstrates that some of our fish stocks, such as North sea herring and mackerel, are in serious danger of collapse, which would be disastrous for the fishing industry, the processing industry and the consumer.
Mr. Allason: When my hon. Friend goes to the Fisheries Council on Thursday, will he raise the issue of quota hoppers and the abuse of the flags that is so obvious in the British registry?
Mr. Baldry: I certainly will not forget that. My hon. Friend quite rightly reminds the House of the problem of quota hoppers. We all share that concern. The Factortame judgment has nothing to do with the common fisheries policy—it is based on that principle of European law which allows the free association of individuals in different member states—but it is a matter of real and legitimate concern.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, who takes a close interest in promoting the interests of the fishing industry in the south-west, rightly continues to draw the issue to the attention of Ministers. He asked me to consult lawyers as to whether anything could be done about that judgment. I shall gladly draw together the lawyers in the fishing industry.
As I went round the ports of the United Kingdom, I issued a simple challenge. If any fishing industry representative has any sensible suggestions on how we
1398
can get around the Factortame judgment, I shall gladly take them on board and willingly support my hon. Friend's suggestion that we take yet a further look at the issue.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I thank my hon. Friend most warmly for his visits to my constituency and the port of Brixham, where he has always been very welcome. Is it the Government's policy to try to reform the common fisheries policy?
Mr. Baldry: Yes. All hon. Members recognise that the common fisheries policy has a number of defects. However, we shall not support the totally meaningless garbage put forward in the Labour amendment. When the Opposition Front Bench spokesman was asked to explain what it meant, he was clearly incapable of giving any such explanation. No one in the House is satisfied with the existing common fisheries policy; it clearly needs to be reformed.
Mr. John Redwood: Does the Minister recognise that many good Conservatives here tonight do not wish to give any comfort to the Labour party, but are deeply worried about the state of the fishing industry? Can the Minister say anything more about the robust stance that he will take at the Fisheries Council and British action that might be taken after the Council so that we stand up for British fishermen, not Spanish ones?
Mr. Baldry: My right hon. Friend can rest assured that my primary duty to the House is to represent and stand up for the interests of the British fishing industry. If at any time any Member can point to an occasion when I failed to stand up for the British fishing industry, I shall gladly vacate this place.
Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Baldry: I should make some progress. I am determined that there should be an on-going dialogue between the fishing industry and scientists on the specific issue of quotas and I recognise there are real concerns that the industry is not being heard.
It is important that the fishing industry becomes more involved in what we are doing. Many in the fishing industry see the year-on-year debate on quotas as a somewhat blunt instrument for ensuring control of the fishing effort and believe that more can be done by way of technical conservation measures. For that reason, I am setting up a fisheries conservation group that will bring together Government scientists and other academics with representatives of the industry to examine issues on which there are concerns, such as industrial fishing and the level of discards and to find out what more can be achieved by improving fishing gear.
Not only do I intend that we should do that here in the United Kingdom, but one of my other objectives at the Fisheries Council meeting later this week is to ensure a clear commitment to technical conservation measures in respect of fishing gear. Progress also has to be made towards addressing widespread concerns about industrial fishing, discards and by-catching.
I assure hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies that I shall be pressing the Fisheries Council for increases in the quotas proposed for the Irish sea. I fully appreciate the concerns of the Northern Irish industry about the Hague preference and of course we

1399
shall continue to seek to reduce the disadvantages to Northern Ireland resulting from the Hague preference, for example by carrying out international quota swaps.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked whether the quota is still Government policy. It is and will continue to be Government policy. Members have been concerned that there should be equal and strict enforcement of EC fishery measures throughout the Community and we determined to ensure that.
Two concerns have run through this evening's debate. One is the common fisheries policy, where the Government need reforms. It would be disingenuous, however, to suggest that we could leave the common fisheries policy. We should concentrate instead on reforming it in ways that would benefit the industry.
I find the Opposition amendment disingenuous in the extreme. Opposition Members play on the worst aspects of xenophobia. They criticise the Spanish, but forget that not a single Labour voice was raised against the accession of Spain or Portugal to the European Union. They criticised the Government for the deal that was achieved and clearly failed to read the Spanish treaty of accession, which stated that 300 vessels may be authorised to fish in western waters from the date of accession until 31 December this year. The result of the agreement that we achieved in December 1994 is that the number of Spanish vessels with access to the Irish box from 1 January will he not 300 but 40. That is a considerable deal on behalf of the United Kingdom fishing industry.
We do not need the Labour party to give us lessons on representing British interests. Anyone who is concerned about British interests should have regard to what the Labour party and other socialist parties signed up to this week in Madrid—a significant extension of qualified majority voting and restrictions on how long people can work. If those policies were implemented, we would be unable to represent best fishing interests.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 305.

Division No. 16]

[7.00 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Berry, Roger

Adams, Mrs Irene

Betts, Clive

Ainger, Nick

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Allen, Graham

Blunkett, David

Alton, David

Boateng, Paul

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Boyes, Roland

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'Dale)

Bradley, Keith

Armstrong, Hilary

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Ashton, Joe

Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Austin-Walker, John

Burden, Richard

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Byers, Stephen

Barnes, Harry

Caborn, Richard

Barron, Kevin

Callaghan, Jim

Battle, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Bayley, Hugh

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Campbell-Savours, D N

Bell, Stuart

Canavan, Dennis

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Cann, Jamie

Bennett, Andrew F

Chidgey, David

Benton, Joe

Chisholm, Malcolm

Bermingham, Gerald

Church, Judith

1400

Clapham, Michael

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hinchliffe, David

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hodge, Margaret

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hoey, Kate

Clelland, David

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Home Robertson, John

Coffey, Ann

Hoon, Geoffrey

Cohen, Harry

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

Connarty, Michael

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hoyle, Doug

Corbett, Robin

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Corston, Jean

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Cousins, Jim

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cox, Tom

Hume, John

Cummings, John

Hutton, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Illsley, Eric

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Ingram, Adam

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Cunningham, Roseanna

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Dafis, Cynog

Jamieson, David

Dalyell, Tam

Janner, Greville

Darling, Alistair

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Denham, John

Jowell, Tessa

Dewar, Donald

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Dixon, Don

Keen, Alan

Dobson, Frank

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Donohoe, Brian H

Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

Dowd, Jim

Khabra, Piara S

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Kilfoyle, Peter

Eagle, Ms Angela

Kirkwood, Archy

Eastham, Ken

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Lewis, Terry

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Fatchett, Derek

Litherland, Robert

Faulds, Andrew

Livingstone, Ken

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Fisher, Mark

Llwyd, Elfyn

Flynn, Paul

Loyden, Eddie

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

McAllion, John

Foster, Don (Bath)

McAvoy, Thomas

Foulkes, George

McCartney, Ian

Fraser, John

McCartney, Robert

Fyfe, Maria

McCrea, The Reverend William

Galbraith, Sam

Macdonald, Calum

Galloway, George

McFall, John

Gapes, Mike

McGrady, Eddie

Garrett, John

McKelvey, William

George, Bruce

Mackinlay, Andrew

Gerrard, Neil

McLeish, Henry

Godman, Dr Norman A

Maclennan, Robert

Golding, Mrs Llin

McMaster, Gordon

Gordon, Mildred

McNamara, Kevin

Graham, Thomas

MacShane, Denis

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

McWilliam, John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Maddock, Diana

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mahon, Alice

Grocott, Bruce

Mallon, Seamus

Gunnell, John

Mandelson, Peter

Hain, Peter

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hall, Mike

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Hanson, David

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Hardy, Peter

Martlew, Eric

Harman, Ms Harriet

Maxton, John

Harvey, Nick

Meacher, Michael

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Meale, Alan

Henderson, Doug

Michael, Alun

Hendron, Dr Joe

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Heppell, John

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

1401

Milburn, Alan

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Miller, Andrew

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Short, Clare

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Simpson, Alan

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Skinner, Dennis

Morgan, Rhodri

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Morley, Elliot

Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Soley, Clive

Mowlam, Marjorie

Spearing, Nigel

Mudie, George

Spellar, John

Mullin, Chris

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Murphy, Paul

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Steinberg, Gerry

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Stevenson, George

O'Hara, Edward

Stott, Roger

Olner, Bill

Strang, Dr. Gavin

O'Neill, Martin

Straw, Jack

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Paisley, The Reverend Ian

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Parry, Robert

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

Pearson, Ian

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Pendry, Tom

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Pickthall, Colin

Timms, Stephen

Pike, Peter L

Tipping, Paddy

Pope, Greg

Touhig, Don

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Trimble, David

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Tyler, Paul

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Vaz, Keith

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

Primarolo, Dawn

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Purchase, Ken

Wallace, James

Quin, Ms Joyce

Walley, Joan

Radice, Giles

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Randall, Stuart

Wareing, Robert N

Raynsford, Nick

Welsh, Andrew

Redmond, Martin

Wicks, Malcolm

Reid, Dr John

Wigley, Dafydd

Rendel, David

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Wilson, Brian

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Winnick, David

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Wise, Audrey

Rogers, Allan

Worthington, Tony

Rooker, Jeff

Wray, Jimmy

Rooney, Terry

Wright, Dr Tony

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Ruddock, Joan

Mr. Dennis Turner and

Salmond, Alex

Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Alexander, Richard

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Booth, Hartley

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Boswell, Tim

Amess, David

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Ancram, Michael

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Arbuthnot, James

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bowis, John

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Ashby, David

Brandreth, Gyles

Aspinwall, Jack

Brazier, Julian

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Bright, Sir Graham

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Baldry, Tony

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Burns, Simon

Bates, Michael

Butcher, John

Bellingham, Henry

Butler, Peter

Bendall, Vivian

Butterfill, John

Beresford, Sir Paul

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

1402

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Harris, David

Carrington, Matthew

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hawkins, Nick

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Hawksley, Warren

Churchill, Mr

Hayes, Jerry

Clappison, James

Heald, Oliver

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Coe, Sebastian

Hendry, Charles

Colvin, Michael

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Congdon, David

Hicks, Robert

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Horam, John

Couchman, James

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Cran, James

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

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

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Day, Stephen

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Hunter, Andrew

Devlin, Tim

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Dicks, Terry

Jack, Michael

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jenkin, Bernard

Dover, Den

Jessel, Toby

Duncan, Alan

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dunn, Bob

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dykes, Hugh

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Key, Robert

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

King, Rt Hon Tom

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Knapman, Roger

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Evennett, David

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

Faber, David

Knox, Sir David

Fabricant, Michael

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fishburn, Dudley

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Forman, Nigel

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Legg, Barry

Forth, Eric

Leigh, Edward

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Lidington, David

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Lilley, Fit Hon Peter

French, Douglas

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Gale, Roger

Lord, Michael

Gallie, Phil

Luff, Peter

Gardiner, Sir George

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Garnier, Edward

MacKay, Andrew

Gill, Christopher

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Gillen, Cheryl

McLoughlin, Patrick

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Madel, Sir David

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Maitland, Lady Olga

Gorst, Sir John

Major, Rt Hon John

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Malone, Gerald

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Mans, Keith

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Marland, Paul

Grylls, Sir Michael

Marlow, Tony

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Hague, Rt Hon William

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Mates, Michael

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Hannam, Sir John

Merchant, Piers

Hargreaves, Andrew

Mills, Iain

1403

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Spink, Dr Robert

Moate, Sir Roger

Spring, Richard

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Sproat, Iain

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Moss, Malcolm

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Steen, Anthony

Nelson, Anthony

Stephen, Michael

Neubert, Sir Michael

Stern, Michael

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Stewart, Allan

Nicholls, Patrick

Streeter, Gary

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Sumberg, David

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Sykes, John

Norris, Steve

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Ottaway, Richard

Temple-Morris, Peter

Page, Richard

Thomason, Roy

Paice, James

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Thomton, Sir Malcolm

Pawsey, James

Thurnham, Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Pickles, Eric

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Tracey, Richard

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Tredinnick, David

Powell, William (Corby)

Trend, Michael

Rathbone, Tim

Trotter, Neville

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Twinn, Dr Ian

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Richards, Rod

Viggers, Peter

Riddick, Graham

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Walden, George

Robathan, Andrew

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Waller, Gary

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Ward, John

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Waterson, Nigel

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Watts, John

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Wells, Bowen

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Wheelaer, Rt Hon Sir John

Sackville, Tom

Whitney, Ray

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Whittingdale, John

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Widdecombe, Ann

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Wilkinson, John

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Willetts, David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wilshire, David

Shersby, Sir Michael

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

Sims, Roger

Wolfson, Mark

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Yeo, Tim

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Young, Rt Hon Sire George

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Soames, Nicholas

Tellers for the Noes:

Speed, Sir Keith

Mr. Timothy Wood and

Spencer, Sir Derek

Mr. Derek Conway.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question Put:—
The House divided:Ayes 297, Noes 299.

Division No. 17]

[7.15 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Ashby, David

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Aspinwall, Jack

Alexander, Richard

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Amess, David

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Ancram, Michael

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Arbuthnot, James

Baldry, Tony

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

1404

Bates, Michael

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Bellingham, Henry

French, Doughlas

Bendall, Vivian

Gale, Roger

Beresford, Sir Paul

Gallie, Phil

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gardiner, Sir George

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Booth, Hartley

Garnier, Edward

Boswell, Tim

Gillan, Cheryl

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Gorst, Sir John

Bowis, John

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Brandreth, Gyles

Griffiths, peter (Portsmouth, N)

Brazier, Julian

Grylls, Sir Michael

Bright, Sir Graham

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hague, Rt Hon William

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Browning, Mrs Angela

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Burns, Simon

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Burt, Alistair

Hannam, Sir John

Butcher, John

Hargreaves, Andrew

Butler, Peter

Harries, David

Butterfill, John

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Hawkins, Nick

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hawksley, Warren

Carrington, Matthew

Hayes, Jerry

Channon, Flt Hon Paul

Heald, Oliver

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Churchill, Mr

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Clappison, James

Hendry, Charles

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hickes, Robert

Coe, Sebastian

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Colvin, Michael

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Congdon, David

Hogg, Rt Hon Doughlas (G'tham)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Horam, John

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Couchman, James

Howell, Sir Ralph(N Norfolk)

Cran, James

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

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

Hunt, Rt Hon David Wirral W)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Hunt, Sir John Ravensbourne)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Hunter, Andrew

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Day, Stephen

Jack, Michael

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Devlin, Tim

Jenkin, Bernard

Dicks, Terry

Jessel, Toby

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dover, Den

Jones, Robert B W Hertfdshr)

Duncan, Alan

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Dunn, Bob

Key, Robert

Durant, Sir Anthony

King, Rt Hon Tom

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Kirkhope, Timothy

Emery, Fit Hon Sir Peter

Knapman, Roger

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfied)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Knight, Rt Hon Greg Derby N)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

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

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Knox, Sir David

Evennett, David

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Faber, David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Fabricant, Michael

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Fishburn, Dudley

Legg, Barry

Forman, Nigel

Leigh, Edward

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Forth, Eric

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Fowler, R Hon Sir Norman

Lidington, David

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

1405

Lord, Michael

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Luff, Peter

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Shaw, David (Dover)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsy)

Mackay, Andrew

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Shersby, Sir Michael

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Sims, Roger

Madel, Sir David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Maitland, Lady Olga

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Major, Rt Hon John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Malone, Gerald

Soames, Nicholas

Mans, Keith

Speed, Sir Keith

Marland, Paul

Spencer, Sir Derek

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Spink, Dr Robert

Mates, Michael

Spring, Richard

Mawhinnney, Rt hon Dr Brian

Sproat, Iain

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Stanley, RT Hon Sir John

Merchant, Piers

Steen, Anthony

Mills, Iain

Stephen, Michael

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Stem, Michael

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Stewart, Allan

Moate, Sir Roger

Streeter, Gary

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Sumberg, David

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Sykes, John

Moss, Malcolm

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Nelson, Anthony

Temple-Morris, Peter

Neubert, Sir Michael

Thomason, Roy

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Nicholls, Patrick

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Thomton, Sir Malcolm

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Norris, Steve

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Tracey, Richard

Oppenheim, Phillip

Tredinnick, David

Ottaway, Richard

Trend, Michael

Page, Richard

Trotter, Neville

Paice, James

Twinn, Dr Ian

Patrick, Sir Irvine

Vaughan, Sir Gererd

Patten, Rt Hon John

Viggers, Peter

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Pawsey, James

Walden, George

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Pickles, Eric

Waller, Gary

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Ward, John

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Powell, William (Corby)

Waterson, Nigel

Rathbone, Tim

Watts, John

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Wells, Bowen

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Richards, Rod

Whitney, Ray

Riddick, Graham

Whittingdale, John

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Widdecombe, Ann

Robathan, Andrew

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Willetts, David

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f?ld)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Wolfson, Mark

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Yeo, Tim

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Tellers for the Ayes:

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Mr. Timothy Wood and

Sackville, Tom

Mr. Derek Conway

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Adams, Mrs Irene

Ashton, Joe

Ainger, Nick

Austin-Walker, John

Allen, Graham

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Alton, David

Barnes, Harry

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Barron, Kevin

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Battle, John

Armstrong, Hilary

Bayley, Hugh

1406

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Flynn, Paul

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Bell, Stuart

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Foster, Don (Bath)

Bennett, Andrew F

Foulkes, George

Benton, Joe

Fraser, John

Bermingham, Gerald

Fyfe, Maria

Berry, Roger

Galbraith, Sam

Betts, Clive

Galloway, George

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Gapes, Mike

Blunkett, David

Garrett, John

Boateng, Paul

George, Bruce

Boyes, Roland

Gerrard, Neil

Bradley, Keith

Godman, Dr Norman A

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Golding, Mrs Llin

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Gordon, Mildred

Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Graham, Thomas

Burden, Richard

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Byers, Stephen

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Caborn, Richard

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Callaghan, Jim

Grocott, Bruce

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gunnell, John

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hain, Peter

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hall, Mike

Campbell-Savours, D N

Hanson, David

Canavan, Dennis

Hardy, Peter

Cann, Jamie

Harman, Ms Harriet

Carttiss, Michael

Harvey, Nick

Cash, William

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Chidgey, David

Henderson, Doug

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hendron, Dr Joe

Church, Judith

Heppell, John

Clapham, Michael

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hinchliffe, David

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hodge, Margaret

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hoey, Kate

Clelland, David

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Home Robertson, John

Coffey, Ann

Honn, Geoffrey

Cohen, Harry

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

Connarty, Michael

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hoyle, Doug

Corbett, Robin

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Corston, Jean

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Cousins, Jim

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cox, Tom

Hume, John

Cummings, John

Hutton, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Illsley, Eric

Cunningham, Jim (Cory SE)

Ingram, Adam

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Jackson, Glenda H'stead)

Cunningham, Roseanna

Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

Dafis, Cynog

Jamieson, David

Dalyell, Tam

Janner, Greville

Daring, Alistair

Jones, Barry (Alyb and D'side)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tra)

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

Jones, Jon Owen Cardiff C)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Jones, Martyn Clwyd, SW)

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Denham, John

Jowell, Tessa

Dewar, Donald

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Dixon, Don

Keen, Alan

Dobson, Frank

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Donohoe, Brian H

Kennedy, Jane L'pool Br'dg'n)

Dowd, Jim

Khabra, Piara S

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Kilfoyle, Peter

Eagle, Ms Angela

Kirkwood, Archy

Eastham, Ken

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Lewis, Terry

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Fatchett, Derek

Litherland, Robert

Faulds, Andrew

Livingstone, ken

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Fisher, Mark

Llwyd, Elfyn

1407

Loyden, Eddie

Randall, Stuart

Lynne, Ms Liz

Raynsford, Nick

McAllion, John

Redmond, Martin

McAvoy, Thomas

Reid, Dr John

McCartney, Ian

Rendel, David

McCartney, Robert

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

McCrea, The Reverend William

Robinson, Groffrey (Co'try NW)

Macdonald, Calum

Robinson, Peter Belfast E)

McFall, John

Roche, Mrs Barbara

McGrady, Eddie

Rogers, Allan

McKelvey, William

Rooker, Jeff

Mackinlay, Andrew

Rooney, Terry

McLeish, Henry

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Maclennan, Robert

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

McMaster, Gordon

Ruddock, Joan

McNamara, Kevin

Salmond, Alex

MacShane, Denis

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McWilliam, John

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Maddock, Diana

Short, Clare

Mahon, Alice

Simpson, Alan

Mallon, Seamus

Skinner, Dennis

Mendelson, Peter

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Martlew, Eric

Soley, Clive

Maxton, John

Spearing, Nigel

Meacher, Michael

Spellar, John

Meale, Alan

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Michael, Alun

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Steinberg, Gerry

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Stevenson, George

Milburn, Alan

Stoot, Roger

Miller, Andrew

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Straw, Jack

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Morgan, Rhodri

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

Morley, Elliot

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Timms, Stephen

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Tipping, Paddy

Mowlam, Marjorie

Touhig, Don

Mudie, George

Trimble, David

Mullin, Chris

Tyler, Paul

Murphy, Paul

Vaz, Keith

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

O'Hara, Edward

Wallace, James

Olner, Bill

Walley, Joan

O'Neill, Martin

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wareing, Robert N

Paisley, The Reverend Ian

Welsh, Andrew

Parry, Robert

Wicks, Malcolm

Pearson, Ian

Wigley, Dafydd

Pendry, Tom

Williams, Rt Hon Alan Sw'n W)

Pickthall, Colin

Williams, Alan W Carmarthen)

Pike, Peter L

Wilson, Brian

Pope, Greg

Winnick, David

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Wise, Audrey

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Worthington, Tony

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Wray, Jimmy

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Wright, Dr Tony

Primarolo, Dawn

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Purchase, Ken

Tellers for the Noes;

Quin, Ms Joyce

Mr. Dennis Turner and

Radice, Giles

Mr, Robert Ainsworth

Question accordingly negatived.
7.29 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have
1408
listened carefully to the opinions that have been expressed, often with great vigour, in the debate. The Government will give due weight to what has been said. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will represent the United Kingdom at the Fisheries Council beginning on 21 December. He will, as always, vigorously represent the interests of the United Kingdom and its fishermen. In particular, he will fight for effective conservation of fish stocks, a fair allocation of fishing opportunities, and rigorous enforcement of the controls that are in place.
Dr. Strang: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. That is just not good enough. The House of Commons has taken an historic decision. It has passed a motion rejecting—[Interruption.] It has failed. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I will not allow further debate on this matter. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, I must of course hear it.
Dr. Strang: The Government have been defeated. That is the important point. It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that Ministers will pay due attention. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House listened to the Minister and what he said was not precisely a point of order. Hon. Members will be tolerant and will listen to the hon. Gentleman for a moment.
Dr. Strang: The House has rejected the Government's position on fisheries policy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not take part in the debate and he cannot just jump up to the Dispatch Box and tell us that the Government will pay due attention. They have to address the issues in the debate, and they relate to the additional access of Spanish fishing vessels to our western waters. There has been a repudiation of the Government's policy and the Government are answerable to the House. They have lost the confidence of the House in relation to representing our interests in the European Union in fisheries and also in relation to their whole approach to fisheries policy. It is not good enough for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to talk about what will happen in the Fisheries Council.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman and the Minister are experienced parliamentarians. Proper points of order are not being put to me and I cannot allow the debate to continue in this way. I propose to move to the next item of business.
Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it a genuine point of order?
Mr. Beith: It is. I hope that you will confirm that a Government motion setting out the Government's negotiating position has been defeated and that when a Minister goes to Brussels to take part in negotiations he cannot represent the position that is set out in that motion as being the position that was approved by the House. He will have to convey to the meeting the fact that the House rejects the Government's position and wants a stronger stand, and he will have to make clear to the meeting that he has lost the confidence of the House, as have his Government.
Mr. Salmond: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Should not we ask for a Government statement

1409
tomorrow? The Government have failed to carry their position on a vital industry. The Minister told us that that does not matter and that the Government will carry on as before. Does that not represent contempt for the House in the same way as contempt for the fishing communities has been the Government's undoing?
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The House also rejected the Labour-Liberal amendment.
Madam Speaker: Order. The debate has taken place and the House has made its views known in a Division. It is now up to the Government to determine their position. I now propose to move to other business. [Interruption.] Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so quietly.

ROYAL ASSENT
Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund (No.2) Act 1995
Church of Scotland (Property and Endowment) Amendment Order Confirmation Act 1995

Scottish Business
7.35 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,

That—
(1) Standing Order No. 94A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)) be amended, as follows:
line 17, after 'consideration', insert 'or further consideration';
line 30, leave out from 'committee,' to 'Standing' in line 32 and insert 'made under paragraph (6) of';
line 33, at the end, add—
'(3) Any Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, though not a member of the committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee and may make a motion, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum.';
(2) Standing Order No. 94C (Scottish Grand Committee (short debates)) be amended, as follows:
line 8, leave out from 'to' to the end of line 9 and insert 'Scotland';
line 19, leave out from 'No' to 'replying' in line 20 and insert 'Member except the Minister of the Crown';
line 24, leave out 'minister or law officer' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';
line 25, leave out 'members of the committee' and insert 'Members';
line 27, leave out 'member of the committee' and insert 'Member';
(3) Standing Order No. 94D (Scottish Grand Committee (ministerial statements)) be amended, as follows:
line 2, leave out 'Scottish Office minister or a Scottish law officer' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';
line 3, leave out 'member of the committee' and insert 'Member of the House';
line 10, leave out 'minister or law officer, as the case may be,' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';
line 12, after 'responsibilities', insert 'so far as they relate to Scotland, which, in the case of a Scottish law officer, shall be';
line 13, leave out 'thirteenth' and insert 'relevant';
line 17, after 'conclusion', insert 'either at an hour appointed by an order of the committee, for which a motion may be made without notice by a member of the government immediately before the commencement of such proceedings, on which motion the question shall be put forthwith, or, if no such motion is made,';
line 31, leave out 'minister or law officer' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';
line 32, leave out 'member of the committee' and insert 'Member of the House';
line 34, leave out 'such a minister or law officer';
(4) Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)) be amended in line 52, at the end, by adding the following paragraphs:
'(7) At the conclusion of proceedings on consideration on report of a bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (3) above, or on the order being read for the third reading of such a bill, a motion may be made by a member of the government (or in the case of a private Member's bill, by the Member in charge of the bill), "That the Bill be referred again to the Scottish Grand Committee"; and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed:
Provided that such a motion may be made by a private Member only with the leave of the House.

1411
(8) A bill so referred again to the Scottish Grand Committee shall be considered on a motion, "That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle"; and, when the committee has considered that question for a total of one and a half hours (whether on one or more than one day), the chairman shall put the question necessary to dispose of the motion, and shall then report accordingly to the House (or shall report that the committee has come to no resolution), without any further question being put thereon:
Provided that a member of the government may, immediately before the motion "That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle" is made, make without notice a motion to extend the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.
(9) A bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (8) above shall be ordered to be read the third time on a future day.
(10) When a motion shall have been made for the third reading of a bill to which paragraph (9) above applies, the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.';
(5) Standing Order No. 94H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) be amended, as follows:
line 43, after 'proceedings', insert '(other than on a motion made under paragraph (6) below)';
line 55, after 'proceedings', insert 'or on the completion of the business appointed for consideration at that sitting, whichever is the earlier,';
(6) Standing Order No. 87 (Attendance of law officers and ministers in standing committees) be amended, in line 7, after 'than', by inserting 'a motion in the Scottish Grand Committee under Standing Order No. 94A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)) or'; and
(7) Standing Order No. 91 (Special standing committees) be amended, as follows:
line 18, leave out 'morning sittings' and insert 'sittings at which oral evidence may be given';
line 19, after 'Scotland', insert 'in which case those sittings need not be held in the morning'.
The motion gives effect to two of the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced in the House on the eve of St. Andrew's day for strengthening the role of the Scottish Grand Committee in considering Scottish legislation and in calling Ministers to account. There is little that I need to add to the full explanation that my right hon. Friend gave on that occasion. I shall deal first with the two principal amendments to the Standing Orders.
The new paragraph that is to be added to Standing Order No. 94A will allow any Minister, and not just Ministers representing Scottish constituencies, to attend meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland as well as at Westminster, to take part in the Committee's proceedings and move motions but not to vote or to be counted in the quorum. Consequential amendments will enable the Committee to hear ministerial statements and transact other business relating to the Scottish aspects of the work of other Departments as well as the Scottish Office.
As my right hon. Friend said, both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend to take part in the Committee's debates in Scotland next year, and I am sure that other Ministers who have responsibility for significant areas of policy will be keen to follow suit.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have no objection to Ministers attending
1412
meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee, which is taking on some of the appurtenances of a travelling circus. When visiting other cities and towns, Back Benchers should have access to the normal office facilities that are readily available in this place and in Edinburgh. The record so far is not good and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and Ministers in the Scottish Office will take that on board. In terms of access to telephones and other facilities, that complaint needs to be examined by the Leader of the House and his colleagues.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I remind hon. Members that this is a one-and-a-half-hour debate and that long interventions do not help.
Mr. Newton: Despite your wise advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say that the hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that that is the sort of issue that I always undertake to consider, and I know that my right hon. Friends will also consider it. We have imposed quite a demanding task on the House authorities who have to arrange these meetings and the facilities that are required. To that extent, I am sure that they are feeling their way, but no one would want to dismiss out of hand the hon. Gentleman's point, especially about telephone access. It is obviously difficult to see how full-scale office facilities can be organised on quite the basis that he suggested.
The new paragraph to be added to Standing Order No. 94E will allow the Scottish Grand Committee to debate the principle of a Scottish Bill at Third Reading as well as at Second Reading. The procedure to be followed is broadly similar to that for Second Reading, with which the Committee is familiar. What is envisaged is that, after its Report stage, a Bill will be referred again to the Committee for a debate of up to one and a half hours, which, again, may take place in Scotland. A longer debate can be arranged if that is thought desirable. The Question on Third Reading would then be decided by the House without further debate, as a "forthwith".
The Government are taking the opportunity afforded by this debate to propose three other minor and sensible amendments to the Standing Orders. Standing Order No. 94D allows a maximum of 45 minutes for a ministerial statement that is made to facilitate the questioning of a Minister about some aspect of his responsibilities. We are proposing to provide additional flexibility by giving the Committee power to fix a different time limit if the circumstances of a Committee sitting make that appropriate. That could, for example, allow the Lord Advocate, or my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible for agriculture, forestry and the environment, to make a short statement and be questioned for, say, 15 minutes immediately after the normal Question Time. That would usefully extend the "flexibility", to use that word again, of the ways in which the Committee can operate.
We propose to amend Standing Order No. 94H to make it clear that the half-hour Adjournment debate, which normally starts at 1 o'clock, can begin earlier than that if the other business to be taken at that sitting has already been completed. [Interruption.] I am not pretending that these proposals are earth shattering—they are tidying-up proposals. In that case, the Adjournment debate will not be interrupted at 1 o'clock and will be concluded

1413
30 minutes after it has begun. That reflects the clear intention of the Standing Order and is, I think in everyone's view, obviously sensible.
Finally, we propose to amend Standing Order No. 91 on Special Standing Committees, which provides for three morning sittings for taking oral evidence, so that a Scottish Special Standing Committee that is taking evidence in Scotland is not restricted to holding morning sittings only. That allows the Special Standing Committee to make more efficient use of its time by, for example, meeting in the morning and the afternoon of the same day. The Special Standing Committee that considered last Session's Children (Scotland) Bill was given that flexibility on an ad hoc basis and found it useful. We are now trying to incorporate that in the Standing Order.
The remaining amendments are consequential. The whole package is overwhelmingly sensible. I know that it has been widely welcomed in Scotland and I commend it to the House.
7.42 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has just said, the procedural motions that the Leader of the House has moved are as welcome as the Government's fisheries policies, which have just been defeated. The Leader of the House drew the short straw this evening because, far from having the support that he suggested, the procedural changes please, I think, no one. Certainly, they do not satisfy the official Opposition or find favour with the minority parties.
I am not sure about the Government's Back Benchers, but the people of Scotland are not impressed by the changes. In many ways, that is not surprising, given the way in which those changes have come about. The way in which they saw the light of day and were launched is completely contrary to the way in which the Leader of the House believes that we should proceed when we consider constitutional changes. Clearly, he adopts a different style from that of the Secretary of State for Scotland, because the Leader of the House likes to consult, to discuss issues and to find a common basis for a way forward. That has simply not been the case in relation to these changes.
The reason for that is clear: the procedural changes are a product of panic on the part of Ministers. The reason for that is also clear. For 16 years, Conservative Ministers have derided Opposition Members for saying that constitutional change was needed in relation to Scotland. Ministers have been telling us that all was well and that the present arrangements were satisfactory. At the last election, we all, I think, remember the Prime Minister and others issuing alarmist warnings about the consequences of devolution and telling us how good the constitutional position was then—and now—yet we are now going to have some change.
As everyone knows, in November, the Prime Minister gave what was considered to be an important, exclusive interview to The Independent. That was another of those occasions where we had to wonder who had been in government for the past 16 years. These days, it is increasingly a feature of Ministers that, when a problem arises, they say that something should be done: recently, we have been told that something should be done about crime, knives and education standards. They say that something should be done about a problem as if they were
1414
in opposition, and have suddenly discovered the problem and a rod with which to beat the Government. They talk like that rather than like Ministers who have been in government for 16 years, because they want the public to forget that they have run out of excuses. That is the style at present and that was the Prime Minister's style when he gave that interview reported in The Independent.
Suddenly, the Prime Minister seemed to have discovered a problem in relation to the Scots. In the article, he said:
"People in Scotland, who often feel cut off from parliamentary debate in London want better access to government."
That does not quite sound like what he was saying at the last election. He went on:
"the Scots feel that Westminster is a long way off".
His comments in that interview were made not because he had discovered a new problem but because, at last, he was acknowledging a problem that everyone, apart from Ministers, knew existed and that he had denied existed, even during the last election.
That about-turn by the Prime Minister in acknowledging that the problem exists might be welcomed if he had shown any understanding of what the democratic deficit amounts to. Unfortunately, if one continues reading the article in The Independent, one begins to wonder if he understands anything at all about that problem. He claims in the interview:
"We"—
the Government—
"have made quite significant moves on Scotland … I have changed the basis on which the honours list is determined".
If that is a signal of what fundamental, significant change means to the Prime Minister, it illustrates simply how far his education is lacking with regard to the problems that Scottish people face.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Does the hon. Lady agree with the proposition that a majority in the Scottish Grand Committee should determine legislation in it, and would she extend that proposition to the English Grand Committee, for which, as will be familiar to her, there are provisions in Standing Orders?
Mrs. Taylor: There is no future in the Government's proposal because it does not deal with basic needs. The solution to what the Secretary of State wants and to the problem that exists is to have a properly devolved Scottish Parliament. We make no bones, and have been utterly consistent, about that. We said it at the last election and we will say it at the next one.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Is the hon. Lady saying that if there were an incoming Labour Government, they would immediately reverse the proposals now before the House?
Mrs. Taylor: If there were an incoming Labour Government, which there will be, we shall have a Scottish Parliament—and I am glad to have the chance to repeat that statement from the Dispatch Box. Instead, we have before us some half-baked suggestions by Ministers who have been trying to cobble together at the last minute a smokescreen to suggest that they are actually doing something. But the Government are not fooling anyone.
Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. Lady referred to comments supposedly made by the Prime Minister before

1415
the general election, but, at that time, was she herself not saying that there would be a Labour Government after that election?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman speaks as a member of a party that stands at something like 13 per cent. in the opinion polls in Scotland, and that did about as well as that in the most recent local elections there. I do not think that we should take too many lectures about what is likely to happen from people with that amount of support in Scotland. Moreover, I quoted not what the Prime Minister allegedly said but from his interview in The Independent. If the hon. Gentleman has not seen the article, I shall be happy to send him a copy later.
Against that background—the panic action and the sudden acceptance of a problem, the about-turn by the Prime Minister—a statement was made to the House on 29 November. It was strong on hype but weak on substance. We were told beforehand that the statement would be very significant, and would be what the Scottish people wanted, but when it came to the point it all fell flat. The fact that this evening the Leader of the House has been able to summarise in so few words the changes being introduced shows that there is not much substance in them.
As the Leader of the House explained, any House of Commons Minister will be allowed to go to the Scottish Grand Committee—the "awayday feature", as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) called it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to clarify two matters arising from that fact.
First, I understand that the Government Scottish Whip has not invariably been a Scottish Member. In that case, would such a Whip be allowed on the Floor of the Committee? Secondly, and more important, the right hon. Gentleman says that Ministers "may" attend the Scottish Grand Committee, but who will decide whether they do attend? Will the Committee have the power to summon a Minister and insist that he appear before it, or can the Minister decide to delegate the appearance to a junior? For example, if a deregulation issue is on the agenda, will the Deputy Prime Minister attend, or will he say that someone else will attend in his stead?
There are more outstanding questions. The Leader of the House has mentioned only non-controversial Bills; he has not covered controversial legislation. The Government are not creating something dramatically different but simply extending the talking-shop facility of the Scottish Grand Committee. They are not by any means opening the way for Scottish people to have more control over the decisions now made by Scottish Office Ministers.
I am sure that the Leader of the House is not really comfortable with the proposals that he has had to make, any more than he is happy with the way in which those decisions were reached. I should have thought that he might be worried about the precedent of introducing procedural change into the House without consultation. It certainly goes against the grain of all that he has told us on other issues.
If the Government were serious about tackling the problems with which the procedural motions are supposed to deal, Ministers should have been considering the remarkable achievement of the Scottish Constitutional
1416
Convention, which achieved a consensus on a way forward, and which involved different political parties, elected members from Westminster and from local authorities, and people from outside politics. Surely that is the way forward, and Ministers should have thought about it before trying to bounce ideas on to the House.
The approach of the Scottish Constitutional Convention provides a good example of the necessary pre-legislative consultation that I think we should all be considering if we want to improve the quality of legislation in general. If the Government were serious about recognising the constitutional problems that Scotland and the rest of Britain face, Ministers would have followed the line laid out by the constitutional convention, and would not have bounced their half-baked ideas on to this Parliament or the Scottish people.
7.55 pm
Sir Hector Monro: I suppose that we expected a pretty churlish response from the Opposition spokesmen to this important evolution of the procedures of the House, involving the Scottish Grand Committee. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) could not even bring herself to welcome something that is already getting a mounting press in Scotland. Representatives of the press and the other media are now coming to the meetings, and are beginning to understand that what the Secretary of State has proposed is really a major step forward in bringing Government to the people of Scotland.
The media are also beginning to understand that the panic is in the ranks of the Opposition—the panic that we have got it right. The Lady mentioned the Scottish Constitutional Convention, but that is made up of only two parties, and it seemed to spend most of the weeks in which it met squabbling. It has never answered the questions that really matter. That is why the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is becoming more tetchy and rattled week by week, as his plans for an Assembly are being rumbled.
The hon. Gentleman will not receive any confidence from the Scottish people until he is prepared to stand at the Dispatch Box, or anywhere else, and answer the West Lothian question: how many Members of Parliament would the Labour party have in Scotland, and how would they arrange voting on measures for which not the Scottish Assembly but the Westminster Parliament is responsible? In recent weeks the hon. Gentleman has made no effort to answer the question that has been asked not only by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but by many other members of the Conservative party in Scotland. He must wake up—
Mr. George Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman must answer the question.
Mr. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Hector Monro: I shall give way only if the hon. Gentleman promises to answer the question. Will he do so? I see that he will not, so I shall not give way. That is too bad. He may have the chance to speak later, when he winds up for the Opposition.

1417
Really good ideas are coming forward, with the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Scotland and carrying out many useful tasks, so that the people can see us and can meet Ministers, including English Ministers, who come to address the Committee.
I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Minister one or two practical questions that he may be prepared to think about. He is right to say that the House authorities have moved heaven and earth to ease any difficulties, whether we meet in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness or anywhere else—which I am glad to do. I know that the usual channels have used their best endeavours to ensure that there is light voting on days when the Committee meets far from the central belt. If we meet in Inverness—as we shall, and I shall be glad to do so—Back Benchers, and indeed Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, may have to go there on Sunday night. We cannot guarantee to be on parade at 10.30 on Monday morning unless we do that, especially in winter when the weather in Scotland can be bad.
I should therefore like my right hon. Friend to consider integrating the work of the House of Commons more closely with that of the Scottish Grand Committee so that, if possible, we meet on a Monday on which there is light business in Westminster so that we can return with our motor cars or whatever to our home bases and start out again. This is an important practical point which we must try to work at if we are to improve the logistics of meeting in various venues in Scotland, which I believe is an excellent idea. Another minor but important point is that we should be able to simplify our travelling, hotel and incidental expenses, for which we currently have to apply to different parts of the House of Commons for completion.
I have been a member of the Scottish Grand Committee for many years, including the days when we had to make up the numbers to have a majority. The steps we have now taken to deal with non-controversial legislation are quite excellent. More importantly, we shall be able to get more business through the House via the Scottish Grand Committee than if we had to go through the full procedure of Second Reading on the Floor of the House, Standing Committee, and so on. All in all, Scotland can look forward to additional constructive legislation, particularly legislation relating to some of the Law Commission reports which often have to be put aside because there is no time to debate them in the House of Commons.
I believe that we are right to bring forward these amendments to the Standing Orders, and I warmly support them. I would ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider the practical ways in which he can assist Members of Parliament to attend the Scottish Grand Committee with greater facility than is possible at present.
8.8 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin: My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) made an important point about the facilities—or lack of them—that we shall have when we move around the country. The lack of facilities is not the fault of the local authorities, each and every one of which has given excellent hospitality. It is not always easy for a local authority or a town hall to rearrange its facilities to suit 72 Members of Parliament and other staff.
Lord Provost Thomas Dingwall should be congratulated, as every officer at the city chambers gave us every facility. The Lord Provost laid on lunch at his
1418
expense, not only for hon. Members but for all the back-up staff, including the Hansard staff and the badge messengers. That was appreciated. Nonetheless, if we have to travel the length and breadth of the country—I have no objection to that—it must be recognised that we also have to look after our constituents. The phone often rings on a Sunday night and hon. Members are asked to chase up urgent matters on the Monday, and I had that experience before I went to Edinburgh. In those circumstances, an hon. Member must be able to get to a phone or a fax while he is at the Scottish Grand Committee if he is to assist in an immigration problem or to help during an eviction.
Dr. Godman: The council officials—including the Lord Provost—were very kind and hospitable, but precisely the problem that my hon. Friend is now outlining prompted my complaint. I, too, was dealing with an urgent constituency matter and I had to wait eight minutes for a Scottish Office official to finish using the telephone.
Mr. Martin: My hon. Friend again makes an important point. If Scottish Members are to be tied up in the Committee until 1.30 pm on a Monday, we must have the back-up facilities to allow us to get on with the work that our constituents expect us to do. Parking facilities are also important, and I hope that the Leader of the House will consider these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), the shadow Leader of the House, raised a very important point. The amendment to the Standing Orders states:
"Any Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, though not a member of the committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee and may make a motion, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum."
I am not trying to put obstacles in the way of the Leader of the House, but the House is saying that we, as Scottish Members, have the Grand Committee exclusively for us. However, the amendment states that the Conservative Whip will be allowed to sit in the body of the hall. I do not think that that should be the case. I take the view that, as there are a few Scottish Tory Back-Bench Members left, they should pick their Whip for the Grand Committee.
We have a Member from the Scottish National party in the Chamber now, and I have stated my views about nationalism. I despise the terms English and Scottish and, while I am proud of my culture, I hope that I would never express that in a way that discriminates against people. I do not want to have a go at English Members of Parliament, but my complaint does not relate to a person's nationality.
Members representing Scottish seats should be in the Scottish Grand Committee, while Members representing English, Welsh or Irish seats should not. I do not think that the Conservative Whip should be within the body of the hall because his job is different from that of a Government Minister. The Whip's job is to rustle up votes and to tell people to stop speaking.
Mr. Michael Forsyth indicated dissent.
Mr. Martin: The Secretary of State shakes his head, and suggests that that is not the Whip's purpose. It does not matter whether the Secretary of State has good intentions and I accept that in this case his intentions are

1419
good as he wants to improve the facility. But once we put the matter into black and white, someone will be able to come along later and see it as an abuse.
What happens when we leave the House and some other people take our places? If there are no Tory Back-Bench Members left in Scotland at that time, somebody may suggest that half a dozen Tory Whips—who will have nothing else to do with their time—should join the Committee debates, make speeches and put down motions. I know that the intention of the amendment is to get Ministers of the Crown to come along to the Committee and make statements so that we can scrutinise the work that they are doing. But the amendment is open to abuse. I mean no disrespect to the present Whip, but he does not represent a Scottish seat and I would hope that the amendment will not allow him into the body of the hall.
The Leader of the House should consider the provision which allows a Minister of the Crown who is not a Minister of this House but of the other place to make statements. I must ask that once those Ministers and Ministers of the Crown who are not members of the Scottish Grand Committee have finished their business in the Committee, they should take no further part in the proceedings. A Minister can come along and take part in the proceedings of the Committee, but we know that Ministers normally say or do nothing other than deal with the matter for which they are responsible. May we have an assurance that once a Minister has finished that part of his business—for example, ministerial questions—he will take no further part in the proceedings of the Grand Committee?
8.9 pm
Mr. Phil Gallie: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), whose leading and valued role as Chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee is, in the main, much appreciated.
In welcoming these changes to our Standing Orders, I draw attention to comments that I and other Scottish Conservative and Unionist candidates made at the time of the last general election, when we suggested that a new Conservative Government should increase the importance and activities of the Grand Committee. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) might like to know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave us a commitment to that effect at the time. He had clearly looked ahead even before the general election.
We also considered the role of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee; I and other colleagues offered a commitment to its reinstatement—and that is what has taken place since 1992. Under the able chairmanship of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) it has played a valuable role in the affairs of Scotland, as evidenced by some of the excellent reports it has drawn up on drugs, enterprise companies and other subjects.
I welcome the fact, too, that the Committee will move around the country. It is important to let people throughout Scotland witness the Government's activities. I have noted that meetings held in Edinburgh and Glasgow are usually quite well attended, but I was disappointed to find that Labour Members did not turn up
1420
in large numbers in Aberdeen. It seems to me that Labour Members tend to concentrate on central belt issues instead of recognising Scotland's wider needs. If we stick with the policy of moving around, perhaps we shall eventually get the point through to them.
I agree with the hon. Members for Springburn and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about facilities. We really must have telephones and faxes at the various venues.
The amendments to Standing Orders refer also to the Grand Committee dealing with Bills. Last year, Second Reading of the Children (Scotland) Bill was taken in the Committee, whereupon a Special Standing Committee was set up to examine the details. These proposals follow on from that and open the door to further progress; Third Readings will be taken in the Scottish Grand Committee—that will be most welcome to all hon. Members.
On 29 November the Secretary of State said that a timetable of our sittings would be established, and one has since been drawn up for eight meetings to consider Government business. I understand that a timetable for four Opposition motions is being prepared as well. That, too, is welcome. It is important to set dates in advance so as to allow hon. Members to make arrangements around them. I can see no reference in the motions to this aspect of the matter, however. Perhaps the Minister will give it some consideration in winding up the debate.
The Special Standing Committee procedure is to be used again for the Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. That is most welcome. The Committee is due to come to Ayr not long hence to discuss raves and drug misuse.
Above all, I welcome the intention to invite United Kingdom Ministers whose departmental remits include responsibilities for Scottish affairs. I agree with the hon. Member for Springburn that such Ministers should have no voting rights in the Grand Committee, as is well established under our rules, but it will be beneficial to invite Ministers from the Department of Transport, the Department of Social Security and—given that so many people work for the defence industry in Scotland—from the Ministry of Defence. That will boost Scottish involvement in our national affairs. It will be particularly pleasing to see the Prime Minister in the Committee. That will be a reminder that he is Prime Minister not just of the United Kingdom but of each of its nation states.
On a more generous note, perhaps we should recognise that the Leader of the Opposition might have an important part to play. We should open up the doors to him on future occasions if he can come in his role as Leader of the Opposition—a role I hope he will continue to play for many years to come.
Mr. Newton: Does my hon. Friend envisage, in the world picture that he is painting, that the Leader of the Opposition would have to answer some questions?
Mr. Gallie: No, but it would only be fair to allow him to ask questions. I believe that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is rather uninformed about Scottish matters, and it would do him the world of good to spend some time in the Scottish Grand Committee. I understand, in fact, that the right hon. Gentleman recently attended a dinner—Opposition Members might have called it an elitist dinner—addressed also by the hon. Member for

1421
Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). The right hon. Member for Sedgefield made a speech at the dinner; its major sponsors, Global Video, placed an advertisement in the programme containing the words:
"Wouldn't you rather be at home watching a video?"
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take that message to heart when he considers some of the Opposition's madcap ideas for imposing a tax-raising Assembly on Scotland. The people of Scotland certainly do not want a tartan tax. The idea is being pushed by the hon. Member for Hamilton, but the right hon. Member for Sedgefield should travel up to Scotland a bit more to learn that the Scottish people do not want the option that he is attempting to force on them.
8.17 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I was interested to hear the views of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), but I really do hope that we will not start head counting at Monday morning meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee. That might bring the whole process into some disrepute. To that extent I disagreed with the hon. Gentleman, and I disagreed with all his other suggestions as well.
I welcome these changes—as far as they go. It is certainly an improvement to be given notice of the dates for well into the new year. This has always been a difficulty for the minority parties. Discussions are held through the usual channels, but latterly they have become rather clogged up. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has cut through all that. He has set a timetable up to the summer, which everyone will welcome. Of course there are difficulties in travelling, but as long as the logistics can be sorted out there will be benefits. The Committee's deliberations will be taken to different parts of Scotland, which I welcome. The changes will give us more time and opportunity to consider some of the questions that are to the fore of public life north of the border.
The Leader of the House is a reasonable and enlightened man.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: I was just saying the same about the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Kirkwood: That is the end of both our careers.
The Leader of the House has not been in charge of the Government's programme throughout their term of office but, after 16 years, to introduce these changes as the answer to the constitutional deficit north of the border is inadequate. To describe them as inadequate is an understatement of some proportion. They do not measure up to what needs to be done.
If there is one thing that illustrates my point better than any other, it is the way in which the Government treat the different but very real problems of the Province of Northern Ireland. There is no suggestion that they will tinker with Standing Orders or that a Grand Committee will meet in Enniskillen, Derry or other parts of Northern Ireland. That is in stark contrast to the way in which they are coping with the situation in Scotland.
Mr. George Robertson: Standing Order No. 99 states that there should be a Northern Ireland Grand Committee. It has two subsections. However, the Government's response to the situation in Northern Ireland, as the hon.
1422
Gentleman rightly says, is not to beef up that Committee up with another five pages of amendments and the possibility of UK or Scottish Ministers going over there but to create a legislative assembly for Northern Ireland with 90 members and full legislative powers. People understand that distinction and the contrast and hypocrisy in the Government's position.
Mr. Kirkwood: I hope that whoever will reply to the debate will address that point.
Mr. Michael Forsyth indicated assent.
Mr. Kirkwood: I am pleased that the Secretary of State will deal with that point, which is in many people's minds and deserves an answer.
Are these changes all that we will get? Is this the beginning of a continuing process? If it is, my hon. Friends and I are interested in engaging in it; but if this is all that we are to get for all time, it is completely inadequate and does not begin to measure up to the possibilities for constitutional reform north of the border.
There are other questions about the detail of the changes that need to be addressed. Will this end the difficult process, which we have experienced more and more in recent years, of small Scottish sections being added to principally English Bills? As a legal practitioner in a previous incarnation, I know that the situation was becoming impossible even before 1983 when I was elected. It has worsened since. Will the Secretary of State comment on that matter of continuing concern? Will the changes provide more time for effective scrutiny and deal with the important question asked by the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who hoped, as I do, that the proposals of the Scottish Law Commission will get a better hearing under this process than previously? If that proves to be so, it will be a significant advantage.
It is not clear who will control the access of UK and English Ministers, Prime Ministers and Chancellors who will come to give us the benefit of their views. Will that be entirely under the control of the Government or will we be able to negotiate it through the usual channels? Will the Committee be able to vote to require or request—or, indeed, reject—the attendance of a UK Minister? The process and the arrangements that will have to be made for that are not clear.
I welcome the fact that we will be able to return to questions of principle on Third Reading of Bills. Does that mean that we will be able to discuss things that are not in the Bill, as amended, at that stage? At present, we would not be in order if we discussed something that was not in the Bill on Third Reading. If we will now be able to discuss matters of principle, that gives us the opportunity to consider things that are not in the Bill, as amended, on Third Reading in a way that we cannot at the moment. I would value some advice on that.
Mr. Newton: It may help if I say a brief, off-the-cuff word about that. As always, it is up to the occupant of the Chair to decide what is in or out of order in a speech. That is the basic point. I would not envisage anything being in order in a Third Reading debate in the Scottish Grand Committee that would be out of order in such a debate in the House. I guess that a passing reference to regretting that something was not in the Bill might be in

1423
order but that an attempt to have an elaborate discussion on it would not be. Those are the normal rules of the House.
Mr. Kirkwood: I hope that the Leader of the House will give that further and better consideration. If the suggestion enshrined in the proposals is to mean anything and we are to have discussion in principle of the contents of the Bill on Third Reading, I do not understand how the situation that he has described could obtain.
Mr. Newton: I do not wish to make a huge issue of this, but we are talking about a Third Reading debate and the opportunity to have it in the Scottish Grand Committee rather than on the Floor of the House. Apart from that, it is no different.
Mr. Kirkwood: The Third Reading of the Children (Scotland) Bill, for example, took 20 minutes. If we are to take proper advantage of the new procedure we should be able to discuss things in principle on Third Reading. Obviously, this is a matter for the occupant of the Chair in any particular circumstance, but I believe that it is out of order to discuss things that are not in the Bill, as amended, on Third Reading. If we are to discuss things in principle, we should be able to do precisely that. There is confusion about that in my mind, if in no one else's. Perhaps the Leader of the House could give the matter further consideration.
The initiative, if that is not an overstatement of the amendments to Standing Orders, is a recognition by the Government that things need to change north of the border. If the Secretary of State is saying that the proposals are a first step to trying to do things better—to improve the quality of Scottish legislation, to provide more time, to have more effective scrutiny, better public access and more publicity for what we are doing north of the border—then we are signed up for it and we support it. If he does not take the initiative forward and it is not the start of a process of change, then what is before us tonight is not, by itself, worth having.
8.28 pm
Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) made some general points with which he would not expect me to agree, but he has asked some interesting questions about how the proposed procedures would work.
This is a short and largely technical debate. I take the view already expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) that these are sensible, practical changes. They are changes within the framework of the Union.
I say to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) that to defend the Union—at the last general election, or, for that matter, at previous ones—is not to say that the Union is cast permanently in stone in respect of its institutions. That is an absurd position to take.
Conservative Governments introduced the Scottish Office and the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland. At some stage, the hon. Member for Dewsbury or her colleagues must answer the key question about their attitude to the proposals: what could a Labour
1424
Government do with their Scottish Parliament that they could not do with these proposals, given a Labour majority in this House, except increase taxes in Scotland? Under Labour's proposals, the advantage of directly questioning major Ministers such as the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Defence would be lost.
Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Gentleman's argument has often been deployed by the Secretary of State in defence of these proposals. The hon. Gentleman seems to accept that the proposals are inadequate under a Conservative Government because, although the Committee may vote in one way, the House can overturn that vote. Curiously, he seems to argue that the proposals can work only if we have a Labour Government. Is that the best argument that a Conservative Back Bencher can advance in support of these proposals?
Mr. Stewart: I am not arguing that for a moment. Assuming that a Labour Government would want to introduce a Scottish Parliament, I asked the hon. Member for Dewsbury what a Labour Government would do in the several years between an election and introducing a Scottish Parliament, but I received no answer whatever. The proposals are entirely workable under a Conservative or Labour Government, but what would a Labour Government achieve with a Scottish Parliament that they could not achieve with these proposals if they had a majority in this House? At some stage, Opposition Front Benchers must answer that question.
I emphasise the importance of extra question periods, which would have an inherently greater advantage than set-piece debates. Set-piece debates tend to be predictable—
Mr. John Home Robertson: This is one of them.
Mr. Stewart: Except when I am speaking, but I shall not go down that path. Moreover, they do not provide much opportunity for Back Benchers because such a high proportion of time is inevitably taken up by the two Front Bench spokesmen at the beginning and end of such debates. The key feature of the new proposals is the increase in the proportion of time devoted to questions.
Will my right hon. Friend answer three points of detail? First, do the proposals increase Scottish Members' opportunities to enact private Members' Bills, which, on the Floor of the House, could be stopped for reasons unrelated to the merits of the Bill? I hope that he can reassure all Back Benchers that he will consider that matter positively.
Secondly, may I support the point about facilities made by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). If the proposals are to work, it must be accepted that facilities such as telephones and fax machines are not for the personal convenience of Members but because our constituents, who might normally expect to find us in our constituencies on a Monday morning, may want to be in touch with us urgently about the kind of important issue to which the hon. Member for Springburn referred.
Thirdly, on the timing of Committee meetings, my right hon. Friend should not regard 10.30 am as a sacrosanct starting time as the Committee now travels to different

1425
parts of Scotland. It would be sensible to have a different starting time depending on precisely where the Committee meets.
Dr. Godman: Another problem that the Leader of the House has not examined is that, when we attend meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland, we cannot be here when Ministers make important statements. That happened on Monday, when a number of us wanted to be here to ask questions of the Prime Minister about the Madrid debacle. We were denied that opportunity because we were in Glasgow.
Mr. Stewart: That is undoubtedly a potential problem. It is less of a problem if the Committee meets in Glasgow, which has a regular air service, but if we meet in other areas of Scotland where the air service is less frequent, those problems can arise and the authorities should deal with them in a practical way.
I welcome these sensible and practical proposals. However, the debate has revealed that a number of detailed questions from hon. Members on both sides of the House need to be answered to ensure that the proposals are made as practicable and workable as possible.
8.35 pm
Mr. Michael Connarty: I am grateful to note that the amendments to the Standing Orders have at least restored the confidence of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), which I thought was rather strange. He then had the common sense to add "only a little".
I find them so sadly lacking in imagination and divergent thinking that I wonder whether they come from the pen of the Secretary of State for Scotland at all. He was the Minister who gave us "Reservicing Britain", which led to compulsory competitive tendering, and has caused great harm to local government services. He was also the Minister who gave us the poll tax. At least that was inspired—mad, but inspired—whereas these proposals are not at all inspired.
As I go round the line of route with some of my guests, I show them the Magna Carta and explain that, at that time, the people of the country—at least, the lords—had to be consulted by the king before he passed vital Acts of Parliament. I also point out that, although they were consulted, they could rarely persuade the king not to do his own will at bidding.
Those are the kind of Standing Orders that we have before us. The Government wheel Scottish Members around to the Scottish Grand Committee at various locations, where they are consulted, but then pay no attention to what they say. I have heard much criticism of members of local government for not consulting in that way. The Standing Orders are not intended to change the fundamental flaw in the United Kingdom's democratic system, which is that the majority of Scottish people reject the Government's policies, but they will be put through through either the present ritual in the Scottish Grand Committee or the extended ritual set down in the Standing Orders.
A former Prime Minister talked about his preference for "talk, talk" rather than "war, war". [HON. MEMBERS: "Jaw, jaw."] "Jaw, jaw" is a different phrase, but it has the same meaning: better to talk, therefore to avoid conflict.
1426
The Standing Orders will show the people of Scotland again and again the pointlessness of the Scottish Grand Committee and therefore underline the fact that they must go to war with the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements if they are to achieve real progress and democracy for Scotland.
On that basis, I welcome the fact that the more people see the flaws in the Standing Orders and how the Scottish Grand Committee operates, even with the extended changes, the more they will see how pointless it is to have a Scottish Grand Committee in a United Kingdom Parliament that then uses the voting power of English Members to deny the views put forward by the majority of hon. Members representing Scotland.
All parties, apart from the Conservative party, will normally speak against the Government's position but, ultimately, the Government will bring the matter down to the House of Commons.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a majority in the Scottish Grand Committee should determine legislation in Scotland? The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) refused to answer the question; will the hon. Gentleman answer it?
Mr. Connarty: My argument is that any process of democratic arrangement should be one where the majority of the people, in a position where there is subsidiarity and devolved government, make the decision on those items that relate to the Scottish—[Interruption.] I do not believe that the Scottish Grand Committee is the right place to make that type of decision. We wish to see a Scottish devolved Parliament with the proper devolution of subsidiary powers—in the Scottish context, of those things that the Scottish people wish to be controlled by that Parliament.
There will be consultation, but we shall not have the right to persuade the Government to change their route. The argument made again and again is that the Committee may discuss non-controversial Bills—we have probably set out along that road—such as the health and safety at raves Act or the Licensing Scotland (Amendment) Bill. However, let us consider what the effect would be if a Bill were controversial.
We would be able to have a Second Reading debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. It would then be sent to a Scottish Standing Committee, with an inbuilt majority for the Government. If it went back to the later stage, as was explained to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire points of principle could not be raised again on Third Reading.
Obviously, the measure is a sham. It is a way of taking us to various venues, and I welcome any chance to debate with the Government at any time anywhere, but it will not prevent the Scottish people from concluding that the majority of the people of Scotland, through their representatives in the House, cannot influence the Government's decisions on what they would call controversial issues.
That is what is wrong with the measure. There is no acceptance in any of the Standing Orders that the majority of the Scottish people reject the Conservative Government's policies on what they call controversial matters. Controversial matters cannot be voted down; nor, at any Committee stage in a Scottish Standing Committee, can controversial amendments be passed on the basis of the majority of the Scottish people's wishes.

1427
We witnessed that, although we tried our best, during the passage of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which has been cited as an Act that did everything. It had a Special Standing Committee, which took evidence, but when the Government did not wish to accept controversial amendments in Committee, they voted them down. Then they brought the Bill to the Floor of the House, and voted down any further amendments. When they did not like amendments that were passed in the House of Lords, they brought the Bill back again, and used their majority in the Chamber to vote down those amendments.
That is why I think it is important to realise that the Standing Orders will do one thing, and only one thing, for Scottish democracy. It will be exhibited again and again, through the use of those procedures, that the Secretary of State for Scotland is trying to sell the people of Scotland an insufficient change to the constitutional arrangements for Scotland within the United Kingdom. I welcome the measures on that basis. The more they expose the Government's flaws and lack of democracy, the more people will demand a Scottish devolved Parliament under the Labour Government after the general election.
8.42 pm
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Madam Deputy Speaker, I feel like Banquo's ghost who has just arrived at the feast. Forgive me if I do not join in the very modest celebration that is going on.
The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) spoke about those measures representing evolution. It is evolution of a gey shilpit cratur. I noticed that the Leader of the House believed that the measures would be widely welcomed in Scotland, but he means that they will be widely ignored in Scotland. There is no big deal in any of that.
It is typical of the Westminster system that the debate was opened by two Members of Parliament representing English constituencies, and the measures have about that much relevance to Scotland. I have heard more in the Chamber offered to the south sea island of Tuvalu than I have heard offered to Scotland. At least Tuvalu will get independence; we only have the load of old rubbish presented to us tonight.
There is a proposition that England and Wales Ministers can come and attend the Scottish Grand Committee. It probably serves them right, but it may be important, because English Ministers have a habit of overruling the wishes of the Scottish Office. I have seen that all too often in agriculture and fishing—if I can mention fishing to the Minister, who will be rather sensitive about that subject.
I ask the Minister: what budgets have been given for those meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland? Who will pay for the security of all those bigwigs who arrive on an awayday ticket to Scotland every so often? Will that be a burden on local authorities? Who will pay for that?
The changes are minor changes to the Scottish Grand Committee. If they had been made at any time in the past 30 years, no one would have noticed. To my mind, it is simply deckchair shuffling time on The Titanic, while the
1428
orchestra plays "Land of Hope and Glory", but I am happy to tell the Secretary of State that, as a ruse, it will not work.
The changes will allow the Prime Minister or other bigwigs to join the Scottish Grand Committee travelling circus, and that is no big deal for Scotland. They might persuade the Prime Minister or some of the other England and Wales Ministers to concentrate on Scottish affairs for a morning, and perhaps that would be some limited good.
In reality, the Scottish Grand Committee has no powers. It is simply a talking shop, based on a technicality. It can merely decide that it has or has not decided that it has decided that it has met, and it is about that much use to the whole of Scotland. It is no substitute for a Parliament, or for the real return of decision-making power to the Scottish people.
I will agree this far with what I heard in some of the speeches. When the Scottish people see exactly what worth and what good the Westminster system is to them, we shall obtain the result that is the only true future for our nation, which is true independence, when the Scottish people can decide their own future through their own democratically elected Parliament. The measures are trivial, betraying a trivial approach to Scotland's needs. They will pass, but they will not do.
All I can say is, if this is the union—
Mr. Sam Galbraith: We have got all night right now, laddie.
Mr. Welsh: Not really. It does not take long to reply to this load of old rubbish, which the hon. Gentleman accepts is good enough for his country, but I certainly do not and will not.
If this is the union at its sparkling best, I am indeed happy for the future of Scotland.
8.46 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I promise that I shall be very brief.
Mr. Galbraith: Ten minutes: it is getting good and depressing here.
Dr. Godman: I begin by asking a question. [Interruption.] It is a serious question. Has Greenock been ruled out for the staging of a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee? I should like the Trade and Industry Minister to be there, answering questions concerning the shipbuilding industry and other maritime industries. I should also like to hear from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), tonight about the placing of a certain contract for the construction of a fisheries research vessel, but that does not fall within the framework of the amendments.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: It should be a Scottish shipyard.
Dr. Godman: I am happy to know that Fergusons will build that ship. It is a Scottish fisheries research vessel, and it should be built in a premier yard in Scotland—Fergusons of Port Glasgow.
I also draw attention to the fact that, if we are to attend those frequent meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in different towns and cities, that prevents us from coming

1429
to this place to hear important statements from the Dispatch Box. I for one wanted to be here yesterday to hear the Prime Minister speak, and I got here as quickly as I could, just in time for the tail end of that statement. That simply is not good enough for Scots Members.
I ask the Secretary of State, a serious question. Where there is a clash, would it be possible to consider a ministerial statement being made later in the day, or postponed until the following day?
The lack of facilities has been mentioned. In that regard, I offer my compliments to the councils of Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Glasgow for the fine hospitality that they extended to us. It was interesting to see my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) finally making it to the lord provost's chair. I do not believe that he ever sat in that chair when he was a councillor in Glasgow, although he deserved to sit in it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I for one would welcome the opportunity to cross-examine our premier Law Officer on Lockerbie, and just what the heck is happening to the pursuit of the people alleged to have committed the murders on that terrible day in December 1988. We also need to challenge him on other issues, such as the operation of Acts of Parliament that seek to give greater protection to children when they give evidence in our courts of law. When Ministers attend meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee, they should come by invitation of the members of the Committee. Its meetings should not be used as a travelling press conference, as one was recently by the Secretary of State, when about 16 journalists were present to hear his less than informative speech on spending.
Speaking as a federalist, I believe that the only answer in the long run is to have a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Parliament, an English Parliament and a Northern Ireland Parliament. The Scottish Grand Committee is a talking shop; it has taken on the characteristics of a travelling talking shop. Some of us will be lucky—or unlucky—and it will come to our constituencies; owing to the size of our majorities, some of us will, I suspect, be excluded from that privilege.
8.50 pm
Mr. George Robertson: It is appropriate for the Scottish team to have a few words at the end of the debate. I know that we are not allowed to mention the people in the Galleries this evening, but if I were allowed to do so, I would be able to say that on a rainy, wet night in London, the Strangers Gallery contained three people—exactly the same number as are present in the Press Gallery.
What does that say for the argument that the measure will bring Scottish affairs back to the nation? My hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) say that they have been so captivated by our brief debate that they intend to make at least a couple of visits to the Scottish Grand Committee—in Stornoway, Ayr, Stirling, Eyemouth, Unst and who knows where. If the Scottish Whip gets his way, it may even go to Dalkeith.
I should make it clear for the purpose of certain hon. Members who do not seem to have noticed what is happening that we do not intend to vote against the
1430
provisions this evening. Any extra debates in Scotland are to be welcomed. The opportunity to cross-examine some Ministers north of the border may be useful. I can imagine no better way of reducing Tory party support in Scotland from 13 per cent. to single figures than to bring up the Secretary of State for Defence to go around and defend his policies.
We were told only a few weeks ago that the measure was the big rabbit that the Secretary of State was going to pull out of his hat to try to grab some headlines from the Scottish Constitutional Convention launch. The big white rabbit was to be the big white Prime Minister appearing in an unknown location in Scotland.
As people across Scotland have seen, the reality is an admission that the Government have got their policy on Scotland and the constitution wrong for 16 years. I know that behind the Secretary of State for Scotland are diehard Unionists who have held to that line for 16 years and who must be deeply worried about the way in which the argument has been thrown away; in its place, in the vacuum that the right hon. Gentleman has created, is a pathetic substitute for what the Scottish people want.
The Prime Minister admits that there is a fault and a flaw. The Prime Minister admits failure on the constitution; all we have is some pretty tawdry window dressing. The Secretary of State for Scotland comes to the Scottish Office in a blaze of glory; he discards the ideas of his predecessors, and tells us that he has the answer. But with exactly the same arrogant contempt for public opinion in Scotland, he tells the Scottish people that he has made up his mind, and that this is his choice, and his alone.
That will never be acceptable to the Scottish people, 87 per cent. of whom reject the Conservative party, leaving the party in splendid—and now mobile—isolation. The people of Scotland will not be fobbed off by a few Cabinet Ministers who choose to wander around Scotland, making a case that has, until now, persuaded nobody.
As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has said, the Scottish people are intelligent enough, and aware enough, to see the Government's argument in all its stark hypocrisy. In Northern Ireland and for Northern Ireland, the Government say in the framework document that what is required is not to beef up clause 99 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons or to beef up the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, but a full-scale, legislative Assembly for Northern Ireland. Some 90 members are to be suggested for that legislative Assembly. [Interruption.] I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland is telling the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) to shut up and stop his endless prattling. The Under-Secretary of State may gain some glory in his brief parliamentary career for making more sedentary interventions than anyone else.
Mr. Home Robertson: Is it my hon. Friend's understanding that the Northern Ireland Assembly is to be funded by an orange tax?
Mr. Robertson: I shall not rise to that bait.
On a serious point, the framework document makes it clear that the sources of funding for the Northern Ireland Assembly are open to negotiation. Nothing has been ruled out by Her Majesty's Government for Northern Ireland, although they have ruled out everything for Scotland.

1431
A party of government that is down to 13 per cent. in Scotland—to the bottom of the barrel—should act with a little humility. There may have come a time, even for this Secretary of State for Scotland—who foisted the poll tax on Scotland, whence it went to the rest of the country—to listen to the Scottish people who so decisively reject him. Instead of coming up with wheezes and public relations gimmicks that he is willing to parade in the streets of Scotland without any dignity, he should take heed of the work being done in the consensus-based forum of the Scottish Constitutional Convention.
We cannot vote for what the Scottish people want, because the Scottish Parliament is not on offer tonight, but in the next 15 months there will be an election and the Scottish people will be able to choose what they want. They will be able to vote for the Scottish Parliament for which they have asked for all these years; we shall deliver it, and Scotland will be the better for it.
8.57 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The Scottish people will certainly not want to have anything to do with the tartan tax proposed by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)—just as the Leader of the Opposition wanted nothing to do with it. If the hon. Gentleman is correct that the proposals are such a bad idea, is it not significant that he and his colleagues will once again sit on their hands and decline to vote against them tonight? Labour Members decried the tax cuts in much the same way, but when it comes to the crunch they cannot vote against the proposals, because they knew that they are popular.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) at least had the good grace to recognise that this is an opportunity for us to perform our work in Scotland more effectively and to improve legislation for Scotland. This week's meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Glasgow was a marvellous example of how it is possible for hon. Members from different political parties to put their differences aside and discuss serious issues, such as drugs, and take forward the debate. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman could not recognise that.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) talked about panic. If she wants panic, she should have seen her leader on his day trip to Scotland. He started the day by assuring us that there would be no tartan tax unless it were in the Labour manifesto—and he gave an assurance that it would not be. By the end of the day—after some fancy footwork on the part of the hon. Member for Hamilton—the Leader of the Opposition supported the hon. Gentleman in his call for a tartan tax. At least, I think that was the Leader of the Opposition's position. The Scottish people will have nothing to do with a tax-raising Parliament.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked me if this is the end. No, it is not. When I made my statement to the House, I said that I was open to positive suggestions. At least the hon. Gentleman has the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that the Constitutional Convention's proposals would mean the end of the office of Secretary of State and a reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is still living in cloud cuckoo land, where he thinks he can have his cake and eat it.
1432
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) welcomed the proposals, and I am grateful for his support. The hon. Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) emphasised the importance of proper facilities. I am relieved to learn that not everyone in the Labour party has sharp suits and mobile telephones—although I must admit that the hon. Member for Springburn has a sharp suit. But it is a serious point, as my right hon. Friend acknowledged.
The hon. Member for Springburn also referred to the presence of the Whip. Far be it from me to make a plea on behalf of the Whips, but the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) intervened during the Scottish Grand Committee hearing in Edinburgh to complain about his inability to talk to the usual channels. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Springburn remembers that, but perhaps he should have a word with his hon. Friend, who does not seem to have the right line from the Whips Office.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire welcomed the changes. He asked me whether there would be more opportunities to deal with Scottish legislation in the Grand Committee. I hope there will, and that measures that would otherwise have to wait their turn as private Members' business can be considered in the Grand Committee. That would demand some restraint, and co-operation through the usual channels, but there is a real chance that we could achieve that goal. The hon. Gentleman has recognised that opportunity, and I welcome his support.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about Ministers from Departments other than the Scottish Office appearing before the Scottish Grand Committee. It is obviously for the Government to decide who should answer particular debates. However, the nature of the subjects chosen for debate should select which Minister will respond.
For example, my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for railways and roads appeared before the Scottish Grand Committee during its consideration of the Fort William sleeper service. That is an obvious example of a Minister from the relevant Department appearing before the Committee. I am sure that Department of Transport officials found it very useful briefing the Minister for that debate.
I welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). He asked a key question which the hon. Member for Hamilton has not yet answered: if we are able to take legislation through the Grand Committee and hold members of the Executive to account in Scotland, what could a Scottish Parliament with a majority of Labour Members do under a Labour Government that could not be done in the Scottish Grand Committee?
Mrs. Ann Taylor: It could make decisions.
Mr. Forsyth: I appreciate that any Labour Government would find making decisions very difficult. However, a Scottish Grand Committee with a Labour majority under a Labour Government would be able to do everything that a Scottish Parliament could do, except one thing: raise a tartan tax, and make the Scots pay more income tax than the English. A Scottish Parliament would not be able to hold the Prime Minister and Ministers to account in the way that the Scottish Grand Committee can.

1433
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood is absolutely correct to make that point, and to draw attention to the fact that hon. Members will be able to ask more questions in the Committee. I take his point about times, and that matter will be settled through the usual channels. I appreciate his comments about private Members' business, but I ask him to take on board the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. I think that we will have a real chance to take through uncontroversial measures, which would not otherwise not be available to us, as Government measures.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) talked about my unpopular policies in Scotland. They were so unpopular that I twice defeated the hon. Gentleman at the ballot box in Stirling before he ran off to Falkirk.
The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) brought the pantomime scene to our proceedings a little early, by giving us the analogy of the Titanic. If he was comparing our position to that, he must have been the iceberg. I can only assume that there is a lot more below the surface than was apparent from his contribution to the debate.
Mr. Welsh: I remind the Minister that I also used the analogy of Banquo's ghost, who led to the denouement of the play by reminding the criminals of their crime.
Mr. Forsyth: I am delighted that, after all his rude comments about the English, the hon. Gentleman still acknowledges the importance of Shakespeare as a good English poet and playwright.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow asked whether the Scottish Grand Committee would be able to come to Greenock. Obviously, it is a matter for the House authorities to consider possible venues, but I understand that the Opposition have suggested Ayr. As there may be a particular problem with the date in Ayr, if the hon. Gentleman has a word with his hon. Friend, that might be a possibility. As to the choice of subjects, the Opposition have their allotted days.
The measure is a positive step forward. It gives Scottish Members the opportunity to demonstrate to their electors their commitment to good government in Scotland. It provides an opportunity for the Opposition to hold the Government to account for their policies—I shall not place too much emphasis on that. Although the Opposition have a ragbag of confused people proposing a tartan tax on the people of Scotland, they clearly have to sort out their own act before holding the Government to account. The proposals represent an opportunity, and I commend them to the House.
It being one and a half hours after the motion was entered upon, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [14 December].
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That—
(1) Standing Order No. 94A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)) be amended, as follows:

line 17, after 'consideration', insert 'or further consideration';

line 30, leave out from 'committee,' to 'Standing' in line 32 and insert 'made under paragraph (6) of';

line 33, at the end, add—

'(3) Any Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, though not a member of the committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee and may make a motion, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum.';
1434
(2) Standing Order No. 94C (Scottish Grand Committee (short debates)) be amended, as follows:
line 8, leave out from `to' to the end of line 9 and insert `Scotland';
line 19, leave out from `No' to 'replying' in line 20 and insert `Member except the Minister of the Crown';
line 24, leave out 'minister or law officer' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';
line 25, leave out 'members of the committee' and insert `Members';
line 27, leave out 'member of the committee' and insert `Member';
(3) Standing Order No. 94D (Scottish Grand Committee (ministerial statements)) be amended, as follows:

line 2, leave out 'Scottish Office minister or a Scottish law officer' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';

line 3, leave out 'member of the committee' and insert `Member of the House';

line 10, leave out 'minister or law officer, as the case may be,' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';

line 12, after 'responsibilities', insert `so far as they relate to Scotland, which, in the case of a Scottish law officer, shall be';

line 13, leave out 'thirteenth' and insert 'relevant';

line 17, after 'conclusion', insert 'either at an hour appointed by an order of the committee, for which a motion may be made without notice by a member of the government immediately before the commencement of such proceedings, on which motion the question shall be put forthwith, or, if no such motion is made,';

line 31, leave out 'minister or law officer' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';

line 32, leave out 'member of the committee' and insert `Member of the House';

line 34, leave out 'such a minister or law officer';

(4) Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)) be amended in line 52, at the end, by adding the following paragraphs:
'(7) At the conclusion of proceedings on consideration on report of a bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (3) above, or on the order being read for the third reading of such a bill, a motion may be made by a member of the government (or in the case of a private Member's bill, by the Member in charge of the bill), "That the Bill be referred again to the Scottish Grand Committee"; and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed:
Provided that such a motion may be made by a private Member only with the leave of the House.
(8) A bill so referred again to the Scottish Grand Committee shall be considered on a motion, "That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle"; and, when the committee has considered that question for a total of one and a half hours (whether on one or more than one day), the chairman shall put the question necessary to dispose of the motion, and shall then report accordingly to the House (or shall report that the committee has come to no resolution), without any further question being put thereon:
Provided that a member of the government may, immediately before the motion "That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle" is made, make without notice a motion to extend the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.

1435
(9) A bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (8) above shall be ordered to be read the third time on a future day.
(10) When a motion shall have been made for the third reading of a bill to which paragraph (9) above applies, the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.';
(5) Standing Order No. 94H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) be amended, as follows:
line 43, after 'proceedings', insert '(other than on a motion made under paragraph (6) below)';
line 55, after 'proceedings', insert 'or on the completion of the business appointed for consideration at that sitting, whichever is the earlier,';
(6) Standing Order No. 87 (Attendance of law officers and ministers in standing committees) be amended, in line 7, after 'than', by inserting 'a motion in the Scottish Grand Committee under Standing Order No. 94A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)) or'; and
(7) Standing Order No. 91 (Special standing committees) be amended, as follows:

line 18, leave out 'morning sittings' and insert 'sittings at which oral evidence may be given';

line 19, after 'Scotland', insert 'in which case those sittings need not be held in the morning'.

HUMBER BRIDGE (DEBTS) BILL
Ordered,
That, if the Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed; and that, as soon as the proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Bates.]

PETITION

  College Premises (Gloucester)
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Douglas French: I have the honour to present a petition with 3,450 signatures, the majority of which are those of people who live in the Oxstalls area in my constituency of Gloucester.
  The petition seeks to save from sale, destruction and redevelopment the Oxstalls site, a purpose-built educational building which was a thriving part of higher education in Gloucester before the formation of the Cheltenham and Gloucester college of higher education and before the attempt by the college's governing body in Cheltenham to dispose of its premises in Gloucester altogether in order to spend the proceeds on its facilities in Cheltenham.
  The petition states:
  The humble Petition of the people of Gloucester sheweth
  That Government intervention is necessary to prevent the sale of the college site at Oxstalls, Gloucester.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House require all necessary measures be speedily taken to ensure that the publicly funded college premises at Oxstalls, Gloucester are saved from demolition and reopened for the provision of vocational and technical courses, which otherwise are not available in this area, where unemployment has increased substantially.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

Caribbean (Voluntary Resettlement)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
9.8 pm
Mr. Bernie Grant: I am pleased that my Adjournment subject was chosen for this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a subject that has stirred quite a lot of debate among sections of the community, particularly among black and minority ethnic people. It is time that the House heard and understood what is being said. I welcome the opportunity of putting my case for resettlement of people in the Caribbean.
In principle, there is nothing new about the British Government providing financial assistance to people, including British citizens, who wish to resettle abroad. There have been various schemes for many years. For example, until 1988 the old supplementary benefits system provided the full cost of fares for applicants and their dependants who wished to resettle abroad. From August 1984, the scheme was restricted so that only British citizens were entitled to come within it. The maximum allowed per person was two years' worth of benefit.
According to information provided in a written answer, between 1972 and 1986 about 1,208 people were assisted under the supplementary benefits system, at a cost of £216,654.
Since 1988, when supplementary benefit was abolished and replaced by the social fund, no equivalent provision has been available. Since 1971, however, there has been limited provision available under the Immigration Act 1971. I refer to the scheme that has been run on behalf of the Government by International Social Services, which is located in Brixton. I wonder why the Government chose that location?
The scheme provides for those who are not British citizens to obtain the cost of fares for themselves and their families plus a small sum for the transportation of their effects. Between 1971 and 1975 about 2,545 people took advantage of the scheme, the overwhelming majority of them to return to the Caribbean region. The level of interest in the scheme, however, is far higher, with the number of initial inquiries reaching more than 900 in one particular year. I know from my constituency case work that many of those who inquire are turned down because they are British citizens. Clearly there is a gap in provision.
There are other schemes at a European level run by the International Organisation for Migration, the IOM. The IOM facilitates return to the country of origin. Its excellent programme for the return and reintegration of qualified African nationals began in 1983, and more than 1,250 people have been assisted, about half of them coming from the United Kingdom.
The project is now paid for by the European Union and thus, in part, by the British Government, who support the project. The IOM has a major centre that is located in London. Phase 3 of the project began in January 1995. It will assist a further 999 professionals to return to targeted jobs in targeted countries or regions. It will pay for their travel costs, the cost of professional equipment and various reintegration allowances.
1438
Interestingly, the IOM also ran a programme last year to assist 40 professionals to return to Jamaica. Eleven places were filled by United Kingdom applicants. A larger scheme involving 50 places is likely to be run in 1996. It is hoped to expand the scheme to embrace the entire Caribbean in due course. I repeat that the Government fully support the scheme.
Today, the IOM's co-ordinator told me:
"This programme has aroused a great deal of interest, and from our conversations with applicants we know that there are many who wish to return to Jamaica".
She continued:
"We fully support your initiative"—
meaning my initiative—
"in raising this issue, and we would be prepared to run a larger return programme if funding was available."
It is now time, I believe, for a thorough review of existing provision in this area and for a more realistic scheme to facilitate resettlement. It is my considered view that that would be in the interests of Britain, the Caribbean and most certainly of those who wish to resettle. There are, in other words, coinciding interests that would make such a scheme a logical development. I also believe that a suitable scheme could be developed at no additional cost to the public purse.
There is no doubt that there is increased interest in resettlement. People have already left for the Caribbean in considerable numbers; there is a sizeable drift of thousands of people back to the region. The Jamaican Government estimate that some 2,000 people returned from the UK to Jamaica in 1994. Barbados, Dominica, Antigua and Guyana are also popular destinations for returning residents. Organisations have been set up in Britain to assist those wishing to return, such as the Organisation of Returning Jamaicans and Associates, which is flourishing. It is interesting that the person who heads that organisation, Mark Le Ban, said to me only yesterday that its management committee is made up of Jamaican people aged between 30 and 45, so it is not only elderly people who wish to return.
Those who have already resettled—including those who were born in the region as well as those who were born in Britain—are the more prosperous, the retired or professionals with marketable skills, and entrepreneurs who can afford the travel and settlement costs involved. Many of us would dearly wish to resettle but do not have the means to do so. I have had a huge number of letters from such people from all over the country, including my constituents, who are desperately seeking help to return home. Many of the letters come from those in the caring professions, seeking my help for their clients in that regard. They include the elderly, many of whom came here in the 1950s and 1960s, at the specific request of the British Government, and never intended to remain here for long. However, the streets of Britain turned out not to be paved with gold and they were never in a position to return.
There are others who are chronically ill and never likely to work again in Britain who would prefer to return home to the Caribbean. Like the retired, they are frequently trapped by a benefit system that would cut them off from the benefits that they have earned if they were to go back. One of my constituents, for example, is now retired and longs to return to the Caribbean. If she did so, however, her state pension would be frozen at its current level and

1439
all benefits for her dependent disabled daughter would be curtailed, because they are payable only in Britain. Does anyone really give a hoot whether in such a case that young lady's benefit is paid in Britain or in the Caribbean?
The social security system is similarly inflexible so far as the long-term unemployed are concerned. I include here many single parents. These people know that they could advance themselves by returning to the Caribbean. However, they would find it hard to raise even the fare and would lose all benefits immediately if they left the United Kingdom. Given the high proportion of unemployed black workers who are long-term unemployed—some 60 per cent. as opposed to 44 per cent. in the white population—it makes little sense for the social security system to close off the option of return. It would not be so outrageous for such people, properly supervised, to be allowed benefit-equivalent sums for a few months to enable them to explore that option. Far higher sums are already spent on "make work" schemes here in Britain.
Another group frequently approaches me. It comprises people who are in work—often skilled or professional people—and who would like, at least for a time, to use their skills to assist in the development of countries with which they have a connection, such as those in the Caribbean, with a view to resettlement. There is currently no structure to channel the aspirations of that group, and there are many practical and financial obstacles.
As I have said, Caribbean and, possibly, other interested countries in the region would welcome a resettlement programme. For many years, the region has been the subject of a brain drain: its brightest and best sons and daughters have migrated, mostly to Britain, the United States or Canada. The absence of those groups has a destabilising effect on the countries concerned, and is now a major obstacle to economic development in the region.
Several Caribbean Governments—including Guyana, Jamaica and Barbados—are encouraging people to return by making special arrangements to assist returnees. They have set up units in their foreign Ministries to assist the smooth return of their citizens; they have also made tax changes that are favourable to returning residents, and issued calls for nationals to return to their countries. They know that there are major economic spin-offs resulting from resettlement.
As I have said, a suitable scheme to assist in resettlement could be developed if the will existed. Clearly, it would need to be the subject of detailed work, but it is possible to state the principles on which such a scheme would be organised. First, any scheme would of course be entirely voluntary: there can be no question of compulsion, or of rescinding anyone's British citizenship. Secondly, it must be a responsible scheme, properly managed on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that those who return do so with the best possible advice and support. Thirdly, the scheme must be adequate, ensuring that those who take advantage of it are properly provided for. I personally would not support any scheme that left people worse off than they are in the United Kingdom in terms of living standards, health care and housing in particular. Fourthly, the ultimate veto over eligibility to the scheme must rest with the designation countries themselves. In
1440
fact, they could well be given responsibility for administering the scheme. I have had discussions with most of the Governments involved, and they are willing to take that responsibility.
The scheme would have to be developed in full consultation with the black community here—particularly the Caribbean community—and with the designation countries. The advantages to Britain of such a scheme would be numerous. First, it is not generally in the interests of any country to have a substantial number of people in its midst who honestly do not want to be in that country. Secondly, even with the most generous scheme, there would be substantial financial advantages.
Those who approach me are all too often those who are most dependent on social benefits and health and welfare services—and, indeed, are most likely to be subsidised in various ways for their housing costs. They are also likely to be tenants of local authority housing. It would not take too much imagination to calculate a social-benefits equivalent sum for a given number of people each year that could be used as a basis for a budget for a resettlement scheme. Given the lower costs of living in the Caribbean—even after weekly benefit equivalent payments—substantial sums would be available for investment in housing, social care and health insurance. Many variations are possible.
The existing IOM scheme could well be developed substantially to cater for more of those in work who wish to return. If the costs of this part of the scheme came from the existing Overseas Development Administration budget, that would not be a bad thing: it would certainly be a more effective means of helping the countries concerned than the current practice of sending them highly paid consultants to perform key jobs there.
An enhanced resettlement programme would be in the interests of Britain, not least because it would be a recognition of the huge damage that Britain has inflicted on the Caribbean both now and in the past. Having created and exploited those countries through slavery and colonisation, Britain is abandoning them now that its economic interests lie elsewhere. Having stolen so much it would be more than fitting at this time in history for Britain to at least facilitate the return of those who wish to go back to those countries.
Some people have said that even to mention this matter is to cause damage to race relations in this country, and that to argue for a resettlement scheme is to give in to racism. I have even been accused of adopting the agenda of fascists and racists. Even the Secretary of State for the Home Department told me recently that he feared that an enhanced resettlement scheme would make black people feel unwelcome here. That is rich, coming from someone who has set back race relations by at least 20 years in the relatively short time that he has been in office. I am not convinced by these arguments. This is about creating positive choices for black people, about setting our own agenda for once, and about remembering where we came from.
Some black people will want to stay in Britain, and the fight for racial equality will continue. I shall continue to play my part in that struggle. It is true that some people want to leave because they are sick and tired of the racism that they face in this country. They are fed up with fighting racism, and I see no reason why they should be forced to do so. Others do not feel at home in Britain and

1441
some people despair of the predominant values and culture of this society and fear for their children growing up in such a climate. Others simply wish to return to live with their families and, of course, that feeling is more common nowadays because of the absurdity of current immigration rules which keep families apart. I hope that the Minister will address that point when he tries to sum up at the end of the debate.
Against the background of all that has been done to black people historically, the House has no right to deny those people a choice about their future. We know what is happening to black people at the moment. We know about the tragic events less than a week ago in Brixton where there was a tragic death, the second in six months, of a young black person at the hands of the police. I understand that that young man was cornered in a park. He had a knife and he threw it away. The police then descended on that young person and beat him very badly. That was witnessed by several people, and I understand that the Police Complaints Authority is investigating. That was a tragic event by any stretch of the imagination. It is similar to what happened to Rodney King, and I am sure that the Minister and some of the police officers who were around would say, "What happened to Rodney King was terrible". It is my understanding, and witnesses will eventually come forward to prove it, that that is precisely what happened to young Wayne Douglas in Brixton. What concerns a number of people is that the police refuse to learn from their mistakes in the past. They should automatically have suspended the officers concerned on full pay and had an immediate inquiry into the matter.
The media played a part in this notorious affair because they should have given some prominence to yet another death within six months at the hands of the same police force and through the use of side-handled batons. Those two young black males are the first people to die as a result of the introduction of the side-handled batons that were imported from the United States of America—the same batons that killed Rodney King.
We have heard no one mention anything about that at all. I asked the Home Secretary a question on the occasion of the first death. He gave me an answer to the effect that it cost too much to find out how many people had died as a result of the introduction of the side-handled batons law. We now know—and I will tell the House—that two young black men have died as a result of such batons. They are the first to die. That in itself should require some statement from the Home Secretary. Perhaps the Minister replying to this debate will deal with that point, but I doubt it as he is involved as part of the race card that the Government are playing in relation to all these matters.
Ms Diane Abbott: On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most deplorable aspects of events in Brixton is that, far from the mainstream media considering issues such as the deaths in custody or the use of side-handled batons, they have sought scapegoats such as Rudy Narayan, The Voice or the Caribbean Times newspapers? The mainstream press is criticising the ethnic press simply for printing the facts when the mainstream press would not. Would it not be more appropriate if those same papers exposed some of the issues that my hon. Friend has talked about in relation to police brutality?
Mr. Grant: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for that intervention because I had missed that point. I am glad
1442
that she reminded me of it. She is absolutely right. Far from looking for the culprits who caused this position to occur, the mainstream press has looked for a number of scapegoats, including Rudy Narayan, who represents no one except himself and who is not a voice that people in Brixton follow. Poor Rudy will probably end up in the courts and be charged for inciting riots when, if the truth were known, he could not incite himself to riot on any occasion. Such scapegoating, and the attempts of the Government and their cohorts to scapegoat people who are trying just to bring to the public's attention a serious situation in the black community, are deplorable.
As I was saying, the House has no right to deny people a choice about their future. Against the background of all that is happening and has been done to black people historically, the House owes it to them to allow them to exercise that choice. In raising this matter, I speak on behalf of many people in Britain. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider what I have said and agree at least to commission a study of how the current very limited resettlement arrangements could be suitably expanded.
I had a meeting with the Home Secretary and the Minister on this point. The Home Secretary felt that he could not support the scheme because, to put it in his words, if he were to do so, it might encourage elements to believe that black people were not welcome in this country. The Home Secretary went on to say that black people were welcome here, that they were worthy people and that they have had made a substantial contribution to Britain. That was the first time that I had heard that particular Home Secretary make such remarks. I am pleased and indebted that he found it necessary to make them. I wish that he would make them more often.
Ms Abbott: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Grant: Most certainly.
Ms Abbott rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Lady launches off, may I remind her that she is addressing me and should face the Chair?
Ms Abbott: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that, welcome though it is to hear the Home Secretary say those positive things about race relations, they come ill from someone who is promoting the Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is profoundly racist and aims to criminalise, not just immigrants and asylum seekers, but black African people as a whole, especially in relation to its provisions for passport checks on employees? Someone, although not myself, might accuse him of hypocrisy in that regard.
Mr. Grant: Yes, again my hon. Friend is right on the mark—absolutely correct.
Only this morning the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and myself were all at the first sitting of the Standing Committee on the Asylum and Immigration Bill. Any independent observer, anyone who had not been nobbled by the Home Secretary and his people, would look at that Bill and see that the motivation behind it was clearly racist.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the general burden of

1443
his Adjournment debate is about people leaving this country, not people coming to it. I think that he should return to that.
Mr. Grant: I am always willing to take guidance from you, Madam Deputy Speaker. But for some people, in order to leave the country they first have to come into it. I am concerned both with people coming in and with people going out; some people cannot do one without the other. However, I accept your general point, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I mention the Bill because it has a clear bearing on black and minority ethnic communities here. That is because the Home Secretary will require employers to ask people to provide documents to establish their right to be in this country—and we know from experience that the people who are asked for the documents will be black people.
That happens all the time. It happens when black people go to Europe. It even happens with groups of schoolchildren. The immigration officers in France, Germany and Belgium allow all the white children to go through, but they stop the black kids and ask them for special explanations about why they should be able to walk through like everyone else.
The Minister may pooh-pooh that idea, but if he does so, it shows that he is totally ignorant about the effects of his and the European Union's policies on black British citizens. If he adopts the attitude that that is a load of nonsense, and that everything is rosy in Britain, it simply exposes his personal racism in that connection. I will listen carefully to what he says, because a reasoned argument has been put forward, and I want him to address the points that have been raised.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not mean to do so, but he rather gave the impression that he was accusing another hon. Member of racism, which would definitely be unparliamentary.
Mr. Grant: I withdraw any such remark, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course the Minister is not a racist. He may act as though he were one, but I know that he is not. On that basis, I withdraw the remark.
Mr. Keith Vaz: I think that the whole House is following my hon. Friend's arguments carefully. Does he agree that, bearing in mind all the matters that have been raised during today's lobby on the Asylum and Immigration Bill, and also by himself in this important debate, even at this late stage the Government could refer the Bill to a Special Standing Committee, where all those points could be raised?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but this is going way beyond the subject of the Adjournment debate. I must ask the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), the Front-Bench spokesman, not to lead his hon. Friend astray in that way.
Mr. Grant: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for getting us back on the rails.
We shall of course fight the Asylum and Immigration Bill thoroughly in Committee. If the Minister thinks that he is in for an easy ride he had better think again, because
1444
there will be substantial opposition both inside and outside the Committee. For the various reasons that I have outlined, there is a need for people to be given the option of returning to the Caribbean. I have also stated that the Caribbean Governments would welcome a scheme that encourages people to return. In fact, the president of Guyana recently told me that he wrote to the Prime Minister and asked him to let Guyana have Britain's unemployed skilled workers, because there was plenty of work for them in Guyana. I understand that the Prime Minister replied that because of the social security regulations, it would not be possible to do that.
I believe that imaginative schemes could be developed to give people hope and to assist young people, graduates and skilled and qualified workers who feel that there is a glass ceiling through which they cannot break. Those people could be given an opportunity of a life—or part of a life—in another area of the world. They could benefit that area, and also benefit themselves.
I have proved this evening that there are already two schemes running. The first is run by the Government, and contains within it the principle of return from this country to the Caribbean and to other countries of the world. The other scheme is run by the IOM, which has a centre here in Queen Anne's Gate in London, and is supported and financed by the Government. There are no reasons why the Government should not extend the existing schemes along the lines that I have suggested.
If the Minister dares to ask me why the British taxpayer should pay for this scheme, I will remind him that a Conservative Government in the 1950s and 1960s sent people to the Caribbean and used British taxpayers' money to recruit bus drivers, London Transport workers, nurses and others. The Minister of Labour at that time was Enoch Powell, who I am sure the Minister has heard of. The Government at that time paid for people to come here, and now some of those people wish to return. For various reasons, they might not have the means to do so. We are suggesting that the Government should use taxpayers' money to do that. Such a scheme would result in savings to the Treasury and, for no other reason, the Government should support it.
9.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I very much regret the fact that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) has again decided to raise the question of voluntary repatriation. I noted his speech this evening, and the contributions which came from the Opposition Front Bench from the hon. Members for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott).
The only saving grace of the debate is that it gives me an opportunity to restate the Government's total opposition to any scheme which actively encourages people who are lawfully settled here to return to their country of origin. Nobody who has a legal right to live in this country should be under any pressure to leave. The Government are not in the business of advocating that our own citizens emigrate to the country where their parents, grandparents or ancestors were born. I deeply resent the remarks of the hon. Member for Tottenham about my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who has done so much work to improve race relations.**

1445
[Interruption.] Regardless of what the hon. Gentleman may say from a sedentary position, Britain has greatly improved race relations, and I am proud of that fact and want it to continue.
I am also saddened by the hon. Gentleman's determination to try to use tonight's debate to provide his own conclusions about the recent disturbances in Brixton before an inquiry has been completed. The Government condemn what they see as a violent minority who attack police officers and property and who attempt to besmirch the good name of the vast majority of the people of Brixton, who are decent, caring and law-abiding citizens and want to remain that way.
I firmly believe that any measure designed to encourage repatriation or emigration by members of the ethnic community would do untold damage to race relations. It is the persistent taunt of thugs and racists that black or Asian people should "go home". If the Government set up a scheme actively promoting repatriation or immigration of ethnic minorities as a good thing, that would be to endorse the racists' odious views. I do not believe that the House would want that.
The Government are committed to creating a fair and integrated society. We are working hard to reduce racial discrimination.
Mr. Bernie Grant: Rubbish.
Mr. Kirkhope: I repeat: we are working hard to reduce racial discrimination, to tackle racial violence and to ensure that everyone, irrespective of the colour of his skin, enjoys the same opportunities in this country. Good race relations need to be constantly worked at; we all, including the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, know that. Any Government-sponsored measure that implied to ethnic minorities that they were unwelcome could only have a detrimental effect on race relations. There is absolutely no place for such proposals in our work.
I know that the hon. Member for Tottenham has a number of proposals. He raised them with the Home Secretary in my presence on 6 December. As he has said, the Home Secretary was certainly not persuaded that the hon. Gentleman's proposals deserved further consideration. He does not intend to change the present arrangements. As the hon. Gentleman has also said, the Government fund a small humanitarian scheme under which people with few savings—not British citizens—can be given basic financial assistance to return overseas, when it is in their best interests to do so and they wish to go. The assistance is limited to the travel fare and the cost of transporting a small number of personal possessions.
About 60 people a year benefit from the scheme. They are mainly elderly people, often without close family ties here; and most of them return to Jamaica. The important point is that only those with very low savings of less than £3,000 are eligible for full assistance. The scheme is low key and the assistance is limited. That of course is deliberate. The scheme does not set out to persuade people to leave Britain. It seeks to help those whose hearts are set on returning home, where they have satisfactory future arrangements and the only significant obstacle is the cost of the travel. We see no reason to change these arrangements, and we have recently agreed to extend the current scheme for a further five years.
I turn now to some of the suggestions that the hon. Member for Tottenham has made. He has said that he thinks that British citizens should be eligible for help. Our
1446
objection to that is straightforward: we do not think it appropriate for the Government to pay for the removal of British citizens to a foreign country. There would in any event be numerous practical problems in administering such a scheme, which would be wide open to abuse and which would attract all sorts of opportunists to apply. Effective administration would be difficult and expensive and the Government can see no good purpose in pursuing such ideas further.
Another of the hon. Member's ideas is that young unemployed people of Afro-Caribbean descent but who were born in the United Kingdom should be encouraged to emigrate to Africa and the Caribbean. He appears seriously to think that the Government should pay for such young people to leave our country. We value our young people in this country. [Interruption.] The hon. Member may laugh but we value our young people. I find his idea not only outlandish but offensive. I cannot believe that sending young people to a country of which they probably have little no or experience would help them in the least.
We take the problem of unemployed people seriously. That is why we are committed to having a dynamic economy in which jobs are created for them, not destroyed. The Labour party would, as we all know, destroy jobs through its schemes and ideas. The way to help unemployed young people is to train and educate them so that they can find jobs. We are trying to do that more and more. The answer is not to send them back to the country from which their ancestors came. A Government-funded emigration programme is emphatically not the answer.
Mr. Grant: The Minister says fine words about how the Government want to do things about unemployment. Among black young people aged between 15 and 25 in Tottenham, unemployment is 65 per cent. What are the Government doing to get those people jobs?
Mr. Kirkhope: The hon. Member is well aware of the schemes that the Government employ to try to give jobs to, and provide training for, young people. There are schemes operating in his area that he surely must be aware of. He should give credit to the people involved with that. Some of those people are paid directly by the Government, some are indirectly paid and some are voluntary workers. He knows well of the schemes. I will be delighted to discuss the matter further with him at another time. The Government are concerned that young people should have jobs in this country and not be encouraged to leave the country.
What would the receiving country think of us if we sought to export young people in that way? We have no information to suggest that those countries would be keen on that.
Mr. Grant: I have.
Mr. Kirkhope: We have no evidence of that. I would be extremely surprised if they were as keen as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
The BBC "Newsnight" coverage of the issue on 6 December made a helpful contribution to rational debate. What I found especially striking were the stories of old people who had visited their countries of origin in the West Indies after decades away and their bewilderment at how much things, and they themselves,

1447
had changed. Many saw their lives clearly now as being firmly based in Britain. They did not want to return. If that is the case for people of their generation, who were born abroad, how much more true would it be for people born in the United Kingdom who have British attitudes and presumptions about life? Life in the West Indies could come as a cultural shock—and not inevitably a pleasant one—for them.
The hon. Member referred to a number of other schemes that involve financial assistance with the travel and other costs of movements between one country and another. I acknowledge the presence of those schemes. There is, for instance, a European scheme under the Lomé convention, to which I think the hon. Gentleman alluded, that encourages, as a form of overseas aid to Jamaica, young Jamaican professionals to take up posts which would otherwise be filled by foreign experts. That scheme aims to boost the Jamaican economy.
Similarly, the International Organisation for Migration assists refugee and asylum seeker movements, usually under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I must emphasise again the limited nature of such schemes and the Government's belief that they should and must remain limited.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary told the hon. Member for Tottenham when we met him on 6 December, the Government are totally opposed to encouraging voluntary repatriation, let alone emigration. To do so would send out all the wrong messages to ethnic minority communities and, worse still, play into the hands of racists. That is well recognised by many influential sections within those communities and I am pleased that they have not been slow to criticise the hon. Member for doing so. I emphasise that the Government's view is that everybody in Britain, regardless of race or creed, should have a fair chance. They do not think that there should be measures that discriminate between races, as the hon. Member's suggestions seem to.
The hon. Member has long been interested in this subject, but I simply do not agree that the extension to the current very limited arrangements that he has in mind would provide a solution to race relations problems or necessarily help the individuals with whom he says he is concerned. The way to improve race relations is positive participation by all ethnic minority groups in British society, so that they are not socially excluded or disadvantaged in any aspect of life here. This country is greatly strengthened by the different ethnic groups that make up our population. We have all gained from their commitment to Britain's success in every field: economic;
1448
social; artistic; and sporting. I totally reject the suggestion that the Government should actively encourage members of those communities to leave this country because they would be better off elsewhere.
Ms Abbott: As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) is aware, I do not support his scheme for repatriation in the shape that he proposes. However, the Minister fails to understand that my hon. Friend's proposals have struck a tremendous chord in the black community. That is a symptom of the deep alienation, disaffection and unhappiness that many black people of all ages feel about their lives in this country. I have listened carefully to the Minister but much of what he has said reeks of hypocrisy. Moreover, he clearly fails to understand the reality of life for many black people in this country.
Mr. Kirkhope: The hon. Lady is entitled to her point of view. She says that the hon. Gentleman's proposals have struck a chord with the black community, but they have been received with great unhappiness in many sections of the ethnic minority community in this country. I believe that the Government's view on this matter reflects the majority's view. It also reflects the view that race relations are important to the Government and the country as a whole.
Mr. Grant: I am aware that a group representing the Asian community, and one or two people from the West Indian community, went to see the Home Secretary recently. The West Indian Standing Conference voted almost to a person in support of my scheme. My scheme has nothing to do with the Indian sub-continent, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka; it concerns the Caribbean. Which Caribbean groups support the Government against my proposals?
Mr. Kirkhope: I shall not get into a contest with the hon. Gentleman on which groups support his proposal. As far as I know, he has been unable to persuade the Opposition Front Bench, although the presence tonight of the Opposition spokesman for the inner cities seems to show some support from the Labour party for his ideas. The Government do not support his ideas and have no intention of doing so. I have no idea whether his proposals might become Labour party policy. He must discuss that with his Front Bench spokesmen.
Tonight, I invite the hon. Gentleman to join me in pursuing policies that promote good race relations rather than those that he put forward, which might jeopardise them.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Departmental Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the amount owed to those businesses whose invoices were not paid within 30 days or within agreed contractual arrangements for 1994–95. [6512]

  The Attorney-General
  The departments for which I am responsible make every effort to settle invoices promptly. The information requested is not recorded and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Attorney-General how many(a) orders and (b) firms are represented by the percentage of invoices not paid by his department within 30 days in 1994–95. [6490]

  The Attorney-General
  Information is not held in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many illegal immigrants have been expelled in each year since 1979 from(a) the United Kingdom and (b) each separate region within the United Kingdom; [5160]

  (2) which country has received most illegal immigrants expelled from the United Kingdom in each year since 1979. [5161]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information on the total number of illegal entrants and persons subject to deportation action who have been removed from the United Kingdom is given in table 1. The data for 1984 onwards show the nationalities grouped by main geographical region. The largest 10 individual nationalities, comprising two thirds of the total, in 1994 are shown in table 2; corresponding data for other years could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Data on nationalities have been given in the absence of statistics on the countries to which persons were removed. Data are also not available on the region of residence prior to removal.

  Table 1: Persons removed1 from the United Kingdom as illegal entrants or under the deportation process, 1979–1995

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  All nationalities

  1.416

  1.938

  1.601

  1.315

  1.196

  1006

  Nationality by geographical region

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Europe

  276

  257

  210

  284

  449

  527

  Americas

  101

  137

  115

  159

  249

  404

  Africa

  634

  690

  804

  952

  1,467

  1,918

  Indian sub-continent

  187

  177

  223

  389

  582

  590

  Other Asia

  95

  100

  98

  116

  215

  283

  Oceania

  8

  7

  10

  13

  11

  16

  Other nationalities2

  56

  57

  62

  80

  74

  101

  All nationalities

  1,357

  1,425

  1,522

  1,993

  3,047

  3.839

  Nationality by geographical region

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995 January to June

  Europe

  362

  615

  609

  988

  911

  n/a

  Americas

  522

  803

  820

  732

  539

  n/a

  Africa

  1,963

  2,457

  2,740

  2,207

  1,354

  n/a

  Indian sub-continent

  454

  616

  797

  896

  1,002

  n/a

  Other Asia

  302

  543

  545

  448

  437

  n/a

  Oceania

  28

  35

  26

  42

  40

  n/a

  Other nationalities2

  131

  233

  293

  171

  25

  n/a

  All nationalities

  3,762

  5,302

  5,830

  5,484

  4,308

  1,963

  n/a Not yet available.

  1Excluding 'voluntary' departures after enforcement action had been initiated.

  2British Overseas citizens, stateless and nationality doubtful. Data prior to 1994 also include the small nationalities of the geographical regions specified.

  Table 2: Persons removed1 from the United Kingdom as illegal entrants or under the deportation process: the top ten nationalities in 1994

  Nationality

  Number of persons

  India

  574

  Nigeria

  570

  Poland

  451

  Pakistan

  287

  Ghana

  216

  Jamaica

  194

  Bangladesh

  150

  Turkey

  145

  Algeria

  132

  Malaysia

  104

  Total

  2,823

  1Excluding 'voluntary' departures after enforcement action had been initiated.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1994–95. [6503]

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office central accounting computer system shows that approximately £290 million was paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1994–95. This figure includes payments made by the Home Office and the Prison Service agency, the United Kingdom Passport Agency and the Forensic Science Service.

  Prisons (Probation Officers)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those prisons at which probation officers are currently based; and how many of these are scheduled to lose their prison-based probation officers as a result of changes being implemented by his Department. [7027]

  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. Dafydd Wigley, dated 19 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 prison-based probation officers.
  All prison establishments currently have probation officers working in them on secondment from their home service. Governors are looking critically at how the functions of their establishments are being delivered with a view to improving operating efficiency next year. Until the process is complete and their 1996–97 budgets have been finalised it is not possible to predict how many prisons might reduce or restructure their complement of seconded probation staff.

  Learmont Report
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the report of General Sir John Learmont's review of the implementation of the recommendations contained in Sir John Woodcock's report on the escape from Whitemoor prison; and if he will make a statement. [7661]

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. and learned Friend has today placed a copy of General Sir John Learmont's report in the Library. We are extremely grateful to Sir John, and to Sir John Woodcock with whom the review was undertaken, for their work. The report concludes that in both security and control terms, a"sea change for the better had taken place at Whitemoor"—
  paragraph 2.2—and that
  "in a period of less than a year the Prison Service has made infinitely more headway in implementing the Woodcock recommendations than it seemed reasonable to expect, and in line with the published timetable. It has made this progress with an optimism and enthusiasm that demonstrates the calibre of the staff at all levels of the Service. All concerned deserve praise for what has been achieved in getting the fundamentals of custody, care and control into better balance"—
  paragraph 4.6.

  General Sir John Learmont has already recommended the appointment of a director of dispersal prisons at prisons board level, and in this latest report he says that this issue needs addressing without delay. The acting director general has today appointed Mr. Philip Wheatley, at present area manager (London north), to he director of dispersal prisons—Frankland, Full Sutton, Long Lartin, Wakefield and Whitemoor—and of HMP Belmarsh, which also holds a significant number of category A prisoners.

  Hagdi Elfons Tawafig
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his decision concerning the deportation of Hagdi Elfons Tawafig to Sudan; and if he 1008
  will make a statement about the refoulement of Sudanese coptic Christians to Sudan. [7157]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Mr. Tawafig has been refused leave to enter the United Kingdom and, his appeal having been dismissed, is liable to removal action. The United Kingdom fully complies with its international obligations in relation to non-refoulement.

  Police (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussion he has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to his policy of combating racial attacks in the Greater London area. [6460]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of issues relating to the policing of London.

  Flights (Criminal Incidents)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many arrests have been made by the police for criminal incidents on in-bound flights to the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [6224]

  (2) on how many occasions the police have taken action as a result of incidents on in-bound flights into the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; what has been the nature of the occurrences; and if he will make a statement. [6225]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Research Projects (Sunderland)
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all Home Office funded pilots, trials and research studies which have been conducted since 1989 in(a) the city of Sunderland, (b) Wearside district and (c) Sunderland travel-to-work area identifying (i) the title, summary and duration of the pilot/trial, (ii) the target population and total number of participants and (iii) whether each pilot, trial or research finding was published indicating the date of publication; and if he will give details of all other non-Home Office research bodies or organisations involved in each pilot. trial or research scheme.[6305]

  Mr. Howard
  There have been no major studies confined to the areas highlighted. However, each year, a number of research projects and surveys are conducted on the basis of nationally representative samples. Householders or other persons in the areas mentioned might have been included in these. The data are often confidential to the survey company, so it is not always possible to identify which areas have been surveyed.

  Chauffeur-driven Cars
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of chauffeur-driven cars used by his Department was in each of the past five years. [5862]
  1009
  Mr. Howard
  The information in respect of ministerial cars was given in a reply to a question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 7 November,Official Report, column 826.

  Information relating to use by officials is not collected centrally and I will write to the hon. Member when it has been obtained.

  Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the expenditure of

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  Daily Express

  93,993

  96,730

  28,990

  —

  27,000

  —

  Daily Mail

  154,940

  175,580

  16,050

  —

  49,270

  8,816

  Daily Mirror

  171,430

  117,885

  41,054

  —

  46,000

  —

  Daily Star

  39,822

  34,870

  12,040

  —

  7,000

  —

  Daily Telegraph

  90,350

  73,671

  25,771

  5,500

  72,200

  22,800

  Evening Standard

  69,609

  27,406

  9,990

  —

  25,430

  2,455

  Financial Times

  14,364

  31,252

  —

  —

  —

  32,532

  Guardian

  43,427

  49,729

  34,756

  27,190

  50,321

  34,296

  Independent

  51,735

  48,458

  23,487

  17,523

  18,225

  19,734

  Independent on Sunday

  1,200

  9,875

  2,235

  —

  15,137

  —

  Mail on Sunday

  124,130

  95,083

  11,500

  11,500

  5,600

  2,660

  News of the World

  135,000

  203,870

  32,085

  25,000

  24,500

  —

  Observer

  35,454

  32,432

  7,953

  —

  11,693

  10,788

  The People

  142,300

  61,038

  22,138

  —

  16,300

  —

  The Sun

  239,464

  155,200

  45,600

  29,500

  91,300

  —

  Sunday Correspondent

  2,400

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sunday Express

  118,580

  76,010

  16,648

  10,500

  40,000

  —

  Sunday Mirror

  129,490

  65,840

  16,000

  14,500

  23,000

  —

  Sunday Telegraph

  7,561

  11,475

  2,754

  —

  19,238

  12,750

  Sunday Times

  85,068

  104,246

  71,214

  36,371

  69,054

  33,998

  The Times

  38,626

  17,868

  1,200

  528

  29,940

  1,965

  Today

  27,269

  21,255

  6,200

  —

  3,250

  —

  Daily Record

  —

  5,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Morning Star

  —

  1,600

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sunday Mail

  —

  6,830

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Knives
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances police officers are permitted to search people for concealed knives; and if he will make a statement on the measures relating to(a) detection and (b) punishment he is taking to deter knife-carrying in public. [6129]

  Mr. Maclean
  Under section I of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 an officer may search a person for a knife where he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find one. In addition, under section 60, of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, an officer of superintendent rank or above may, where he reasonably believes that serious violence may occur and that it is expedient to prevent it, authorise officers to stop any pedestrian and search him for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments. Acting under the authorisation, an officer may stop and search any person he thinks fit, whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting the person is carrying weapons or articles of that kind. The authorisation applies to a specified area for a period not exceeding 24 hours. My right hon. and learned Friend supports proposals in a private Member's Bill which will increase the maximum penalty for carrying a knife in 1010
  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. [6570]

  Mr. Howard
  Information in the form requested would be available only at disproportionate cost. The table gives the aggregated expenditure of the Home Office, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on the space bought in the national press for the period requested. For the reason stated, the figures do not include local press, or the cost of creative and production work.

  public without good reason or lawful authority under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, from a £1,000 fine to six months' imprisonment.

  Police Safe Scheme (Warwickshire)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Warwickshire constabulary's police safe scheme; and if he will make a statement on the practice of making charges for police services of this nature. [6130]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Warwickshire constabulary's police safe scheme is a new computerised keyholder service which is designed to maintain accurate, up-to-date information about non-domestic commercial and community premises and so enable Warwickshire constabulary to identify and contact current keyholders whenever necessary, promptly and effectively.

  Warwickshire constabulary intends to charge initial registration and annual renewal fees in respect of premises registered with police safe.

  Under section IS of the Police Act 1964, the chief officer of police of any police force may provide, at the request of any person, special police services at any premises or in any locality in the police area for which the

  1011
  force is maintained, subject to the payment to the police authority of charges on such scales as may be determined by that authority.

  Warwickshire constabulary has made it clear that it will continue to deal with incidents at any premises, whether registered with police safe or not, according to the circumstances and priorities at the time and will perform its duty to ensure that a basic level of action is taken to secure premises if necessary.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 5 December,Official Report, column 216, if he will take steps to ascertain the proportion of persons attending for interviews at the asylum screening unit who have to wait more than (a) one, (b) two, (c) three and (d) four hours. [5960]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  There are no plans to carry out a survey of this kind. Waiting times vary according to a number of factors, including the purpose of the visit, the type of interview required and, most importantly, the number of people visiting the asylum screening unit on any given day. In response to a substantial increase in the number of callers during the last two months, separate accommodation has been equipped to enable the unit to deal quickly with straightforward inquiries and requests.

  Missing Persons Helpline
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received on the need for an independent missing persons helpline separate from the police; [5996]

  (2) what is his Department's policy in respect of the formation of an independent missing persons helpline, separate from the police. [5997]

  Complaints completed by reason for complaint

  England and Wales (excluding the Metropolitan Police)

  Number of complaints

  Reason for complaint

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Oppressive behaviour

  11,719

  12,302

  12,316

  (4,243)

  12,391

  (4,083)

  12,438

  (4,228)

  Racially discriminatory behaviour

  215

  244

  256

  (205)

  252

  (198)

  310

  (298)

  Malpractice

  1,440

  1,576

  1,446

  (726)

  1,798

  (687)

  1,416

  (623)

  Failures in duty

  5,662

  6,018

  6,039

  (1,581)

  6,173

  (1,540)

  6,125

  (2,072)

  Incivility

  5,260

  5,248

  4,897

  (1,348)

  4,585

  (1,548)

  4,922

  (2297)

  Traffic irregularity

  386

  324

  340

  (42)

  301

  (54)

  270

  (89)

  Other

  1,755

  1,376

  1,215

  (268)

  1,072

  (212)

  1,076

  (357)

  Total

  26,437

  27,088

  26,509

  (8.413)

  26,572

  (8,322)

  26,557

  (9,964)

  Figures in brackets are for the Metropolitan Police only

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Pensions Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking in relation to the recruitment of additional staff in the pensions appeal tribunals service in Wales. [5765]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The pensions appeal tribunals do not maintain a permanent staff in Wales. In common with most other pensions appeal tribunal locations, hearings there are attended by staff based in London, the number of which has recently been increased.
  1012
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 December]: Dealing with missing persons reports is an operational matter for the police service. We have no plans to introduce a Government helpline independent of the police, and have received no representations indicating that a separate helpline should be set up.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of the national missing persons helpline in respect of the investigations of events at 25 Cromwell street, Gloucester. [5998]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 December]: I understand that the helpline assisted police with the identification of victims based on the information it holds on missing persons.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests for help the police make to the national missing persons helpline every week; and if he will make a statement on the use of the helpline by the police. [6000]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 December]: I understand that there are regular contacts between police forces and the helpline, but that no comprehensive figures are available.

  Police (Complaints)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will produce a breakdown of the reasons given for complaints made against the police, in each of the years 1990 to 1994. [6278]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 December]: Information on the reasons for complaints recorded by the police is shown in the table. Figures for the Metropolitan police are available only for 1992 onwards.

  Mr. Wardell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the level of service that the pensions appeal tribunals (England and Wales) service provides to appellants from Wales. [5766]

  Mr. Evans
  The level of service provided to those wishing to have their appeal heard in Cardiff has been adversely affected since May 1995, when the independent tribunal service indicated that it was no longer in a position to allow the pensions appeal tribunals to use its premises in Cardiff. Hearings will, however, resume in south Wales in February 1996, at Cardiff county court. The Court Service is actively looking for additional
  1013
  locations in south Wales to reduce backlogs. Cases from south Wales, where the appellant has indicated that he or she does not wish to attend the hearing, are dealt with at hearing centres outside Wales to enable them to be dealt with more quickly.

  Hearings for appellants from north Wales have always been held at Chester. From January 1996, the number of hearings at Chester will be doubled.

  My Department keeps the service provided to appellants in Wales, as elsewhere, under review.

  Mr. Wardell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the sites in Wales at which the Court Service's pensions appeal tribunals (England and Wales) were held prior to May 1995. [5764]

  Mr. Evans
  Prior to May 1995, the pensions appeal tribunals conducted hearings at the premises of the independent tribunal service at Oxford house, Hill street, the Hayes, Cardiff.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what work his Department has done to develop best practice in the publication of departmental procurement guidance material relevant to small and medium enterprises' needs. [6604]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  In June 1995 the Department issued its procurement manual to all departmental purchasing officers. This contains advice on identifying suppliers and directs purchasing staff to seek assistance from trade journals and magazines, business and trade directories, trade associations and professional organisations, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, local enterprise agencies and small firms organisations such as the Alliance of Small Firms and Self Employed People, the National Federation of the Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd., the Small Firms Council and the CBI.

  In addition, the manual contains comprehensive information about the special contracts arrangement, a Government scheme aimed at helping workshops for disabled persons compete for government contracts.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress his Department has made regarding establishing a contact point with responsibility for liaison with relevant business support organisations and taking forward small and medium enterprise related public procurement initiatives. [6710]

  Mr. Evans
  The Department's procurement unit is the contact point for all such matters. The publication "Government Opportunities" is one way in which contact details are publicised to potential suppliers, including small and medium enterprises.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what meetings his Department has had since May 1995 with organisations representing small firms to review tendering procedures. [6605]
  1014
  Mr. Evans
  None.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what advice has been given to procurement staff on the implications of purchasing from small and medium enterprises. [6606]

  Mr. Evans
  The following guidance has been issued."Size may be relevant to the selection of tenderers, but only insofar as it is necessary to assess whether or not the job is within their capability. Once that assessment has been made, relative size is likely to be less significant than skills. efficiency, experience and reliability—characteristics relevant to value for money but just as likely to be found in small firms as in large and particularly relevant in the procurement of services".

  Benzodiazepine
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many representations he has received since 1990 from(a) hon. Members, (b) health groups, (c) individuals and (d) legal representatives regarding benzodiazepine litigation and the withdrawal of legal aid certificates. [6321]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My predecessor and I have received many representations about this case from a number of different sources, including those mentioned.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he or his departmental officials last discussed the benzodiazepine litigation with(a) the legal aid board, (b) the Benzodiazepine Solicitors Group and (c) the Lord Chief Justice. [6328]

  Mr. Evans
  My predecessor and I, and our officials, have been frequently in touch with the legal aid board and interested solicitors about the policy implications of these actions. There have been no discussions on this matter with the Lord Chief Justice.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many legal aid certificates are presently in force in respect of benzodiazepine litigation; and if he will make a statement. [6327]

  Mr. Evans
  None.

  Departmental Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the amount owed to those businesses whose invoices were not paid within 30 days or within agreed contractual arrangements for 1994–95. [6510]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could he provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) orders and (b) firms arc represented by the percentage of invoices not paid by his Department within 30 days in 1994–95. [6491]

  Mr. Evans
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could he provided only at disproportionate cost.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what response there has been to the consultation on the proposals for commercial borrowing by grant-maintained schools. [7662]

  Mrs. Gillan
  One hundred and fourteen responses to the consultation on commercial borrowing for GM schools were received. Of the responses which gave a view on the principle of commercial borrowing, 75 per cent. were in favour, including 80 per cent. of grant-maintained schools which responded. I have today deposited a policy briefing sheet summarising the responses in the Library.

  School Inspections
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on future school inspection arrangements once the current four-year cycle has been completed. [7663]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The inspection system is achieving its intended purpose: to make schools focus on areas that require improvement and to provide information to parents on the performance of their children's schools. Over 5,000 schools have already been inspected by the Office for Standards in Education under the current four-year inspection cycle. But we are more than halfway through the first cycle for secondary schools and well into the primary cycle and now need to consider the future.

  The first cycle of inspection will establish a clear baseline for all schools. That was essential, and the Government will continue to ensure that all schools are inspected regularly. But having completed this necessary universal audit, it may be less necessary to inspect every school in the same depth and frequency in the next cycle.

  Having consulted Her Majesty's chief inspector, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is minded to favour a more targeted approach in the second cycle of inspections. The practical issues associated with this will need to be carefully considered. She has invited Her Majesty's chief inspector to advise her, by 31 January 1996, on a range of possible options for adjusting the timing and intensity of inspections to the needs of particular schools. In the light of his advice she will make a further announcement before Easter.

  Suffolk Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress Suffolk TEC is making in meeting the criteria for the award of a three-year licence. [7664]

  Mr. Paice
  I am pleased to announce the award of a three-year licence to Suffolk TEC which has now completed the process of meeting the rigorous standards we set.

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the Student Loans Company appointed a new chief executive. [7665]
  1016
  Mr. Forth
  Mr. Colin Ward, currently assistant managing director of the Student Loans Company, has accepted the post of chief executive with effect from 1 January 1996.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the Student Loans Company appointed a new assessor; and if she will publish his terms of reference. [7667]

  Mr. Forth
  Mr. Graham Chandler, retired registrar of the university of Nottingham, has agreed to become the independent assessor for the Student Loans Company from 1 January 1996. I am placing details of his terms of reference in the Library.

  Schools (Capital Allocations)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on capital allocations for local education authority maintained schools for 1996–97. [7668]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Local education authorities have today been informed of their annual capital guidelines for schools which, together with supplementary credit approvals, will total £458 million in 1996–97. They have also been informed of the allocations for spending by the governors of voluntary-aided and special agreement schools in their areas—the overall grant to be made available in 1996–97 will be £100 million.

  ACGs do not represent the full total of funds available to LEAs for capital expenditure. Authorities arc also able to spend additional sums from capital receipts and from their revenue budgets if they so choose.

  Local authorities have received considerable resources in the last few years for building work at schools. The substantial sum available in 1996–97 is a 7.5 per cent. increase on the £426 million available in the current year and should enable local authorities to continue to make significant progress in improving the building stock.

  The reserve held back for subsequent issue as supplementary credit approvals includes a substantial sum, £30 million to £40 million, for a new challenge fund which will be allocated towards innovative capital projects involving contributions from other bodies, including the private sector. The Department will be consulting shortly on the criteria against which bids to the challenge fund will be assessed.

  In distributing ACGs, I have again given priority to the second and third year expenditure on work covered by ACGs in previous years; projects to provide new school places in areas of population growth—"Basic Need"—and projects to remove surplus places. For 1996–97, we arc allocating a historically high level of cover for commitments£282 million. We are also providing £90 million for basic need—a level of cover equal to 1995–96.

  Of the total of £100 million grant for voluntary-aided schools, £62 million has been allocated for capital work and £38 million has been set aside for repairs. The figure of £62 million represents a very healthy 7 per cent. increase in funds available for capital work. More funds have had to he set aside for committed projects this year than in 1995–96 and allocations for basic need are also

  1017
  much higher than in previous years. I am pleased to announced 35 new major projects for the starts list and 27 projects for the design list.

  Some £42 million of the ACG total will be allocated in the form of SCAs to LEAs during the course of the year. This figure includes provision for the challenge fund.

  Details of individual LEA's ACGs and grant allocations have been placed in the Library.

  Data (National Security Certificates)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what occasions certificates under section 27 of the Data Protection Act 1984 were signed by members of her Department; for how long each certificate was valid; and in what circumstances employment records can be used for the purpose of safeguarding national security. [5341]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I am aware of one such certificate so far as the Department for Education and Employment is concerned. Disclosing details of such certificates would itself not be in the interest of national security.

  Classroom Certificates
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many classroom assistants were employed in(a) England and (b) each of the seven counties of the south-west in (i) 1992 and (ii) the latest year for which figures are available. [5350]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information is shown in the following table:

  Full-time equivalent numbers of education support staff1 in maintained schools2 for England and in each local education authority area of the South West: 1992 and 1995

  1992

  31995

  Position in January each year

  Avon

  1,326

  1,544

  Cornwall

  748

  1,065

  Devon

  1,312

  1,730

  Dorset

  608

  800

  Gloucestershire

  609

  736

  Isles of Scilly

  3

  2

  Somerset

  748

  1,043

  Wiltshire

  701

  959

  England

  63,711

  81,910

  1Nursery assistants, special needs support staff and other support staff including librarians, technicians, medical staff and child care assistants.

  2Maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools.

  3Provisional.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much has been spent on furnishing and decorating ministerial offices in his Department in each of the last three years. [5560]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Expenditure on furnishing and decorating ministerial offices in both the former Employment Department and the former Department for Education in each of the last three years is included in running cost expenditure, as published in the respective 1018
  annual reports. It is not always possible to disaggregate the specific costs for a small number of rooms from the overall cost of refurbishing a whole floor of a building.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much her Department spent on official hospitality in 1994–95 and in the financial year to date; and what is the 1995–96 projected budget for official hospitality. [5577]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In 1994–95 the cost of official hospitality, which was included in the running cost budget for the Department, was £99,004. Of this, £73,643 was attributable to the former Department for Education and £25,361 to the former Department of Employment.

  For the combined Department for Education and Employment the figure for the financial year to date is £61,000 with expenditure for the year as a whole projected to be £90,000.

  Telephone Hotlines
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what telephone hotlines are run by her Department; when each was set up; how much each costs annually to run; how many calls each has received to date; and what is the average cost of each call received. [5771]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department for Education and Employment does not operate any hotlines. However, the Department does run a small number of lines providing publicity and information to members of the public. To provide this information would incur disproportionate cost.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many colleges of further education there are currently in the United Kingdom. [6071]

  Mr. Paice
  I am responsible for further education in England only. However, I understand that there are currently a total of 545 colleges of further education in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many colleges of further education in the United Kingdom have been transferred from local education authority control to management by incorporated bodies. [6073]

  Mr. Paice
  I am responsible for further education in England only. However, I understood that, of the 545 colleges of further education in the United Kingdom, 488 have been transferred from local education authority control to management by incorporated bodies.

  Staff-student Ratios
  Mr. Robin Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the current average staff to student ratio in primary, junior, further and higher education in (i) 1985, (ii) 1992, and (iii) the latest available date. [6552]
  1019
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information is shown in the following table:

  Pupil: Teacher/student: Staff ratios in primacy and junior schools and further and higher education in England in 1984–85, 1991–92 and at the latest available date

  (of which)

  Academic year

  Primary schools

  Junior schools

  Further education

  Higher education

  1984–85

  22.2

  22.4

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  22.2

  22.7

  n/a

  14.6

  1993–94

  —

  —

  15.4

  16.5

  1994–95

  22.9

  23.1

  —

  —

  n/a = not available

  Advertising
  Mr Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the expenditure of her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title for each year since 1990–91; and what estimate she has made for 1995–96 based on expenditure to date and existing plans. [6563]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested by the hon. Member could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Research Projects (Sunderland)
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list all former Department for Employment/Employment Department Group, and former Department for Education and Department for Education and Employment funded pilots, trials and research studies which have been conducted since 1989 in(a) the city of Sunderland, (b) Wearside district, (c) the Sunderland travel-to-work district and (d) Sunderland local education authority identifying (i) the title, summary and duration of the pilot/trial, (ii) the target population and the total number of participants and (iii) whether each pilot, trial or research finding was published and if she will indicate the date of publication; and if she will make a statement on other non-Department of Employment/Employment Department Group, Department of Education and Department for Education and Employment research bodies, or organisations involved in each pilot, trial or research scheme. [6304]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following information is available about research projects which fall within the hon. Member's definition:

  TITLE: "COUNTY DURHAM TEC INVESTORS IN PEOPLE TRAINING EVALUATION TOOLKIT" (NAME SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGED TO DURHAM EVALUATION SYSTEM)

  Summary
  This development project developed and piloted an effective. practical generic training evaluation toolkit, so that companies can easily and accurately assess and understand the effectiveness of their training investment in terms of their business objectives, development of people. and the development of their organisations. The specific outputs of the projects were a concept paper. a specification. a prototype paper-based evaluation system and a pilot using three companies within County Durham.
  1020
  Target population
  The target population was employers interested in Investors in People Standard, principally within County Durham. but the project outcomes were made available to TECs/employers outside the area including Wearside.

  Total number of participants
  Three companies took part in the pilot scheme (Liz Dargue Stafing; Tornado; and Seaward)

  Date of Publication
  Report published June 1993

  Other organisations involved
  This project was a joint development by the [then Training Enterprise and Education Directorate of the] former Employment Department, County Durham TEC and Rubicon Associates.

  TITLE: "OPEN LEARNING" CREDITS

  Summary
  The "Open Learning" Credits pilots were a White Paper initiative to trial the use of open learning for adult unemployed people. There were 14 pilots in all of which 11 were in England, two in Scotland and one in Wales. One of the English pilots was based at Wearside TEC (later renamed Sunderland City TEC).

  Duration
  The pilots were carried out in 1993–94.

  Target population and number of participants
  The target population was unemployed adults. About 100 learners participated in the pilot at Wearside TEC.

  Publication of Findings
  A national evaluation report for the Open Learning Credits was published and copies are placed in the Library.

  Other organisations involved in the pilots
  The British Association for Open Learning managed the pilots.
  The Policy Studies Institute carried out the evaluation of the pilots.

  TITLE: "TAKING TRAINING TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES" (SUNDERLAND)

  Summary
  This was one of the four pilot projects (the others were in Bradford Lewisham and Wandsworth) operating in housing estates which set out to investigate and demonstrate new ways to encourage and help develop their skills. The Sunderland project was a mobile service operating from a van displaying a range of open learning materials, with a project officer who helped steer people towards Open Learning or other provision. and helped set up training courses for groups with similar needs.

  Duration
  The project was funded for 15 months.

  Target population
  People living on housing estates with high unemployment. Women returning to the labour market were specifically targeted.

  Total number of participants
  Approximately 250 clients registered with the project, hut the informal nature of the service meant that this take-up figure is an estimate. It is not known how many of those who came into contact with the project, and who did not take up Open Learning. went on to do other training.

  Date of publication
  The project was summarised in the Employment Department's report "Taking Training to Local Communities". published in 1993.

  Other organisations involved
  The contractor for the project was the library service of the Council. which provided the main open learning resource. Sunderland Open Learning (SOL) arranged open learning

  1021
  support. The day to day management of the project was shared between SOL and the library service. Wearside TEC (now Sunderland City TEC) paid the project officer's salary, including a six month extension beyond the Department's support.

  TITLE: "YOUTH DROP-OUT RESEARCH PROJECT"

  Summary
  This project examines the experience of young people in the Ford and Pennywell area of Sunderland as they make the transition from school to the world of work and training. The project was funded from the Employment Service Programme Development Fund with additional support from the Ford and Pennywell Advice Centre (Sunderland).

  Duration
  The project lasted one year during 1994–95

  Target population and number of participants
  The target population was young people between 16 and 24. Two hundred and fifty young people in Sunderland were interviewed by the researcher.

  Date of publication
  The report was published in October 1995 by the Youth Work Press. Copyright resides with the publishers (Youth Workshop Press).

  Other organisations involved
  Dr. Clive Wilkinson, currently Rural Development Officer for the Community Council of Northumberland, carried out the research. Ford and Pennywell Advice Centre (Sunderland) provided part funding

  TITLE: "LOCAL SUPPORT FOR TRAINING DEVELOPMENT—NORTH EAST ENGLAND"

  Summary
  The project piloted ways of helping trainers, managers and TEC advisors to use computer based information exchange as a way of providing mutual help in dealing with training problems and opportunities. Sunderland TEC was one of five TECs involved in this project.

  Duration
  10 months, from September 1994 to July 1995.

  Target population
  Trainers, managers and TEC advisors.

  Date of publication
  Report published as "Local Computer Support for Training Development" by Sandra Corlett, August 1995. The report is obtainable from Newcastle University or the Department (Trainer Development Team).

  Other organisations involved
  The work was contracted with the Northern Regional Management Centre in Washington. The co-ordination work has been moved to Newcastle University.
  Note: Sunderland City TEC (formerly Wearside TEC) will have been involved in other pilots, trials and research studies, however information on these is not available centrally.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many people, after leaving (i) the adult employment subsidy scheme, (ii) the employment action scheme, (iii) the job creation programme, (iv) the job interview guarantee scheme, (v) the job review workshops scheme, (vi) the job splitting scheme, (vii) the job search seminars scheme, (viii) the job training programme, (ix) the job training scheme. (x) the jobplan workshops programme, (xi) the learning for work scheme, (xii) the new workers scheme, (xiii) the old training scheme, (xiv) the recruitment subsidy for school leavers scheme. (xv) the voluntary projects 1022
  programme, (xvi) the work experience programme. (xvii) the workstart pilots scheme, (xviii) the wider opportunities training programme, (xix) the youth employment subsidy scheme between 1976 and 1978 and (xx) the young workers scheme (a) went into work. (b) went into further employment schemes and (c) became unemployed; [6423]

  (2) how many people took part in (i) the adult employment subsidy scheme, (ii) the employment action scheme, (iii) the job creation programme, (iv) the job interview guarantee scheme, (v) the job review workshops scheme, (vi) the job splitting scheme, (vii) the job search seminars scheme, (viii) the job training programme, (ix) the job training scheme, (x) the jobplan workshops programme, (xi) the learning for work scheme, (xii) the new workers scheme, (xiii) the old job training scheme, (xiv) the recruitment subsidy for school leavers scheme, (xv) the voluntary projects programme, (xvi) the work experience programme, (xvii) the workstart pilots scheme, (xviii) the wider opportunities training programme, (xix) the youth employment subsidy scheme between 1976 and 1978 and (xx) the young workers scheme in each year of each scheme's operation including those who left before completion of the scheme; [6427]

  (3) how many persons left (i) the adult employment subsidy scheme, (ii) the employment action scheme, (iii) the job creation programme, (iv) the job interview guarantee scheme, (v) the job review workshops scheme, (vi) the job splitting scheme, (vii) the job training programme, (ix) the job training scheme, (x) the jobplan workshops programme, (xi) the learning for work scheme, (xii) the new workers scheme, (xiii) the old job training scheme, (xiv) the recruitment subsidy for school leavers scheme, (xv) the voluntary projects programme, (xvi) the work experience programme, (xvii) the workstart pilots scheme, (xviii) the wider opportunities training programme, (xix) the youth employment subsidy scheme between 1976 and 1978 and (xx) the young workers scheme (a) in each year of each scheme's operation and (b) for each year as a percentage of the total numbers leaving all schemes; [6425]

  (4) what type and level of qualification each leaver obtained from (i) the adult employment subsidy scheme. (ii) the employment action scheme, (iii) the job creation programme, (iv) the job interview guarantee scheme. (v) the job review workshops scheme, (vi) the job splitting scheme, (vii) the job search seminars scheme. (viii) the job training programme, (ix) the job training scheme, (x) the jobplan workshops programme, (xi) the learning for work scheme, (xii) the new workers scheme, (xiii) the old job training scheme, (xiv) the recruitment subsidy for school leavers scheme, (xv) the voluntary projects programme, (xvi) the work experience programme, (xvii) the workstart pilots scheme, (xviii) the wider opportunities training programme, (xix) the youth employment subsidy scheme between 1976 and 1978 and (xx) the young workers scheme; and in each case how many failed to obtain any qualification. [6424]

  Mr. Paice
  As the reply will consist of a large amount of data, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total Government
  1023
  expenditure on (i) the adult employment subsidy scheme, (ii) the employment action scheme, (iii) the job creation programme, (iv) the job interview guarantee scheme, (v) the job review workshops scheme, (vi) the job splitting scheme, (vii) the job search seminars scheme, (viii) the job training programme, (ix) the job training scheme, (x) the jobplan workshops programme, (xi) the learning for work scheme, (xii) the new workers scheme, (xiii) the old job training scheme, (xiv) the recruitment subsidy for

  £million

  1975–76

  1976–77

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  Adult Employment Subsidy

  0.2

  0.4

  Employment Action1

  Job Creation Programme

  1.2

  34.7

  72.6

  76.9

  4.9

  0.5

  0.1

  Job Interview Guarantee3+

  Job Review+

  Job Splitting Scheme+

  Jobsearch Seminars+

  Job Training Programme4

  New Job Training Scheme

  Jobplan Work-shops+

  Learning for Work

  New Workers Scheme+

  Old Job Training Scheme4

  Recruitment for School Leavers Subsidy

  0.8

  2.1

  Voluntary Projects Programme

  Work Experience Programme

  12.8

  Workstart+

  Wider Opportunities for Training

  Youth Employment Subsidy+

  0.6

  5.0

  3.7

  Young Workers Scheme+

  £million

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Adult Employment Subsidy

  Employment Action2

  Job Creation Programme

  4.1

  Job Interview Guarantee3+

  Job Review+

  Job Splitting Scheme+

  0.1

  0.3

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.4

  Jobsearch Seminars+

  Job Training Programme4

  311.1

  240.7

  232.9

  219.4

  286.2

  272.3

  New Job Training Scheme

  0.9

  66.9

  Jobplan Work-shops+

  Learning for Work

  New Workers Scheme+

  9.1

  15.0

  4.4

  Old Job Training Scheme4

  Recruitment for School Leavers Subsidy

  Voluntary Projects Programme

  0.2

  5.5

  9.9

  11.5

  14.5

  13.4

  12.4

  Work Experience Programme

  Workstart+

  Wider Opportunities for Training

  11.9

  16.1

  22.2

  26.0

  Youth Employment Subsidy+

  Young Workers Scheme+

  40.7

  58.3

  41.3

  32.4

  17.8

  0.5

  £million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–961

  Adult Employment Subsidy

  Employment Action2

  16.3

  137.3

  Job Creation Programme

  Job Interview Guarantee3+

  0.9

  1.1

  3.3

  1.0

  1.3

  Job Review+

  1.3

  3.8

  3.4

  2.6

  3.2

  Job Splitting Scheme+

  Jobsearch Seminars+

  2.4

  5.0

  4.7

  4.3

  4.9

  Job Training Programme4

  New Job Training Scheme

  Jobplan Work-shops+

  35.3

  28.5

  16.8

  Learning for Work

  12.0

  8.2

  1024
  school leavers scheme, (xv) the voluntary projects programme, (xvi) the work experience programme, (xvii) the workstart pilots scheme, (xviii) the wider opportunities training programme, (xix) the youth employment subsidy scheme between 1976 and 1978 and (xx) the young workers scheme in each year of each scheme's operation. [6422]

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is given in the following table:
  1025

  £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–961

  New Workers Scheme+

  Old Job Training Scheme4

  Recruitment for School Leavers Subsidy

  Voluntary Projects Programme

  Work Experience Programme

  Workstart+

  Wider Opportunities for Training

  0.2

  1.4

  5.5

  Youth Employment Subsidy+

  Young Workers Scheme+

  1Figures for 1995-96 are planned provision. Figures for previous years are actual outturn.

  2Figures for Employment Action are for England and Scotland.

  3Part of the expenditure on the Job Interview Guarantee scheme is funded through the Employment Services's overall running costs budget. which includes expenditure on a number of other functions.

  4The Job Training Programme was a generic name which covered a range of separate programmes including the Old Job Training Scheme. 1. Figures up to and including 1991 are for GB. 1991-92 in expenditure for England and Wales. For 1992-93 onwards in England only. Figures for programmes marked + are GB.

  Nursery Education
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many children under the age of five years have(a) a full-time and (b) part-time place in (i) reception classes in school, (ii) nursery classes in schools and (iii) nursery schools by local education authority area; [6524]

  (2) what percentage of children under the age of five years has (a) a full-time and (b) a part-time place in (i) reception classes in schools, (ii) nursery classes in schools and (iii) nursery schools by local education authority area. [6523]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Pupils aged under five years of age1 2in nursery and primary schools

  Position as at January 1995 (provisional)

  Nursery schools

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Number

  Percent.

  Number

  Percent.

  Camden

  40

  1

  21

  1

  Greenwich

  330

  5

  317

  5

  Hackney

  62

  1

  87

  1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  310

  8

  244

  7

  Islington

  147

  3

  172

  3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  174

  6

  75

  2

  Lambeth

  190

  2

  260

  3

  Lewisham

  100

  1

  131

  2

  Southwark

  216

  3

  319

  4

  Tower Hamlets

  451

  8

  270

  5

  Wandsworth

  112

  2

  104

  2

  Westminster

  52

  1

  138

  4

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Barnet

  26

  —

  549

  7

  Bexley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brent

  222

  3

  1

  —

  Bromley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Croydon

  0

  0

  499

  5

  Ealing

  20

  —

  434

  5

  Enfield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Haringey

  163

  3

  60

  1

  Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Havering

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  0

  0

  120

  2

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kingston upon Thames

  58

  2

  184

  5

  Merton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1026

  Pupils aged under five years of age1 2in nursery and primary schools

  Position as at January 1995 (provisional)

  Nursery schools

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Number

  Percent.

  Number

  Percent.

  Newham

  80

  1

  879

  10

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Richmond upon Thames

  8

  —

  60

  1

  Sutton

  0

  0

  240

  5

  Waltham Forest

  33

  —

  275

  4

  Birmingham

  788

  2

  1,623

  5

  Coventry

  17

  —

  124

  1

  Dudley

  9

  —

  61

  1

  Sandwell

  73

  1

  55

  1

  Solihull

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Walsall

  73

  1

  766

  10

  Wolverhampton

  0

  0

  848

  12

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  193

  1

  371

  3

  St. Helens

  0

  0

  80

  2

  Sefton

  1

  —

  317

  4

  Wirral

  13

  —

  306

  3

  Bolton

  31

  —

  460

  6

  Bury

  51

  1

  108

  2

  Manchester

  404

  3

  138

  1

  Oldham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  47

  1

  865

  13

  Salford

  532

  8

  543

  8

  Stockport

  80

  1

  856

  11

  Tameside

  0

  0

  281

  4

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wigan

  3

  —

  187

  2

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  181

  3

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  403

  6

  Sheffield

  140

  1

  711

  5

  Bradford

  179

  1

  342

  2

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  0

  0

  548

  5

  Leeds

  0

  0

  77

  —

  Wakefield

  0

  0

  481

  5

  Gateshead

  3

  —

  70

  1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  588

  8

  34

  —

  North Tyneside

  46

  1

  180

  4

  South Tyneside

  10

  —

  444

  11

  Sunderland

  38

  —

  1,004

  12

  Avon

  698

  3

  1,101

  4

  Bedfordshire

  316

  2

  1,160

  7

  Berkshire

  129

  1

  2,074

  10

  Buckinghamshire

  O

  0

  571

  3

  Cambridge

  18

  —

  716

  4

  1027

  Pupils aged under five years of age1 2in nursery and primary schools

  Position as at January 1995 (provisional)

  Nursery schools

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Number

  Percent.

  Number

  Percent.

  Cheshire

  40

  —

  829

  3

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  154

  0

  Cornwall3

  24

  —

  87

  1

  Cumbria

  1

  —

  816

  7

  Derbyshire

  138

  1

  1,435

  6

  Devon

  46

  —

  269

  1

  Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Durham

  2

  —

  269

  1

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  258

  2

  Essex

  0

  0

  300

  1

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  1

  —

  338

  1

  Hertfordshire

  41

  —

  1,702

  6

  Humberside

  219

  1

  944

  4

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  0

  83

  —

  Lancashire

  24

  —

  3,640

  9

  Position as at January 1995 (provisional)

  Primary schools

  Nursery classes

  Infant classes

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Camden

  446

  11

  509

  12

  1,014

  25

  1

  —

  Greenwich

  284

  4

  2,351

  35

  1,012

  15

  12

  —

  Hackney

  784

  12

  1,388

  21

  1,587

  24

  0

  0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  558

  15

  609

  16

  568

  15

  0

  0

  Islington

  949

  19

  626

  12

  1,459

  29

  7

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  412

  13

  196

  6

  380

  12

  5

  —

  Lambeth

  560

  7

  1,451

  19

  975

  12

  43

  1

  Lewisham

  404

  6

  2,027

  28

  1,069

  15

  62

  1

  Southwark

  697

  9

  1,865

  25

  2,113

  29

  7

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  1,594

  28

  1,041

  18

  1,695

  29

  10

  —

  Wandsworth

  859

  13

  1,317

  19

  1,624

  24

  0

  0

  Westminster

  439

  11

  554

  14

  568

  15

  6

  —

  Barking and Dagenham

  2

  —

  2,052

  46

  1,623

  36

  0

  0

  Barnet

  4

  —

  2,091

  25

  2,156

  26

  49

  1

  Bexley

  0

  0

  1,442

  23

  2,052

  33

  22

  —

  Brent

  702

  10

  1,675

  24

  1,974

  28

  0

  0

  Bromley

  0

  0

  172

  2

  2,385

  34

  0

  0

  Croydon

  0

  0

  1,512

  16

  2,877

  30

  6

  —

  Ealing

  1

  —

  3,264

  41

  2,424

  30

  2

  —

  Enfield

  0

  0

  1,663

  21

  2,366

  31

  23

  —

  Haringey

  511

  8

  2,008

  32

  1,846

  30

  2

  —

  Harrow

  0

  0

  1,009

  18

  1,626

  29

  0

  0

  Havering

  17

  —

  478

  9

  1.983

  36

  1

  —

  Hillingdon

  0

  0

  3,234

  47

  31

  —

  56

  1

  Hounslow

  1

  —

  2,362

  40

  1,724

  29

  1

  —

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  0

  967

  28

  500

  14

  538

  15

  Merton

  19

  —

  2,694

  55

  777

  16

  206

  4

  Newham

  62

  1

  3,434

  40

  1,280

  15

  0

  0

  Redbridge

  34

  1

  1,292

  20

  1,216

  19

  181

  3

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  670

  16

  57

  1

  1,057

  26

  Sutton

  1

  —

  1,726

  36

  61

  1

  3

  —

  Waltham Forest

  91

  1

  2,314

  33

  1,033

  15

  11

  —

  Birmingham

  1,869

  6

  6,669

  21

  9,933

  31

  86

  —

  Coventry

  31

  —

  1,953

  22

  2,786

  32

  2

  —

  Dudley

  74

  1

  2,918

  35

  2,707

  33

  0

  0

  Sandwell

  131

  2

  4,406

  51

  2,840

  33

  0

  0

  Solihull

  1

  —

  1,879

  36

  1,949

  38

  0

  0

  1028

  Pupils aged under five years of age1 2 in nursery and primary schools

  Position as January 1995 (Provisional)

  Nursery schools

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  51

  —

  Lincolnshire

  61

  —

  470

  3

  Norfolk

  3

  —

  401

  2

  North Yorkshire

  1

  —

  372

  2

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  616

  4

  Northumberland

  36

  —

  92

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  6

  —

  589

  2

  Oxfordshire

  70

  —

  1,009

  6

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  176

  2

  Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  610

  2

  1,467

  5

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  101

  1

  Surrey

  90

  —

  338

  1

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  759

  6

  West Sussex

  15

  —

  419

  2

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  England3 4

  8,702

  1

  43,856

  3

  1029

  Position as at January 1995 (provisional)

  Primary schools

  Nursery classes

  Infant classes

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Walsall

  61

  1

  3,496

  47

  2,464

  33

  1

  —

  Wolverhampton

  1

  —

  3,049

  42

  2,262

  31

  0

  0

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  3,003

  62

  1,673

  34

  6

  —

  Liverpool

  708

  5

  4,990

  36

  4,483

  33

  0

  0

  St. Helens

  0

  0

  1,605

  33

  1,574

  33

  0

  0

  Sefton

  0

  0

  2,440

  32

  2,506

  33

  1

  —

  Wirral

  0

  0

  1,954

  22

  2,932

  33

  1

  —

  Bolton

  369

  5

  2,325

  30

  2,617

  33

  1

  —

  Bury

  176

  3

  1,203

  24

  1,595

  31

  0

  0

  Manchester

  4,283

  31

  2,756

  20

  2,423

  17

  6

  —

  Oldham

  957

  14

  1,501

  22

  2,235

  33

  1

  —

  Rochdale

  94

  1

  1,139

  17

  2,112

  32

  0

  0

  Salford

  1,662

  25

  794

  12

  2,264

  34

  0

  0

  Stockport

  1

  —

  1,145

  15

  2,482

  32

  1

  —

  Tameside

  7

  —

  2,280

  35

  2,133

  33

  2

  —

  Trafford

  2

  —

  2,524

  43

  1,919

  32

  0

  0

  Wigan

  0

  0

  1,986

  23

  2,700

  31

  32

  —

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  2,812

  45

  1,090

  18

  11

  —

  Doncaster

  55

  1

  3,612

  44

  2,817

  34

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  121

  2

  2,803

  39

  1,160

  16

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  236

  2

  4,613

  34

  2,096

  15

  342

  2

  Bradford

  176

  1

  5,789

  39

  3,933

  26

  202

  1

  Calderdale

  264

  5

  1,682

  31

  1,866

  34

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  1

  —

  3,889

  35

  3,509

  32

  0

  0

  Leeds

  109

  1

  9,061

  46

  5,695

  29

  35

  —

  Wakefield

  14

  —

  4,349

  49

  1,678

  19

  92

  1

  Gateshead

  10

  —

  1,791

  35

  1,623

  32

  30

  1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  768

  10

  1,527

  20

  2,263

  30

  26

  —

  North Tyneside

  45

  1

  2,423

  50

  1,681

  35

  1

  —

  South Tyneside

  4

  —

  1,777

  42

  1,336

  32

  52

  1

  Sunderland

  4

  —

  2,401

  29

  2,611

  31

  0

  0

  Avon

  252

  1

  3,182

  13

  7,924

  32

  6

  —

  Bedfordshire

  436

  3

  3,308

  20

  2,331

  14

  587

  4

  Berkshire

  198

  1

  4,459

  21

  695

  3

  82

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  0

  2,469

  13

  1,064

  6

  2.036

  11

  Cambridge

  11

  —

  1,486

  8

  5,812

  31

  30

  —

  Cheshire

  10

  —

  4,604

  18

  8,320

  32

  3

  —

  Cleveland

  4

  —

  9,364

  59

  5,236

  33

  5

  —

  Cornwall3

  4

  —

  1,551

  14

  1,990

  18

  1,627

  14

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  2,224

  18

  4,058

  33

  8

  —

  Derbyshire

  274

  1

  7,858

  31

  4,381

  17

  1,387

  5

  Devon

  112

  —

  2,585

  10

  4,125

  16

  115

  —

  Dorset

  0

  0

  841

  5

  1,170

  8

  3,830

  25

  Durham

  1

  —

  4,644

  29

  5,110

  32

  2

  —

  East Sussex

  1

  —

  1,366

  8

  2,480

  15

  2,706

  16

  Essex

  108

  —

  2,278

  6

  7,424

  18

  1,270

  3

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  27

  —

  4,592

  32

  24

  —

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  1,638

  4

  10,653

  25

  2.992

  7

  Hereford and Worcester

  130

  1

  1,552

  9

  2,908

  16

  45

  —

  Hertfordshire

  11

  —

  7,769

  28

  4,761

  17

  613

  2

  Humberside

  696

  3

  7,384

  30

  5,380

  12

  20

  —

  Isle of Wight

  1

  —

  174

  6

  922

  34

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  0

  2,125

  5

  10,429

  25

  3,080

  8

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  4,466

  11

  12,865

  33

  2

  —

  Leicestershire

  1,607

  6

  3,612

  14

  4,241

  17

  521

  2

  Lincolnshire

  40

  —

  1,496

  10

  4,905

  33

  7

  —

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  857

  5

  3,812

  21

  1,834

  10

  North Yorkshire

  112

  1

  3,400

  19

  5,103

  29

  259

  1

  Northamptonshire

  27

  —

  2,402

  14

  5,473

  32

  5

  —

  Northumberland

  7

  —

  2,916

  40

  2,492

  34

  6

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  263

  1

  12,906

  47

  1,946

  7

  153

  1

  Oxfordshire

  64

  —

  2,084

  12

  906

  5

  411

  2

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  1,844

  17

  1,803

  16

  324

  3

  1030 1031

  Position as at January 1995 (provisional)

  Primary schools

  Nursery classes

  Infant classes

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Somerset

  3

  —

  584

  5

  3.895

  33

  6

  —

  Staffordshire

  1,444

  5

  3,532

  13

  9,021

  32

  47

  —

  Suffolk

  1

  —

  2,976

  17

  2,503

  14

  88

  —

  Surrey

  9

  —

  2,626

  10

  4,574

  17

  2,504

  9

  Warwickshire

  2

  —

  1,423

  11

  4,225

  33

  3

  —

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  811

  5

  2,960

  17

  51

  —

  Wiltshire

  3

  —

  574

  4

  3,276

  20

  112

  1

  England3 4

  27,514

  2

  275,948

  21

  313,781

  24

  30,043

  2

  1 Excludes pupils who became five years of age by 1 January.

  2 The number of pupils under five years is expressed as a percentage of the estimated population aged three and four at 31 December.

  3 Includes Isles of Scilly.

  4 Includes Corporation of London.

  —Less than 0.05.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the levels of public expenditure on education for children under school age in(a) Denmark, (b) France and (c) the United Kingdom, (i) in total, (ii) per child under school age, (iii) as a percentage of the national gross domestic product and (iv) as a percentage of total public spending in each country. [6522]

  Mr. Squire
  International comparisons of expenditure on early childhood education are difficult to make because of the need to ensure consistent definitions across countries. Compulsory schooling begins in the UK one year earlier than in France and two years earlier than in

  Public expenditure1 on early childhood education, 1992

  Total public expenditure on early childhood education in publicly funded schools (£ million)

  Public expenditure per FTE2 pupil in early childhood education in publicly funded schools (£ per pupil)3

  Public expenditure on early childhood education as a percentage of GDP

  Public expenditure on early childhood education as a percentage of total public expenditure

  Denmark4

  399

  2,790

  0.7

  1.2

  France

  3,900

  1,530

  0.6

  1.1

  United Kingdom5

  484

  2,040

  0.1

  0.2

  Source:

  DfEE estimates based on data supplied to OECD by individual countries for the publication "Education at a Glance". OECD April 1995.

  Notes:

  1 Recurrent and capital expenditure, but excluding loan charges.

  2 Each part-time pupil is counted as 0.5 full-time equivalents.

  3 Rounded to the nearest £10.

  4 From 1992, includes expenditure on all pupils aged three to five. Prior to 1992. such pupils were excluded.

  5 From 1992, for international comparison purposes only, the UK has regarded early childhood education as covering only pupils in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools. Prior to 1992, all pupils below compulsory school age were included in this category.

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to end Government funding for the access to work scheme. [6429]

  Mr. Paice
  I refer the hon. Member to an announcement made on 14 December by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton),Official Report, column 738. This makes it clear that the funding planned for next year will be maintained.
  1032
  Denmark. Total spending on the education of children under school age in these countries is therefore likely to be higher than in the UK. In addition, UK figures exclude expenditure on primary provision in infant and reception classes which account for approximately half of all pupils below compulsory school age in this country.

  There are particular differences making comparisons over time because of changes in countries' programmes and policies and in some international definitions.

  The latest available estimates based on information provided by individual countries to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are shown in the table:

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to introduce an employers' contribution to the access to work scheme. [6428]

  Mr. Paice
  I refer the hon. Member to an announcement made on 14 December by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Tatton.Official Report, column 738. This explains that discussions will he held about the future operation of the programme.
  1033
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many disabled people are currently in employment following involvement in the access to work scheme. [6430]

  Mr. Paice
  Over 9,000 disabled people have been helped by the access to work programme since April 1995. Help is provided only to disabled people who need help to get or retain work. Of those helped, over 80 per cent. were already in employment when they applied for assistance.

  Discretionary Grants
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will fund further research into the discretionary grants policy of local education authorities. [6934]

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

  Departmental Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many orders are represented by the percentage of invoices not paid by her Department within 30 days in 1994–95. [6488]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information required could be provided only at disproportionate cost to the Department. The Department does not maintain this statistical information.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much her Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1994–95. [6501]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Detailed information is not held in the form requested. However, the Department paid over £1.5 billion to private sector suppliers in 1994–95, principally for the delivery of employment and training programmes.

  GCSE Scores
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for all English secondary schools, including special schools, in 1995(a) the average GCSE point scores, (b) the average percentages achieving at least five Cs, (c) the average percentages achieving at least five Gs and (d) the average percentages achieving at least one pass, in 5 percentile groups ranked by their 15-year-old pupils' achievements according to each of these indices, respectively, on the same basis as the annual schools performance tables. [7028]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following list for 1995, shows(a) the average GCSE point scores, (b) the average percentages achieving at least five Cs, (c) the average percentages achieving at least give Gs, (d) the average percentages achieving at least one pass, in 5 per centile groups ranked by their 15-year pupils' achievements according to each of these indices. These figures are based on the school performance tables published in November and they exclude data from the published schools that had
  1034
  less than 10 pupils aged 15. The averages quoted are simple averages, based on the sums of the percentage divided by the numbers of schools involved. This is consistent with the data for earlier years provided in the reply to the hon. Member's question of 8 November. Official Report, columns 960-61.

  School performance tables 1995

  Percentage of 15 year olds achieving GCSE

  Five percentile group

  Average point score

  5A—C

  5A—G

  1A—G

  Number schools

  1

  60.6

  98.9

  100.0

  100.0

  218

  2

  53.8

  93.2

  99.2

  100.0

  218

  3

  48.7

  82.6

  97.7

  99.3

  219

  4

  44.8

  68.9

  96.6

  99.0

  218

  5

  42.5

  60.9

  95.5

  98.0

  218

  6

  40.8

  55.9

  94.3

  97.7

  219

  7

  39.2

  51.8

  93.4

  97.0

  218

  8

  37.7

  48.3

  92.4

  96.4

  218

  9

  36.3

  44.7

  91.2

  95.9

  218

  10

  34.9

  41.6

  89.7

  95.0

  218

  11

  33.3

  38.2

  88.2

  94.2

  219

  12

  31.7

  34.3

  86.4

  93.3

  218

  13

  30.1

  30.9

  84.2

  92.0

  218

  14

  28.3

  27.4

  81.9

  90.5

  219

  15

  26.3

  23.8

  79.1

  88.8

  218

  16

  24.1

  19.6

  74.8

  86.3

  218

  17

  21.1

  14.5

  68.4

  82.6

  218

  18

  13.4

  5.6

  44.3

  72.5

  219

  19

  0.9

  0.0

  0.0

  20.4

  218

  20

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  218

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many times mobile telephones used by Ministers in her Department have been cloned during(a) the last six months, (b) the last 12 months and (c) the last 18 months; and which Ministers within her Department have had their mobile telephones cloned. [4256]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 7 December 1995]: There have been two such instances, one in May 1995 and another in September 1995. In both cases, it was the mobile telephone allocated to me that was cloned. To try to prevent any recurrence, following the first instance the number of my telephone was changed and following the second a new digital replacement was provided.

TRANSPORT

  Local Roads (Capital Resources)
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will announce the allocation of capital resources for expenditure on local roads and transport in England for 1996–97. [7543]

  Sir George Young
  This year a total of about £830 million is to he allocated to local highway authorities and passenger transport authorities in England for capital expenditure on their local transport infrastructure in 1996–97. This Consists of £236 million in transport supplementary grant and around £594 million in annual
  1035
  capital guideline, supplementary credit approval, grant under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968, and grant under section 13 of the Industrial Development Act 1982.

  In this year's settlement, I am funding 53 packages of measures proposed by authorities outside London to encourage public transport, cycling and walking and to offer attractive alternatives to car use. We were pleased to announce last week the successful bids in our cycle challenge competition at a value of £1.89 million. I am providing funding for a number of measures in London, including further support for the London bus priority network and the London cycle network.

  I am increasing funding for local safety schemes from £50 million in 1995–96 to £55 million in 1996–97. I am also accepting five new bypasses for funding. These are designed to remove congestion and bring environmental relief to rural communities.

  I am setting aside resources for two new major public transport schemes—a new transport interchange to serve Luton airport, and concourse improvements at Stratford station in east London—which are expected to begin construction during 1996–97. I am continuing to fund the Midland Metro light rail project and, subject to satisfactory bids being received, Croydon Tramlink. Some £187 million is being allocated for the assessment, strengthening and maintenance of bridges and the structural maintenance of principal road carriageways. As for previous years, local authorities will be free to vire resources between bridges and carriageways according to local priorities.

  Table 1 sets out the national totals for different types of expenditure. Table 2 shows the total amounts of grant, credit approvals and gross approved expenditure for each of the 118 local highway authorities, and the six passenger transport authorities. The Department's government offices for the regions are notifying them today of their allocations. Table 3 details the package allocations, and table 4 lists the new major road and public transport schemes accepted this year.

  Table 1

  £ million

  Existing commitments

  420.379

  New major schemes

  5.620

  Maintenance of principal roads

  85.894

  Assessment and strengthening of bridges

  100.900

  IDA grant

  4.000

  Local safety schemes

  55 .000

  Packages minor works

  78.700

  Block SCA for minor works

  39.583

  ERDF SCA

  37.600

  Cycle challenge

  1.890

  Total

  829.566

  Key:

  IDA—Industrial Development Act.

  SCA—Supplementary Credit Approval.

  ERDF—European Regional Development Fund.
  1036

  Table 2: Local authority capital expenditure 1996–97 (£ million)

  Government grant (TSG)

  Total borrowing approval

  Gross approved spending

  London Boroughs

  City of London

  0.311

  0.377

  0.688

  Barking and Dagenham

  0.162

  0.599

  0.761

  Barnet

  0.159

  0.852

  1.011

  Bexley

  4.414

  5.214

  9.628

  Brent

  0.000

  1.783

  2.151

  Bromley

  0.074

  9.983

  10.206

  Camden

  0.557

  1.478

  2.035

  Croydon

  0.000

  1.705

  2.215

  Ealing

  0.000

  0.608

  0.740

  Enfield

  0.000

  1.960

  3.092

  Greenwich

  2.973

  3.964

  7.029

  Hackney

  0.016

  1.010

  1.275

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0.218

  2.892

  3.382

  Haringey

  0.372

  1.518

  1.890

  Harrow

  0.558

  3.102

  5.646

  Havering

  0.000

  0.685

  0.875

  Hillingdon

  0.000

  2.294

  3.922

  Hounslow

  1.163

  2.102

  3.265

  Islington

  0.725

  1.440

  2.165

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0.382

  1.021

  1.504

  Kingston upon Thames

  1.551

  6.745

  8.805

  Lambeth

  0.150

  1.099

  1.567

  Lewisham

  1.975

  2.695

  4.705

  Merton

  0.000

  0.870

  1.018

  Newham

  1.211

  3.508

  5.105

  Redbridge

  0.253

  0.887

  1.140

  Richmond upon Thames

  0.198

  1.443

  1.641

  Southwark

  0.000

  1.435

  2.250

  Sutton

  0.067

  1.135

  1.438

  Tower Hamlets

  0.000

  1.215

  1.744

  Waltham Forest

  0.215

  1.049

  1.467

  Wandsworth

  0.596

  1.638

  2.234

  Westminster

  1.697

  2.614

  4.405

  Note:

  Gross approved expenditure exceeds the sum of grant and borrowing approval if an authority holds unused grant from previous years.

  Local authority capital expenditure 1996–97 (£ million)

  Metropolitan Districts

  Government grant (TSG)

  Total borrowing approval

  Gross approved spending

  Bolton

  0.061

  1.570

  2.338

  Bury

  0.504

  1.169

  1.673

  Manchester

  2.713

  4.811

  7.615

  Oldham

  1.656

  2.694

  4.608

  Rochdale

  1.433

  2.250

  3.683

  Salford

  3.271

  4.310

  7.581

  Stockport

  1.107

  1.726

  2.898

  Tameside

  0.575

  1.214

  1.789

  Trafford

  5.569

  6.835

  13.226

  Wigan

  0.333

  1.080

  1.556

  Knowsley

  1.379

  3.951

  6.708

  Liverpool

  0.000

  3.165

  3.996

  St. Helens

  0.898

  1.548

  2.446

  Sefton

  1.331

  2.531

  3.862

  Wirral

  0.442

  1.856

  2.442

  Barnsley

  0.579

  3.799

  6.637

  Doncaster

  2.257

  3.455

  5.712

  Rotherham

  0.705

  1.891

  2.596

  Sheffield

  3.762

  10.206

  14.033

  Gateshead

  0.297

  1.482

  1.779

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1.608

  3.337

  5.784

  North Tyneside

  0.427

  1.188

  1.741

  South Tyneside

  0.340

  1.105

  1.445

  Sunderland

  0.988

  2.210

  3.365

  Birmingham

  13.457

  17.692

  31.149

  Coventry

  3.674

  6.641

  12.669

  Dudley

  0.573

  3.937

  4.510

  Sandwell

  1.679

  2.864

  4.543

  Solihull

  0.630

  1.874

  2.559

  Walsall

  1.725

  3.854

  6.260

  1037

  Local authority capital expenditure 1996–97 (£ million)

  Metropolitan Districts

  Government grant (TSG)

  Total borrowing approval

  Gross approved spending

  Wolverhampton

  2.170

  4.592

  7.859

  Bradford

  1.045

  3.638

  4.826

  Calderdale

  0.900

  2.576

  3.476

  Kirklees

  1.053

  2.543

  3.596

  Leeds

  4.374

  11.470

  16.743

  Wakefield

  1.990

  3.037

  5.027

  Local authority capital expenditure 1996–97 (£ million)

  Government grant (TSG)

  Total borrowing approval

  Gross approved spending

  Counties

  Bedfordshire

  1.684

  4.220

  5.904

  Berkshire

  0.333

  3.353

  4.770

  Buckinghamshire

  3.442

  5.353

  8.795

  Cambridgeshire

  3.577

  6.942

  10.519

  Cheshire

  11.367

  12.910

  24.535

  Cornwall

  2.836

  4.775

  7.611

  Cumbria

  2.441

  3.704

  6.145

  Derbyshire

  2.763

  4.230

  7.023

  Devon

  2.806

  6.354

  9.160

  Dorset

  1.099

  2.879

  3.978

  Durham

  2.932

  4.486

  7.418

  East Sussex

  3.695

  7.590

  11.834

  Essex

  0.793

  5.868

  7.629

  Gloucestershire

  2.209

  3.918

  6.714

  Hampshire

  7.037

  12.646

  19.683

  Hereford and Worcester

  5.349

  6.133

  11.482

  Hertfordshire

  3.370

  6.723

  10.291

  Kent

  36.313

  43.384

  81.609

  Lancashire

  2.452

  9.920

  15.291

  Leicestershire1

  0.934

  5.316

  6.694

  Lincolnshire

  4.545

  6.660

  11.205

  Norfolk

  3.136

  7.036

  10.172

  Northamptonshire

  2.172

  3.866

  6.387

  Northumberland

  3.371

  4.230

  7.601

  Nottinghamshire

  2.685

  6.168

  9.003

  Oxfordshire

  0.000

  3.680

  5.061

  Shropshire

  1.001

  3.296

  4.328

  Somerset

  3.880

  6.187

  11.039

  Staffordshire

  8.557

  11.015

  19.572

  Suffolk

  1.487

  5.811

  7.355

  Surrey

  6.897

  10.038

  16.935

  Warwickshire

  1.113

  2.792

  3.905

  West Sussex

  1.718

  3.518

  5.467

  Wiltshire

  1.095

  2.418

  3.513

  Note:

  Gross approved expenditure exceeds the sum of grant and borrowing approval if an authority holds unused grant from previous years.

  1 Includes £125,000 Public Transport Grant (s56).

  Local authority capital expenditure 1996–97 (£ million)

  Government grant (TSG)

  Total borrowing approval

  Gross approved spending

  Unitary Authorities

  Isle of Wight

  0.329

  2.545

  2.874

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0.506

  1.156

  1.662

  Bristol

  0.652

  2.427

  3.079

  North Somerset

  0.000

  0.950

  1.480

  South Gloucestershire

  1.399

  4.838

  7.143

  Hartlepool

  0.150

  1.820

  1.970

  Middlesbrough

  0.423

  1.053

  1.476

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1.006

  1.675

  2.815

  Stockton-on-Tees

  0.000

  1.232

  1.949

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  0.689

  1.761

  2.735

  Kingston upon Hull

  2.413

  4.463

  7.055

  North East Lincolnshire

  0.224

  1.194

  2.040

  1038

  Local authority capital expenditure 1996–97 (£ million)

  Government grant (TSG)

  Total borrowing approval

  Gross approved spending

  North Lincolnshire

  0.362

  0.640

  1.002

  North Yorkshire

  2.031

  4.448

  7.399

  York

  1.284

  2.056

  3.340

  Note:

  Gross approved expenditure exceeds the sum of grant and borrowing approval if an authority holds unused grant from previous years.

  Passenger Transport Executives

  Government grant (s56)

  Total borrowing approval

  Greater Manchester PTE

  0.000

  4.500

  Merseyside PTE

  0.000

  5.779

  South Yorkshire PTE

  1.876

  1.375

  Tyne and Wear PTE

  0.000

  2.693

  West Midlands PTE

  12.500

  15.461

  West Yorkshire PTE

  0.000

  0.000

  Note:

  Gross approved expenditure exceeds the sum of grant and borrowing approval if an authority holds unused grant from previous years.

  Table 3: Package minor works allocations

  (£ million)

  Current packages:

  Greater Manchester

  9.000

  Merseyside

  10.000

  West Midlands

  11.000

  Bradford

  1.450

  Calderdale

  1.350

  Kirklees

  0.950

  Leeds

  3.800

  Wakefield

  0.700

  Ashford

  0.200

  Avon

  2.600

  Bedford/Kempston

  0.800

  Bounemouth/Poole

  0.500

  Brighton/Hove

  0.850

  Cambridge

  1.500

  Canterbury

  0.200

  Dartmoor

  0.150

  Exeter

  0.700

  Hull

  1.200

  Ipswich

  1.300

  Central Leicester

  2.600

  Macclesfield

  0.200

  New Forest

  0.200

  North Staffordshire

  0.800

  Norwich

  1.300

  Greater Nottingham

  1.300

  Oxford

  1.100

  Plymouth

  0.850

  Preston/South Ribble

  0.600

  Reading

  0.700

  Shrewsbury

  0.750

  Southampton

  0.500

  Staines

  0.350

  Swindon

  0.300

  Teeside

  1.100

  Warwick/Leamington/Kenilworth

  0.350

  Winchester

  0.800

  Winchester

  0.800

  York

  0.600

  Total

  62.650

  1039

  Table 3: Package minor works allocations

  (£million)

  New Packages

  South Yorkshire

  5.500

  Tyne and Wear

  4.500

  Cheltenham

  0.300

  Colchester

  0.600

  Falmouth

  0.300

  Gloucester

  0.350

  Hartlepool

  0.150

  Hope/Derwent

  0.100

  Maidstone

  0.250

  Northampton

  0.450

  Northwich

  0.250

  South-east Essex

  0.700

  South-west Hertfordshire

  1.000

  Worcester

  0.350

  Worthing

  0.350

  Wycombe

  0.450

  Total

  15.600

  Other package-related allocations

  Lancaster

  0.300

  Surrey Rural (star)

  0.150

  Grant Total

  78.700

  Table 4: New major schemes

  Authority

  Scheme

  Bedfordshire

  Luton Airport Interchange

  Buckinghamshire

  A421 Tingewick Bypass

  Cornwall

  A39 Trispen Bypass

  Hereford and Worcester

  A44 Broadway Bypass

  Kent

  A228 Hale Street Bypass

  Lincolnshire

  A15/A16 Deepings Bypass

  London Borough of Newham

  Stratford Station Concourse Improvements

  Noise Insulation Regulations
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Noise Insulation (Railways and other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996 will be made. [7624]

  Mr. Watts
  The draft regulations have been amended to correct some defective drafting identified by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments; the substance of the draft regulations remains the same. The amended draft regulations, which supersede the draft regulations laid on 13 July 1995, have been laid before Parliament today. The draft regulations are subject to the negative resolution procedure and will be made at the end of a 40-day praying period. It is intended that the draft regulations will enter into force on 1 March 1996.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1994–95. [6498]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department's records do not distinguish between private and public sector suppliers.

  Departmental Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of hills owed by his 1040
  Department in 1994–95 were not paid within 30 days or within agreed contractual arrangements. [6511]

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

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many(a) orders and (b) firms arc represented by the percentage of invoices not paid by his Department within 30 days in 1994–95; [6493]

  (2) what is the amount owed to those businesses whose invoices were not paid within 30 days or within agreed contractual arrangements for 1994–95. [6515]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is not available.

  Drivers (Alcohol)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the maximum legal blood alcohol levels for drivers in each European country. [7219]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is not readily available for all European countries. However, we do have details of legal blood alcohol limits for drivers in countries in the European Union and these are as follows:

  mg of alcohol/100 ml of blood

  Austria

  80

  Denmark

  80

  Germany

  80

  Ireland

  80

  Italy

  80

  Luxembourg

  80

  Spain

  80

  United Kingdom

  80

  Belgium

  50

  Finland

  50

  Greece

  50

  Holland

  50

  Portugal

  40

  Sweden

  20

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he issues on the maximum average intake of alcohol for drivers. [7320]

  Mr. Norris
  Our advice to motorists is not to drink at all before or during driving. It was reiterated in the recent report of the interdepartmental group on sensible drinking.

  Motor Vehicles
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has held on the issue of a trans-European agreement on low-volume type-approval for motor cars with his European counterparts. [6602]

  Mr. Watts
  Officials have held discussions with the type-approval authorities of Germany. France, Italy, Spain. the Netherlands. Belgium and Luxembourg with a view to obtaining their agreement to accept vehicles type-approved to the UK low-volume scheme. So far, one vehicle type has been accepted in full by Germany and Italy and partially by France, Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg, the latter group of countries requiring some
  1041
  additional tests. We have also pursued the issue of a trans-European agreement at several meetings chaired by the European Commission.

  British Rail (Members' Parking Passes)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the saving made to Railtrack in 1996–97 from the cancellation of free parking passes to hon. Members; and what is his estimate of the costs in 1995–96 of providing such passes. [6599]

  Mr. Watts
  The present free car parking passes are provided by the British Railways Board, which does not attribute a cost to the provision of the passes. The small administrative cost of issuing individual passes is not separately identified by the British Railways Board.

  When the present passes issued by British Rail expire on 1 June 1996 it will be for the train operating companies, or Railtrack in the case of those stations owned and managed by it, to decide whether to provide free car parking passes for hon. Members.

  Salford Quays-Eccles Metrolink Extension
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimate he has made of the amount of section 56 funding required in 1996–97 for construction of the Salford quays and Eccles extension to be started 1996; [7161]

  (2) when he plans to announce his Department's contribution to the funding for the Salford quays and Eccles Metrolink extension. [7159]

  Mr. Norris
  Greater Manchester passenger transport authority has yet to obtain powers under the Transport and Works Act 1992 for the Metrolink extension between Salford quays and Eccles. GMPTA has bid for funding for the extension as far as Salford quays in the 1996–97 local transport settlement. We are announcing details of the settlement today. I am afraid that we have been unable to find resources for the scheme in 1996–97.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he plans between his Department and the Greater Manchester transport authority in respect of starting construction of the Salford quays and Eccles Metrolink extension during 1996. [7160]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department will he happy to have further discussions with Greater Manchester passenger transport authority about its proposed Metrolink extension to Salford quays and Eccles.

  Toll Bridges
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the single crossing charge for cars on toll bridges in England and Wales. [7238]
  1042
  Mr. Watts
  Current details of the tolls charged by toll bridges that were not promoted by statute is not available to me. For those bridges in England and Wales that were promoted by statute the car toll for a single crossing is:

  Toll bridge

  Toll for car

  Aldwark bridge

  8p

  Cleddau bridge

  75p

  Clifton bridge

  20p

  Dartford bridge

  90

  Dunham bridge

  20p

  Humber bridge

  £1.60

  Itchen bridge

  40p (50p peak)

  Rixton Warburton bridge

  10p

  Severn bridge

  £3.70 (Westbound only)

  Shrewsbury (Kingsland) bridge

  10p

  Swinford bridge

  5p

  Tamar bridge

  £1.00 (25p concession rate)

  Whitchurch bridge

  8p

  Whitney on Wye bridge

  50p

  Ministerial Travel and Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the total cost for himself and other departmental Ministers for each year since 1991–92, including the current year of(a) overseas travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers and their advisers, (b) car and chauffeuring costs of Ministers. (c) ministerial security costs and (d) domestic travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers. [6386]

  Sir George Young
  The costs in the current and previous two financial years are set out. Information before that could be collected only at disproportionate cost.
  1995–96 (April to end November)

  (a) £57,516

  (b) £159,177

  (c) 1£12,212

  (d) £14,169

  1994–95

  (a) £84,013

  (b) £288,000

  (c) This information is not collected in the format requested. It could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  (d) £44,616

  1993–94

  (a) £54.080

  (b) £286,000

  (c) As for item (c) in 1995–95 above.

  (d) £65,303

  1 Costs of Ministerial security attributable to the move to Great Minister house.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the cost of running his departmental office, and that of his predecessor, for each year since 1990–91 including the current year, broken down into(a) telephone bills, (b) total staff costs, (c) press and communications. (d) entertainment. (e) alcoholic drinks, (f) non-alcoholic drinks, (g) stationery. (h) office refurbishment and (i) other. [6385]
  1043
  Sir George Young
  This information was not collected in the format requested before the current financial year, 1995–96, but was included in the running costs expenditure of my Department which is published in the appropriate year's annual report.

  The cost of running my departmental office, so far in the current financial year, April to November, 1995–96, is

  (a) £2,799.55 (mobile telephones and pagers only—excludes costs of desk telephones which are not available in the format requested).

  (b) £212,033.60

  (c) This information is not collected in the format requested. It could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  (d), (e) and (f) £686.23 The budget does not differentiate between entertainment, alcoholic or non-alcoholic drinks.

  (g) £835.31

  (h) None.

  (i) None.

  InterCity West Coast Franchise
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the timetable for the franchising of the InterCity West Coast rail track from London to Glasgow; and if he will make a statement. [6380]

  Mr. Watts
  The franchising director will invite applications to pre-qualify and tenders for the InterCity West Coast franchise as soon as practicable in 1996. The franchise will be closely linked to the project to modernise the line. The Office of Passenger Rail Franchising will bring the franchise forward as the infrastructure project is developed. This will be timed to enable the franchisee to participate fully in the modernisation.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the expenditure by his Department on the trunk road network in each of the last six years; and what is the planned expenditure for the current year. [6223]

  Mr. Watts
  The following table sets out the actual expenditure on trunk roads over the period 1989–90 to 1994–95 and the estimated expenditure in 1995–96.

  Outturn

  Total expenditure £ million

  1989–90

  1.416

  1990–91

  1,882

  1991–92

  1,975

  1992–93

  2,068

  1993–94

  2,182

  1994–95

  2,196

  1995–961

  1,923

  1 Estimated.

  Road Improvements (Norfolk and Suffolk)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list each of the proposed road improvement schemes which were due to be started in Norfolk and Suffolk and which have now been either(a) abandoned or (b) suspended; and if he will make a statement. [6459]
  1044
  Mr. Watts
  Following the recent review of the trunk road programme, the list of schemes placed in each category is set out:

  Longer term programme schemes

  Al2 Wrentham Bypass, Suffolk

  Al2 Wroxham Bypass, Suffolk

  Al2 Wickham Market—Saxmundham Improvement. Suffolk

  A12 Martlesham-Wickham Market Improvement. Suffolk

  A47 Acle Straight Improvement, Norfolk

  A47 Blofield-Acle Improvement, Norfolk

  A47 North Tuddenham-Easton Improvement. Norfolk

  A47 Little Fransham Bypass, Norfolk

  A47 Middleton and East Winch Bypass. Norfolk

  A47 Wisbech Bypass A1101 Junction Improvement, Norfolk

  A47 Tilney-Kings Lynn Improvement and A47/A17 GSJ. Norfolk.

  The longer-term programme comprises those schemes. which although required, are not of the highest priority nationally. They will be taken forward only as the main programme is completed.

  Withdrawn schemes

  A10 Setchey and West Winch Bypass, Norfolk

  Al2 Kessingland-Pleasureland Improvement, Suffolk

  Al2 Sutton Bridge-Kings Lynn Improvement, Norfolk

  A140 Dickleburgh-Norwich Improvement, Norfolk

  A140 Long Stratton Bypass, Norfolk

  A140 Beacon Hill-Scole Improvement, Suffolk

  A140 Stonham Bypass, Suffolk.

  Railtrack Assets
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the accuracy of the net book value of Railtrack's assets a published in its annual report for 1994–95. [5763]

  Mr. Watts
  The report of Railtrack's auditors to its shareholders included in the annual report for 1994–95 confirms that the financial statements give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the company at 31 March 1995.

  Rail Competition
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what safeguards he intends to apply to avoid(a) passenger and (b) freight train operating companies from establishing a monopoly in a sector of the privatised rail market by acquiring two or more franchises by direct application or as a result of a takeover. [6181]

  Mr. Watts
  The requirements of competition law apply to franchising and the disposal of other BR businesses including freight companies. Qualifying mergers are investigated by the Office of Fair Trading under the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry decides whether to make a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The Rail Regulator is also required to approve any change of control of a licence holder and in exercising this function will hear in mind the availability of powers under the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition Act 1980 which have been transferred to him.

  Emergency Response Trains
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many times emergency response trains have been deployed on the rail network in response to rail incidents in each of the last five years and on how many occasions they have been deployed within the ScotRail network; [4440]

  (2) what consultations his Department held with Railtrack over its recent decision in relation to the deployment of emergency response trains and what representations it made;[4438]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the deployment of emergency response trains by Railtrack.[4437]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: The deployment of such trains is an operational matter for Railtrack, consulting the independent Health and Safety Executive as necessary. I understand from Railtrack that the information requested is available for the period 1992 to 1995 as follows:

  Emergency response train/crane call-outs

  1992

  1993

  1994

  11995

  Great Britain

  415

  334

  182

  131

  Scotland

  7

  8

  1

  4

  1 To 30 November 1995 only.

TREASURY

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the taxation effects on pension funds of the corporation tax changes outlined in the Finance Bill; and if he will make a statement. [6018]

  Mr. Jack
  Pension funds are not liable to corporation tax on their income or gains and are therefore not directly affected by the corporation tax changes proposed in the Budget.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings his Department has had since May 1995 with organisations representing small firms to review tendering procedures. [6608)

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  A meeting with the following organisations representing small firms was held on 27 September 1995 to review tendering procedures:

  CBI Small Firms Panel;

  Association of British Chambers of Commerce; and

  Forum of Private Business.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what advice has been given to procurement staff on the implication of purchasing from small and medium enterprises; [6609]

  (2) what work his Department has done to develop best practice in the publication of departmental procurement guidance material relevant to small and medium enterprises' needs. [6607]
  1046
  Mrs. Knight
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General gave to her on 6 December at column 258.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1994–95. [6519]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury placed orders for £12.5 million with private sector suppliers for goods and services in 1994–95.

  Sequestrated Iraqi Assets
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the original value of Iraqi assets sequestrated in United Kingdom banks as a result of the Gulf conflict; what is the current value of those assets; and if he will make a statement. [6600]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Sequestrated Iraqi assets are not deposited in the United Kingdom. However, the Bank of England advises that the value of Iraqi funds sequestrated in accordance with Security Council resolution 778 was $736,938.12 made up of $672,553.43 plus accrued interest of $64,384.69.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which United Kingdom banks Iraqi assets sequestrated as a result of the Gulf conflict are deposited; and if he will make a statement. [6601]

  Mrs. Knight
  Banks in the United Kingdom do not hold any sequestrated Iraqi assets. As required by the provisions of Security Council resolution 778—adopted on 2 October 1992—concerning the temporary sequestration of certain Iraqi assets, all funds representing the proceeds of the sale of Iraqi petroleum or petroleum products, paid for on or after 6 August 1990, have been transferred to the United Nations' escrow account provided for in Security Council resolutions 706 and 712, which were adopted on 15 August and 19 September 199 I respectively. Funds in the escrow account are available for meeting the costs of compensation arising out of the Gulf war and costs of UN activities and humanitarian relief.

  VAT (Subscriptions)
  Sir George Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pension associations are affected by the decision to levy VAT on their subscription income; and how much revenue he expects to raise as a result. [6752]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Following the decision of the independent value added tax and duties tribunal that membership subscription income of the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance does not qualify for exemption from VAT, two other pensioner associations were found not to he taxing such income. Customs and Excise is currently amending its public and internal guidance with a view to identifying any other associations affected by this decision. Not all of the subscription is taxable—for example. if it covers such items as a newsletter, which is
  1047
  zero-rated. The decision, which is not being made retrospective, will not affect the amount of revenue collected to any significant extent.

  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the VAT status of subscriptions to occupational pensioner groups; and if he will grant them VAT exempt status. [6135]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The independent value added tax and duties tribunal recently ruled that, under the EC sixth VAT directive there was no scope to exempt from VAT the membership subscription income of the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance. I have no plans to review the VAT liability of subscriptions to occupational pensioner groups. However, not all of the subscription is taxable if it covers items such as a newsletter, which is zero-rated.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the unallocated sum for long-term care in the Red Book is deemed to cover England only; and if he will make a statement. [6819]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The sum covers the whole of the United Kingdom.

  VAT Thresholds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has as to how many firms in each parliamentary constituency will he brought into paying VAT as a result of the decision not to raise the threshold in line with indexation. [6516]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are no estimates available on a constituency basis on the number of businesses affected.

  Publicity Costs (EU)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what expenditure is incurred by the EC Commission's London, Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh offices in publicising the work and activities of the EC and the EU in the United Kingdom; and what element of this is met from British public funds; [162]

  (2) what expenditure is incurred by the European Parliament's London office in publicising the work and activities of the EC and the EU in the United Kingdom; and what element of this is met from British public funds. [161]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  These arc matters for the European Commission and the European Parliament respectively. There is no direct contribution from UK public funds, although all the activities of the European Community institutions are financed from the general budget of the European Communities to which the UK contributes.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of the 20p tax hand: and if he will list the number in each successive £1.000 1048
  income band above the tax threshold, indicating the average annual tax reduction for a person in each £1,000 income band. [4002]

  Mr. Jack
  The estimated full-year tax cost at 1996–97 income levels of the proposed £3,900 20p band tax is £3.5 billion. The numbers of taxpayers and the average annual tax reduction by income hand are given in the table:

  Income band above the tax threshold £

  Number of taxpayers millions

  1 Average reduction £

  0–1,000

  1.6

  20

  1,000–2,000

  1.6

  60

  2,000–3,000

  1.6

  100

  3,000–3,900

  1.5

  140

  3,900

  19.5

  156

  Total

  25.8

  140

  1 A 20p rate compared with a 24p rate for the same income hand.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent on furnishing and decorating ministerial offices in his Department in each of the last three years. [5565]

  Mrs Angela Knight
  Expenditure on furnishing and decorating ministerial offices in each of the last three years is included in the running cost expenditure of the Treasury, which is published in the annual report.

  Chauffeur-driven Cars
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost of chauffeur-driven cars used by his Department was in each of the past five years. [5863]

  Mrs Angela Knight
  The cost of chauffeur-driven cars over the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1991–92

  459.974

  1992–93

  453,781

  1993–94

  465.070

  1994–95

  431.777

  1995–96 (to November)

  245,220

  Rural Business Unit
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the establishment of the rural business unit for tax purposes. as set out in the rural White Paper. [6126]

  Mr. Jack
  As explained in the rural White Paper. the case for a rural business unit is being considered.

  Government Shareholdings
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which privatised companies the Government retain a shareholding: and what number of shares the Government own in each such company. [6918]
  1049
  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is included in the table:

  Government shareholdings

  Company

  Total Her Majesty's Government Holding Millions

  BAA

  29.47

  British Gas

  0.08

  BT

  30.80

  Mersey Docks and Harbour Company

  12.41

  Anglian Water

  2.58

  Northumbrian Water

  0.27

  North West Water

  2.70

  Severn Trent

  3.57

  Southern Water

  1.21

  South West Water

  0.11

  Thames Water

  3.53

  Welsh Water (ORD)

  0.85

  Welsh Water (PREF)

  0.92

  Wessex Water (ORD)

  1.01

  Wessex Water (PREF)

  1.21

  Yorkshire Water

  1.50

  East Midlands Electricity

  0.95

  London Electricity

  1.12

  Midlands Electricity

  1.28

  Northern Electricity (ORD)

  0.79

  Seeboard

  2.30

  Southern Electric

  0.92

  South Wales Electricity

  0.62

  Yorkshire Electricity

  1.09

  National Power

  34.49

  PowerGen

  22.00

  Scottish Hydro-Electric

  7.69

  Scottish Power

  18.80

  Northern Ireland Electricity

  5.40

  Ministerial Transport, London
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has used(a) the London Underground and (b) London Buses in the last year while on official business. [7263]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have not used London Buses or London Underground while on official business in the last year, unless going to watch the Lord Mayor's show with my children counts as official business.

  Personal Pensions (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total revenue forgone from tax relief on appropriate personal pensions for individuals whose gross earnings are (i) £5,000 to £15,000, (ii) £15,000 to £25,000, (iii) £25,000 to £35,000, (iv) £35,000 to £45,000, (v) £ 45,000 to £55,000, (vi) £55,000 to £65,000, (vii) £65,000 to £75,000 and (viii) £75,000 to £82,000 per annum,(a) in aggregate and (b) per capita. [4491]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 11 December 1995]: Total income tax relief for contribution to appropriate personal pensions, including tax relief for the national insurance rebate, is provisionally estimated at £500 million for
  1050
  1994–95. The average benefit per participant is about £85. I regret that a distribution of the relief by earnings of participants is not available.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [5694]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: For invoices received between November 1994 and October 1995, 72 per cent. were paid within 30 days of receipt. Most of those paid later than 30 days were delayed due to problems associated with particular suppliers, such as an error in the invoice or problems with the goods or service including a failure to deliver. Some of these invoices would still be within contractual conditions but it would incur disproportionate cost to establish what percentage they represent.

  This figure compares with a previous estimate of 82 per cent. of invoices paid within 30 days in 1994–95. This was given to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) in a question answered on 22 November 1995 at column 108. I regret that the calculations underlying this higher number were flawed. However, we are taking additional steps to improve performance, and between 1 September and 30 November 1995 the Treasury has achieved the figure of 82 per cent.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [5977]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: No such research projects or surveys have been carried out by the Treasury during the period in question.

  Tax Receipts (Oil Production)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the tax receipts from oil production in each year since 1979. [6245]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: Revenues raised from North sea oil and gas production since 1979–80 have been as follows:
  1051

  £million

  Year

  Petroleum revenue tax

  Supplementary Petroleum duty

  Corporation tax

  Royalty

  Total

  ACT1set-off

  Main-stream CT

  1979–80

  1,435

  —

  78

  172

  628

  2.313

  1980–81

  2,410

  —

  97

  244

  992

  3,743

  1981–82

  2,390

  2,025

  270

  411

  1,396

  6.492

  1982–83

  3,274

  2,395

  202

  319

  1,632

  7,822

  1983–84

  6,017

  —

  430

  447

  1,904

  8,798

  1984–85

  7,177

  —

  1,244

  1,188

  2,426

  12,035

  1985–86

  6,375

  —

  1,085

  1,831

  2.057

  11,348

  1986–87

  1,188

  —

  1,130

  1,546

  919

  4,783

  1987–88

  2,296

  —

  681

  617

  1,024

  4,618

  1988–89

  1,371

  —

  685

  510

  602

  3.168

  1989–90

  1,050

  —

  495

  248

  575

  2.368

  1990–91

  860

  —

  363

  484

  605

  2.312

  1991–92

  –216

  —

  370

  268

  557

  979

  1992–93

  69

  —

  480

  202

  554

  1.305

  1993–94

  359

  —

  219

  39

  606

  1.223

  1994–95

  712

  –

  299

  81

  550

  1,642

  1995–961

  860

  —

  790

  130

  560

  2,340

  1 ACT set-off against corporation tax payments due in each financial year is used as an approximate substitute for ACT receipts.

  2 Forecast consistent with the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December 1995. [5411]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Chauffeur-driven Cars
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Prime Minister what the cost of chauffeur-driven cars used by his Department was in each of the past five years. [5864]

  The Prime Minister
  No No. 10 staff, other than the Prime Minister, have a car and driver allocated for their use. The total costs of this allocated car, including security costs, Government car service cars allocated to No. 10 and GCS cars on short-term hire were as follows:

  1992–93: £470,000

  1993–94: £450,000

  1994–95: £380,000.

  These costs exclude VAT.

  The figures for earlier years arc available only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what is his estimate of the total cost for himself and other departmental Ministers for each of(a) overseas travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers and their advisers. (b) car and chauffeuring costs of Ministers, (c) ministerial security costs and (d) domestic travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers: [6412]

  (2) what is his estimate of the running cost of his departmental office, and that of his predecessor. for each year since 1990–91 including an estimate for the
  1052
  current year, broken down into (a) telephone bill, (b) total staff costs, (c) press and communications. (d) entertainment, (e) alcoholic drinks, (f) non-alcoholic drinks, (g) stationery, (11) office refurbishment and (i) other.[6411]

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure by my Office during 1993–94 and 1994–95 is as follows:

  £0001

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Overseas travel and accommodation

  1.000

  790

  Cars, Domestic travel and accommodation

  490

  440

  Telephone and stationery costs

  130

  90

  Total staff costs2

  3,270

  3.200

  Entertainment

  40

  40

  Office refurbishment

  140

  70

  Other costs2

  4,150

  3,020

  Total costs

  9.220

  7.670

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest £10,000.

  2 Includes the cost of the Press Office.

  3 Includes security costs: for 1993–94 includes telecommunications costs.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Prime Minister what meetings his Department has had since May 1995 with organisations representing small firms to review tendering procedures. [6647]

  The Prime Minister
  Since May 1995. the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency has had meetings with the Federation of Electrical Industries and die Computing Services and Software Association.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Prime Minister how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1994–-95. [6508]

  The Prime Minister
  The information is not held in the form requested.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will announce the composition of the United Kingdom delegation for the 1996 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. [7384]

  The Prime Minister
  The 1996 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will he opened in Strasbourg on 22 January 1996. The delegation from the United Kingdom for the Session will consist of 19 members of the Conservative party, 15 members of the Labour party and two members from the minority parties.

  The appointments of representatives and substitutes have been made on the basis of nominations by the parties concerned in accordance with the resolution of the House on 22 May 1992, Official Report, column 682, and of the House of Lords on 18 June 1992, Official Report, House of Lords, columns 290–92.

  The same delegation will be representing the United Kingdom Parliament at the Assembly of the Western European Union, which next meets in London in February 1996.

  Representatives front the Government benches will be:

  My noble Friend the Lord Finsberg—who will continue to act as leader of both delegations.

  My hon. Friends the Members for:

  Warwick and Leamington (Sir Dudley Smith)

  Calder Valley (Sir Donald Thompson)

  Ashford (Sir Keith Speed)

  Medway (Dame Peggy Fenner)

  Lewes (Mr. Tim Rathbone)

  Bournemouth East (Mr. David Atkinson)

  Ravensbourne (Sir John Hunt)

  Reading West (Sir Anthony Durant)

  The Lord Newall

  Representatives from the Labour Party will be:

  The hon. Members for:

  Wentworth (Mr. Peter Hardy)

  Tooting (Mr. Tom Cox)

  Wansbeck (Mr. Jack Thompson)

  Newham North West (Mr. Tony Banks)

  Don Valley (Mr. Martin Redmond)

  Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Terry Davis)

  The Lord Kirkhill

  The representative from the minority parties will be:

  The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber

  (Sir Russell Johnston)

  The following substitutes have been appointed to act as necessary on behalf of the delegates.

  From the Government benches:

  The hon. Members for:

  Sheffield, Hallam (Sir Irvine Patnick)

  Norfolk North (Sir Ralph Howell)

  Brighton Kemptown (Sir Andrew Bowden)

  Northavon (Sir John Cope)

  Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Terry Dicks)

  Bridlington (Mr. John Townend)

  1054

  Newark (Mr. Richard Alexander)

  The Baroness Hooper

  The Earl of Dundee

  From the Labour Party:

  The hon. Members for:

  Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. James Dunnachie)

  Glasgow, Provan (Mr. James Wray)

  Newport East (Mr. Roy Hughes)

  Easington (Mr. John Cummings)

  Leigh (Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe)

  Leicester South (Mr. James Marshall)

  Manchester Central (Mr. Robert Litherland)

  The Baroness Gould of Potternewton

  From the minority parties:

  The Lord Mackie of Benshie.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Peru
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with the Government of Peru concerning(a) the operation of their emergency legislation and (b) human rights in respect of the emergency legislation; and if he will make a statement. [6019]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Since the answer I gave the hon. Member for Islington, North on 6 November,Official Report, columns 554–55, I personally discussed human rights with the Peruvian President of Congress and the Peruvian Foreign Minister in Lima on 29 November. Our ambassador in Lima held a further meeting with the Director General for Human Rights in the Peruvian Foreign Ministry on 14 December.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice has been given to procurement staff in(a) the diplomatic wing and (b) the ODA on the implications of purchasing from small and medium enterprises. [6645]

  Mr. Hanley
  The diplomatic wing of the FCO provides detailed advice about business with small and medium enterprises through its purchasing manual, which as been distributed to all officers in the Department with purchasing responsibilities, and to those in its executive agency, the Wilton Park conference centre.

  In addition, the DTI video "Think Big, Buy Small" is shown to all participants in the Department's introductory training course "Working on Purchasing and Supply".

  The ODA's "Guide to Aid Procedures" is being revised to include advice on procurement from small and medium enterprises and reflect present policy.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what work(a) the diplomatic

  1055
  wing of his Department and (b) the ODA have done to develop best practice in the publication of departmental procurement guidance material relevant to small and medium enterprises' needs. [6643]

  Mr. Hanley
  The diplomatic wing of the FCO promotes best practice relating to small and medium enterprises through its purchasing manual, which has been distributed to all officers in the Department with purchasing responsibilities and to those in its executive agency, the Wilton Park conference centre.

  The manual reiterates current Government policy which is to encourage the development of small and medium enterprises by giving them a full opportunity to bid for public sector business. SMEs are included, wherever possible, in inquiries for quotations and invitations to tender.

  The ODA is revising its own "Guide to Aid Procedures" to reflect similarly present policy.

  General guidance for SME's on purchasing by the FCO and ODA is included in the DTI booklet "Tendering for Government Contracts".

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress(a) the diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and (b) the Overseas Development Administration have made regarding establishing a contact point with responsibility for liaison with relevant business support organisations and taking forward small and medium enterprise related public procurement initiatives. [6723]

  Mr. Hanley
  FCO diplomatic wing contact points have been established in central London, Croydon and Milton Keynes and communicated to the Department of Trade and Industry for inclusion in the DTI booklet "Tendering for Government Contracts". The ODA has similarly forwarded to the DTI a contact point and a list of procurement agents employed by the ODA.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings(a) the diplomatic wing of his Department and (b) the ODA have had since May 1995 with organisations representing small firms to review tendering procedures. [6644]

  Mr. Hanley
  The diplomatic wing of the FCO and the ODA have themselves had no meetings since May 1995 with organisations representing small firms to review tendering procedures. But on behalf of all departments, the Treasury's central unit on procurement met, on 27 September 1995, the CBI small firms panel, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Forum of Private Business to review tendering procedures.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much(a) the diplomatic wing of his Department and (b) the Overseas Development Administration paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1994–95. [6507]
  1056
  Mr. Hanley
  Excluding amounts spent on major works and on local purchases overseas, it is estimated that the diplomatic wing spent £102.4 million on goods and services supplied by the private sector in 1994–95.

  ODA figures on payments made for goods and services to the private sector are not separately held, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many firms are represented by the percentage of invoices not paid by his Department within 30 days in 1994–95. [6487]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Foreign and Commonwealth diplomatic wing and its executive agency, Wilton Park, use a sampling method of measure payment performance. During 1994–95, 8 per cent. of invoices or 55 payments sampled by the DW were not paid on time. During the same period, WP did not pay 5 per cent. of invoices on time, representing three firms.

  The Overseas Development Administration and its executive agency, the Natural Resources Institute, monitor payment performance by analysing all payments. During 1994–95, 13 per cent. of ODA invoices and 4 per cent. of NRI invoices were not paid on time. It is not possible to break this down further by supplier without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Antarctic Treaty
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with interested parties on the future of the Antarctic treaty and the siting of the secretariat; and if he will make a statement. [6927]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Questions on the Antarctic treaty and the location of the secretariat are raised periodically as part of our regular meetings with other Antarctic treaty parties.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with signatories to the Antarctic treaty on(a) the progress of ratification and (b) the siting and operation of the secretariat. [6829]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  No recent discussions have taken place on ratification of the Antarctic treaty. The treaty was ratified on 23 June 1961. The United Kingdom ratified the environmental protocol to the Antarctic treaty on 25 April 1995.

  The question of the location and operation of the Antarctic treaty secretariat is raised periodically as part of our regular meetings with other Antarctic treaty parties.

  European Commission Legislation
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the new initiatives proposed by the Commission for 1996 in its document Com(95) 512 final will require legislation; and how many of these legislative proposals will be subject to majority vote. [6820]
  1057
  Mr. David Davis
  The Commission's work programme for 1996—document Com(95) 512 final —indicates that the Commission intends to bring forward 19 new pieces of primary legislation as part of its new initiatives programme in 1996. How many of these proposals will he subject to majority voting will become clear only when the Commission makes known on what treaty base it intends to bring each of them forward.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's representations to the Shell oil company concerning the activities of Shell Nigeria in the Ogoni lands; and if he will make it his policy to advise Shell to review its activities in this matter. [5958]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) on 29 November,Official Report, column 1190. It is for Shell to make its own commercial decisions and to explain them to those who express concern about them.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the discussions his Department held with Shell in respect of discussions between Shell Nigeria and the Nigerian Government prior to the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa.[6002]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave the hon. Member for South Dorset on 29 November, Official Report, column, 1190. It is for Shell to comment on any discussions it may have held with the Nigerian Government.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many ministerial visits have been undertaken by each Minister in his Department between 6 July and 1 December; and how many and what percentage of these have been involved with the Minister travelling abroad. [4229]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: Ministers carry out many visits in the course of their official duties. During the period in question the numbers of official visits by Foreign Office Ministers were as follows:
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made 14 overseas visits visiting 17 countries;the Minister for Overseas Development made five overseas visits visiting 14 countries;the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), made four overseas visits visiting 11 countries and one dependent territory;the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), made 16 overseas visits visiting six countries and one dependent territory;and I made eight overseas visits visiting 13 countries.

SCOTLAND

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the provision that he has made in his public expenditure plans for Government-supported expenditure and aggregate external finance in 1997–98 and 1998–99. [7692]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My plans for Government-supported expenditure and aggregate external finance for 1997–98 and 1998–99 and the actual figures for 1996–97 which I announced on Budget day are shown in the table. The plans for 1997–98 and 1998–99 will, in the normal way, be subject to review in future public expenditure surveys.

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  GSE

  6,200.7

  6,231

  6,245

  AEF

  5,400.9

  5,337

  5,303

  COMMUNITY CARE

  The above amounts of GSE and AEF are inclusive of the following sums which are being transferred to local authorities in respect of their care in the community and the independent living fund responsibilities.

  £ million

  1996–97

  211.6

  1997–98

  245.0

  1998–99

  269.5

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION

  My plans for GSE and AEF for the two forward years assume that the new councils will incur local government reorganisation related costs of £20 million in 1997–98, including £3 million for redundancy costs, and no such costs in 1998–99.

  My right hon. Friend announced 12 months ago that, in his 1994 public expenditure plans, he had assumed that savings of £40 million per annum would be achieved from the new local government structure from 1997–98. I think that annual savings of at least that order are possible provided the new councils streamline their management and committee structures and seek the most effective means of delivering services.

  Overall, therefore, my plans assume reorganisation-related savings of £20 million (net) in 1997–98 and £40 million in 1998–99.

  Trunk Road Network
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about his programme of improvements to the trunk road schemes network in 1996–97 and in the subsequent two years. [7693]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Scotland's trunk road network is vital to the continuing health of Scotland's economy. We are committed to ensuring that it continues to give the
  1059
  highest service to all its users. Our strategy is to give priority to the key routes of major importance to the economy and my new plans will ensure further rapid progress in that strategy. Our priorities are the A74, central Scotland motorway network, A 1 and A96, but the plans will also allow significant improvements on other important parts of the trunk road network. In all, I plan for 17 major schemes to start in the next three years.

  I have already announced our decision to complete the final A74 upgrade project as a design, build, finance and operate scheme. Final tendering on that scheme will be under way soon with construction starting in 1997—fulfilling our commitment to complete the A74 upgrade by 2000. Our additional plans for the financial year 1996–97 are:

  M8 Newbridge underpass

  M90 Halbeath interchange

  A96 Kintore bypass

  A96 Blackburn bypass

  A9 Logic Easter

  A68 Dalkeith bypass

  A830 Lock Nan Uamh to Polnish bridge.

  The following schemes are planned to start between April 1997 and March 1999:

  M8 Baillieston to Newhouse (DBFO)

  including Newhouse to Shotts (Junctions 5-6) (DBFO)

  M80 Stepps to Cumbernauld (DBFO) M77 Fenwick to Floak

  A1 Haddington to Dunbar

  A830 Arisaig to Kinsadel

  A828 Creagan Bridge

  A75 The Glen

  A92 Balmedie to Tipperty.

  This is an ambitious programme involving substantial levels of investment. Private finance will have an increasing role to play in ensuring that we fulfil these commitments. I have already referred to the completion of the A74 upgrade by private finance. I also intend that private finance will be used for the M8 Baillieston scheme completing the motorway link between Glasgow and Edinburgh. A tender for that scheme will be issued next year to allow work to commence in the following year. It is also my intention to use private finance to take forward the M80 Stepps-Cumbernauld scheme. Subject to the successful completion of statutory procedures, I am planning for construction to start towards the end of this three-year programme. These are important links in the motorway system and will take us near to fulfilment of the objective of completing that network and they are major opportunities for the private sector and will ensure that we remain in the forefront of developments in the private finance initiative.

  But public finance has an important role to play; the increased use of private finance complements those resources and ensures that we can make rapid progress on a variety of other long-awaited schemes. In particular, I am delighted to confirm our continuing commitment to the A96, where work on both the Blackburn bypass and the Kintore bypass will commence next year. These
  1060
  schemes will provide major improvements in service and road safety as well as improving the environment of these communities on this important route.

  Our other high priority route is the A 1. Our plans clearly demonstrate our continuing commitment to its improvements. In addition to the Haddington-Dunbar dualling scheme, an intensive package of measures on the A I will be brought forward next year under the route action plan.

  A75 The Glen and A92 Balmedie-Tipperty are schemes which have come into the construction programme for the first time and are significant improvements on routes of continuing economic importance. The A75 is the main route to the port of Stranraer and the important sea passage to Northern Ireland; the scheme will therefore benefit all those who have trade links with Ireland as well as holiday makers and local traffic. The A92 Balmedie-Tipperty is heavily used by fishing, oil and agriculture interests in the north-east. I am sure these commitments and the others which confirm our previous plans will be warmly welcomed by local communities throughout Scotland.

  Work will continue throughout the rest of the network also, with smaller scale but still valuable improvements being made in pursuit of the other route action plans that we have for the A7, A9, A76, A77, A90 and A96. These improvements will include village gateways, traffic-calming measures and other road safety work, tackling accident black spots through minor road curvature changes and improved lighting, signing and skid-resistance measures. The provision made will enable many other pressing but localised needs throughout the network to be addressed within the three-year period. Planning for other important schemes will also continue and these will be added to the construction programme in future years. We shall continue to keep the performance of the network under careful review in order to assess future requirements in the light of developing transport policies and emerging conditions on the network.

  In conclusion, at a time of very necessary restraint on Government spending, this increased roads programme is a major boost for Scotland and emphasises the importance and value of the Government's private finance initiative. It will ensure excellent progress with the Government's key objectives for improving the trunk road network and is excellent news for business and commerce as a whole, and for the people of Scotland.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent on furnishing and decorating ministerial offices in his Department in each of the last three years. [5570]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  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.

  Plant Eradication
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Scottish Natural Heritage has paid out in grants for the eradication of Japanese knotweed,
  1061
  Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed for (a) 1994 and (b) 1995; and how much was paid to Argyll and Bute district council. [5768]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Scottish Natural Heritage made a grant of £340.16 to Jura community council for the control of Japanese knotweed in 1994 and has offered £200 in 1995. SNH also made a grant of £2,500 in 1995 to the Tweed Forum for a hogweed study. SNH has not paid out any grant towards the eradication of Himalayan balsam. No grant in connection with any of the species has been paid to Argyll and Bute district council.

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the islands in Argyll and Bute where Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed have been recorded in the wild. [5769]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Although no specific records of the distribution of these three plants throughout Scotland are kept, it is known that they are commonly found in the wild—especially along riverbanks, roadsides and wasteground.

  There have been reports of the presence of Japanese knotweed on Coll, Islay, Jura, Mull, Lismore, Seil and Shuna, and it is suspected to be present on Colonsay and Bute. Himalayan balsam has been reported on Seil and Eilean Righ and is suspected to occur on Bute. Giant hogweed has been reported on one site on Mull.

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the plant species for which grants arc available for eradication from Scottish Natural Heritage. [5770]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Scottish Natural Heritage will consider offering grant for the eradication or management of any plant posing a threat to the natural heritage of Scotland or to the enjoyment of the natural heritage by the public.

  Chauffeur-driven Cars
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the cost of chauffeur-driven cars used by his Department was in each of the past five years. [5855]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The cost to the Scottish Office of chauffeur-driven cars in each of the last live years is as follows:

  1991–92: £234,803

  1992–93: £224,163

  1993–94: £256,270

  1994–95: £292,143

  1995–96: £150.723 (six months).

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the breakdown of the £311 million of capital investment under the private finance initiative for the national health service which he announced in his oral statement to the Scottish Grand Committee on Monday 11 December 1995 at column 4. [6794]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The figure announced in the Scottish Grand Committee was an estimate based on the current capital programme of the NHS in Scotland. It covers schemes which are likely to 1062
  proceed or are already proceeding using the private finance solutions. The £311 million is derived from estimated expenditure over the following years:

  1996–97: £75 million

  1997–98: £113 million

  1998–99: £123 million.

  Some schemes currently planned will continue beyond these three years. The values include capital expenditure only and are made up of expenditure projected for the new royal infirmary of Edinburgh, Western general hospital, Law and Hairmyres hospitals and a number of other schemes.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice has been given to procurement staff on the implications of purchasing from small and medium enterprises. [6639]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office purchasing, contracting and supply manual contains advice on purchasing from small and medium enterprises. Copies of the DTI video and accompanying booklet "Think Big, Buy Small" are available to all purchasing divisions.

  It is Scottish Office policy to encourage small and medium enterprises to compete for business on an equal footing with larger firms when they have the expertise, capacity and financial strength appropriate to the contract being awarded.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what work his Department has done to develop best practice in the publication of departmental procurement guidance material relevant to the needs of small and medium enterprises' needs. [6637]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office has produced a booklet "Selling to The Scottish Office" which is a guide to all suppliers interested in doing business with us. This booklet is available on request and has been widely distributed through chambers of commerce. The Scottish Office also has an entry in the DTI publication "Tendering for Government Contracts" giving a named contact point for suppliers.

  Representatives from the Scottish Office have taken part in a number of publicity events organised in conjunction with local enterprise bodies aimed at stimulating the interest of small and medium enterprises in becoming suppliers to the Scottish Office.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress his Department has made regarding establishing a contact point with responsibility for liaison with relevant business support organisations and taking forward small and medium enterprise related public procurement initiatives. [6712]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office has a business inquiry point within its purchasing and supply division, which deals with inquiries from all firms interested in doing business with us.

  The business inquiry point is continually involved in attending supplier events featuring small and medium enterprises with the next event scheduled for February 1996.
  1063
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings his Department has had since May 1995 with organisations representing small firms to review tendering procedures.[6638]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A representative from the Scottish Office was unable to attend the meeting held by Treasury's central unit on procurement in September 1995 but we have received full details of the discussions.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [6658]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: Prior to the review the Scottish Office already had in place a number of measures dealing with small firms and these have been enhanced over the last year. Information has been made available to small firms through our "Selling to The Scottish Office" booklet, establishment of the business inquiry point, updating our entry in the DTI publication "Tendering for Government Contracts" and through attendance at local supplier events.

  Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the sources of funding of the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board. [6291]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board receives funding from the Secretary of State for Scotland and when operational will also receive registration fees from qualified conveyancers and executry practitioners.

  Departmental Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) orders and (b) firms are represented by the percentage of invoices not paid by his Department within 30 days in 1994–95. [6494]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Based on a sample but extrapolating to a full year, we estimate that some 2,500 invoices were not paid in accordance with the appropriate contract. The statistical process we used does not provide a basis for allowing us to estimate the number of firms these represent.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1994–95. [6499]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The Scottish Office spent £124 million in 1994–95 on goods and services in 1994–95 from external suppliers, including a number of public sector bodies such as HMSO.

  Capital Projects
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the capital projects embarked on by Scottish local authorities in 1994–95 and 1995–96, the 1064
  responsibility for which will be transferred to Scottish water authorities in 1996; [7223]

  (2) if he will set out the liabilities that will he transferred from Scottish local authorities to Scottish water authorities in 1996. [7222]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Relevant property, rights and liabilities of regional and islands councils will transfer to the water authorities by virtue of transfer schemes prepared under section 91 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994. My right hon. Friend is currently considering the schemes which have been submitted to him.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to ensure that the new Scottish water authorities will have adequate funding to meet the capital expenditure requirements together with the operational expenses required of them and to prevent a negative cash flow arising from capped income. [7225]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has announced external financing limits for 1996–97 which should he sufficient to enable the water authorities to meet capital expenditure requirements and operating expenses with overall average charge increases of not more than 6 per cent. It is for each authority to prepare and submit a charges scheme to the customers council. External financing limits for future years will be considered in the context of successive public expenditure rounds.

  Development Corporations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for each of the development corporations in Scotland if the bids submitted for the housing stock of each corporation by alternative landlords have met all the criteria down by his Department. [5798]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: My right hon. Friend was satisfied that the bids from the landlords which appeared on the ballots in East Kilbride and Glenrothes conformed with the criteria set out in the guidance issued. The bids received in Cumbernauld, Livingston and Irvine are currently being evaluated by the respective development corporations which are expected to make their ballot recommendations to my right hon. Friend shortly.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what approaches Irvine housing association has made to Irvine development corporation requesting additional funding from the corporation since the association's establishment; how much Irvine housing association has received in financial support from Irvine development corporation up until this point; how this was broken down; and what outstanding requests for support from Irvine housing association are being considered by Irvine development corporation. [5800]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: Prior to Irvine housing association becoming operational on 28 August 1995 it received support of £299,138 from

  1065
  Irvine development corporation. The breakdown is shown in the table. Since 28 August the corporation's only contribution has been £950 per month towards the costs of the senior official on secondment to the association from the corporation. There are no outstanding requests for additional funding.

  £

  Professional fees

  133,833

  Staffing costs

  131,464

  Fitting out office

  39,754

  Sundry

  18,824

  323,875

  Less contribution from Scottish Homes

  24,737

  299,138

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements the board of Irvine development corporation has put in place to avoid a conflict of interests arising from the role of the vice chair of Irvine development corporation as the chair of the Irvine housing association. [5802]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The corporation's standing orders require the members of the hoard to declare any conflicts of interest.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be in a position to announce the bidding organisations which will be included on the ballots for the housing stock of those development corporations which have still to ballot their tenants on the disposal of their housing stock. [5804]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: My right hon. Friend expects to announce his decisions during the first quarter of 1996.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions his Department has held with Irvine development corporation over the secondment of the former chief housing manager of Irvine development corporation to the Irvine housing association since the association's establishment; how much this secondment is costing the Irvine development corporation; when it is due to end; and if he will instruct the Irvine development corporation to end this arrangement. [5806]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The secondment is discussed as part of the on-going dialogue between officials in the Department and the corporation. The current cost of the secondment to the corporation is £950 per month. The Department is content for the secondment to be reviewed by the corporation after the outcome of the ballot of tenants is known.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many tenants of Scotland's development corporations have lost part or all of their right to buy as a result of accepting tenancies with housing associations that have been transferred to these bodies as a result of trickle transfer by those development corporations. [5786]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: None. All trickle transfer sales are of vacant untenanted homes.
  1066
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what involvement his Department had in establishing the ballot areas which will he used by Irvine development corporation in balloting its tenants on an alternative landlord in advance of the corporation's wind-up; what criteria were considered in drafting these ballot areas; and what priority was accorded to an assessment of the housing stock transferred and still to he transferred to the Irvine housing association, indicating the form of discussions on this subject. [5787]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: The Scottish Office approved the corporation's detailed plans for the disposals of its housing stock. A copy was sent to the hon. Member on 20 April 1995. The criteria taken into account in deciding the ballot areas were, as set out on page 7, to identify areas that would be attractive to a wide range of prospective landlords, the requirements of the existing communities and the geography of the area. The transfer of housing stock to Irvine housing association is a key part of the corporation's broader housing strategy intended to achieve maximum diversification of ownership of rented housing in the period prior to the ballot tenants and to provide meaningful choice for tenants at the ballot. The transfer to Irvine housing association is among the matters discussed at regular meetings between the Department and the corporation.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions his Department had with Irvine development corporation in advance of trickle transfer of stock to Irvine housing association relating to guarantees to be sought from the housing association about the right-to-buy entitlement of Irvine development corporation tenants transferring to Irvine housing
  association in advance of the ballots of tenants. [5788]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: None. All trickle transfer sales to Irvine housing association are of vacant untenanted homes.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions have taken place between his Department and Irvine development corporation in respect of the vice chair of Irvine development corporation continuing as the chair of the board of the Irvine housing association; if the Irvine development corporation intends this arrangement to end; and what assessment he has made of possible conflicts of interest arising between Irvine development corporation and the Irvine housing association in the disposal of Irvine development corporation's housing stock. [5799]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The appointment of the chairman of Irvine housing association is a matter for the association.

  The guidance issued by the Scottish Office provides the criteria against which all bids are examined and the final decision on which organisations should appear on the ballot rests with my right hon. Friend.

  Social Work Budgets
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the disaggregation
  1067
  of social work budgets by (a) Strathclyde regional council and (b) other regional and islands councils; and if he will make a statement. [4630]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: As part of the process of preparing notional 1995–96 budgets for their successor councils, Strathclyde, Central, Grampian, Lothian and Tayside regional councils have disaggregated their 1995–96 revenue budgets, including those for social work, to the new council areas. This exercise has been carried out having regard to principles prepared in consultation with the councils concerned and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  Disaggregation is not necessary in the case of the other four regional councils and the three islands councils.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the use of asbestos in the construction of public sector houses; and if he will make a statement.[4122]

  Authority

  Balances applied to water account 1994–95

  Balances applied to sewerage account 1994–1995

  Total balances applied 1995–96

  Balances applied to water account 1995–96

  Balances applied to sewerage account 1995–96

  Total balances applied 1995–96

  Borders

  0

  0

  0

  153

  187

  340

  Central

  1,629

  1,140

  2,769

  3,711

  1,814

  5,525

  Dumfries and Galloway

  617

  561

  1,178

  897

  227

  1,124

  Fife

  1,893

  570

  2,463

  3,956

  3,080

  7,036

  Grampian

  3,958

  2,849

  6,807

  4,155

  3,931

  8,086

  Highland

  (495)

  595

  100

  (775)

  (431)

  (1,206)

  Lothian

  419

  (213)

  206

  (4,693)

  (274)

  (4,967)

  Strathclyde

  5,015

  174

  5,189

  7,211

  (3,485)

  3,726

  Tayside

  (30)

  719

  689

  (807)

  1,856

  1,049

  Orkney

  150

  0

  150

  342

  0

  342

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  179.4

  314.8

  494

  W. Isles

  320

  65

  385

  311.7

  22.3

  334

  Scotland

  13,476

  6,460

  19,936

  14,641

  7,242

  21,883

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Bilateral Aid
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries which receive priority for bilateral aid under the Government's policy of providing aid to the poorest. [6186]

  Mr. Hanley
  In 1994–95, 55 per cent. of ODA bilateral aid, including emergency aid, went to the top 20 recipients. Of these, 17 were among the poorest countries in the world —with a GNP per capita under $676 in 1992. The other three were lower middle income countries—with a GNP per capita between $676 and $2,695 in 1992. The countries concerned are in the table.
  1068
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 5 December 1995]: No information is collected centrally on the general use of asbestos in the construction of public sector dwellings. However, it is estimated from the first Scottish house condition survey that in 1991 between 3,000 and 5,000 public sector dwellings had sheets or tiles of cement reinforced by asbestos as their principal roof cover.

  Local authorities were reminded in 1983 of their duties in connection with asbestos materials in buildings and urged to check whether asbestos products were used in any part of their housing stock. Further guidance was issued in 1986. It is for local authorities, Scottish Homes and new town development corporations to deal with any problems arising from asbestos from within the resources made available to them by the Secretary of State.

  Water Rates
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out, by local authority, the amounts paid from reserves in Scotland to reduce the water rates in 1994–95 and 1995–96. [7224]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information requested is contained in the following table:

  ODA programme: top twenty bilateral recipients 1994–95

  £ million:

  Low income countries

  ODA programme bilateral aid (including emergency aid)

  India

  83

  Bangladesh

  46

  Rwanda

  45

  Zambia

  39

  Malawi

  39

  Uganda

  36

  China

  28

  Kenya

  28

  Pakistan

  28

  Zimbabwe

  27

  Ethiopia

  23

  Indonesia

  21

  Mozambique

  21

  1069

  ODA programme: top twenty bilateral recipients 1994–95

  £ million:

  Low income countries

  ODA Programme bilateral aid (including emergency aid)

  Tanzania

  18

  Nepal

  15

  Ghana

  14

  Sudan

  12

  Total

  523

  Percentage of total bilateral aid

  46.7

  Lower middle income countries

  ODA Programme bilateral aid (including emergency aid

  States of ex-Yugoslavia

  46

  Russia

  33

  South Africa

  16

  Total

  95

  Percentage of total bilateral aid

  8.5

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the developing countries which are the direct recipients of aid from the United Kingdom indicating for the last available year the moneys paid in aid to each country, and the debt repayments made to the United Kingdom Government and United Kingdom banks. [6654]

  Mr. Hanley
  A list of developing countries showing the amount of aid granted to each country by the United Kingdom Government in financial year 1994–95 may be found in table 7 "Bilateral Aid by Country" in "Overseas Development Administration: British Aid Statistics 1990/91–1994/95", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Details of debt repayments made by developing countries to UK banks are commercially sensitive.

  Debt service—principal and interest—paid to the United Kingdom Government by aid recipient countries during financial year 1994–95 on outstanding ODA and Export Credit Guarantees Department loans are given in the table.

  Country

  ODA£

  ECGD£

  Total£

  Africa: North of Sahara

  Algeria

  —

  1,920,042

  1.920,042

  Egypt

  —

  14,145,740

  14,145,740

  Morocco

  —

  19,975,752

  19,975,752

  Tunisia

  44,022

  —

  44,022

  Africa: South of Sahara

  Benin

  —

  234,682

  234,682

  Burkina Faso

  —

  196,244

  196,244

  Cameroon

  —

  45,455

  45,455

  Congo

  —

  468,501

  468.501

  1070

  Country

  ODA £

  ECGD £

  Total £

  Cote d'Ivoire

  525,389

  66,888

  592,277

  Ethiopa

  —

  122.831

  122,831

  Gabon

  —

  3,437,359

  3,437,359

  Gambia

  —

  2,348,825

  2,348,825

  Ghana

  —

  1,608,185

  1,608,185

  Guinea

  —

  206,078

  206,078

  Kenya

  —

  6,003,267

  6.003,267

  Malawi

  —

  44,938

  44,938

  Mali

  —

  2,354,162

  2,354,162

  Mauritania

  —

  80,604

  80,604

  Mauritius

  844,097

  —

  844,097

  Mozambique

  —

  353,773

  353,773

  Nigeria

  —

  7,812,783

  7,812,783

  Senegal

  —

  17,240

  17,240

  Seychelles

  502,844

  —

  502,844

  Sierra Leone

  —

  95,254

  95,254

  Swaziland

  948,465

  —

  948,465

  Tanzania

  —

  2,020,041

  2,020,041

  Togo

  —

  17,876

  17,876

  Uganda

  —

  214.336

  214,336

  Zambia

  —

  2,469,803

  2,469,803

  Zimbabwe

  1,690,763

  —

  1,690,763

  America: Central

  Mexico

  —

  12,080,897

  12,080,897

  Nicaragua

  —

  81,581

  81,581

  America: Caribbean

  Antigua

  180

  —

  180

  Barbados

  57,894

  —

  57,894

  Belize

  1,501,449

  —

  1,501,449

  Cayman Islands

  64,560

  —

  64,560

  Dominica

  957,700

  —

  957,700

  Grenada

  375,200

  —

  375,200

  Guyana

  —

  366,587

  366,587

  Jamaica

  5,322,391

  215,483

  5,537,874

  St. Kitts

  451,540

  —

  451,540

  St. Lucia

  333,400

  —

  333,400

  St. Vincent

  263,200

  —

  263,200

  Trinidad and Tobago

  —

  1,459,383

  1,459,383

  America: South

  Argentina

  —

  5,146,074

  5,146,074

  Bolivia

  —

  1,002,038

  1,002,038

  Brazil

  —

  92,733,382

  92,733,382

  Chile

  —

  113,949

  113,949

  Colombia

  295,647

  —

  295,647

  Ecuador

  1,025,447

  2,579,667

  3,605,114

  Falkland Islands

  22,300

  —

  22,300

  Paraguay

  234,607

  —

  234,607

  Peru

  —

  812,660

  812,660

  Asia: Middle East

  Jordan

  —

  99,046

  99,046

  Asia: South

  India

  18,375,000

  —

  18,375,000

  Asia: Far East

  Indonesia

  —

  510,692

  510,692

  Malaysia

  1,591,945

  —

  1,591,945

  Philippines

  826,010

  9,782,354

  10,608,364

  Singapore

  1,041,668

  —

  1,041,668

  Thailand

  74,533

  —

  74,533

  Vietnam

  —

  650,907

  650,907

  1071

  Country

  ODA£

  ECGD£

  Total£

  Europe: CEE/FSU Countries in Transition

  Bulgaria

  —

  995,008

  995,008

  Poland

  —

  51,616,829

  51,616,829

  Russia

  —

  6.172,045

  6,172,045

  Europe: CEE/FSU Developing Countries

  Croatia

  —

  1,649,628

  1,649,628

  Europe: Other Developing Countries

  Cyprus

  20,400

  —

  20,400

  Gibraltar

  86,526

  —

  86,526

  Turkey

  6,093,752

  —

  6,093,752

  Oceania

  Fiji

  268,425

  —

  268,425

  Kiribati

  13,000

  —

  13,000

  Solomon Islands

  281,150

  —

  281,150

  Tonga

  77,240

  —

  77,240

  Vanuatu

  17,199

  —

  17,199

  West Bank and Gaza
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of support for British Council projects in the west bank and Gaza in the last five years. [6686]

  Mr. Hanley
  British Council expenditure in the west bank and Gaza using grant in aid funding from the Overseas Development Administration and the diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was as follows:

  1990–91: £471,000

  1991–92: £499,000

  1992–93: £973,000

  1993–94: £997,000

  1994–95: £1,050,000

  In addition to work funded by the Government grant in aid, the council is contracted by ODA to manage its technical co-operation training programme, and some individual projects. It also manages the Chevening scholarship programme which is funded by ODA and the diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Nigeria (Police Training)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the costs of United Kingdom police training consultancy visits to Nigeria in each year since 1990; how many consultants visited Nigeria in each of those years; what was the total number of visits by consultants in each of those years; and to which United Kingdom police forces those consultants belonged. [6264]
  1072
  Mr. Hanley
  Apart from two short training advisory visits in September and October 1995, the project was staffed not by consultants but by long-term contract officers—technical co-operation officers. Overall staffing costs, including travel, accommodation, etcetera, in each year since 1990–91 are as follows:

  1990–91: £16,869

  1991–92: £188,612

  1992–93: £253,978

  1993–94: £232,199

  1994–95: £133,946

  1995–96: £60,000 (estimate).

  The numbers of TCOs or consultants on the ground during all or part of each year since 1990–91 is as follows:

  1990–91: 1

  1991–92: 4

  1992–93: 4

  1993–94: 6

  1994–95: 3

  1995–96: 3.

  The TCOs/consultants came from the Metropolitan, Cleveland, West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester police forces. There was also a retired British Transport police officer.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the nature of the training provided to Nigerian police officers in the United Kingdom and Nigeria since 1990. [6265]

  Mr. Hanley
  Training of Nigerian police officers in the United Kingdom has covered:

  UK police training methodology.

  Tackling serious crime including fraud.

  Maintenance of public order (1990 and 1991 only).

  Operating a Central Planning Services Unit.

  Police Force administration and the direction of operations.

  Command and management functions.

  Training in Nigeria has covered:

  Developing training methodologies and conducting classes.

  Using audio-visual aids.

  Preparing course work, examinations and training manuals.

  Advising on detective training needs, including restructuring courses and reviewing teaching methodology.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with the International Monetary Fund and World bank concerning the use of child labour in countries that have been subject to structural adjustment programmes; and if he will make a statement. [6020]

  Mr. Hanley
  The World bank and the IMF participated in the world summit for social development in Copenhagen in March. Both organisations support programmes which strengthen the social dimensions of economic development. promote equitable economic growth and reduce poverty: they recognise child labour as one of the most serious manifestations of poverty.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the amount of humanitarian aid provided to Bosnia in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96; and if he will make a statement on its purpose in each year. [6017]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The ODA has contributed over £283 million since 1991 to the former Yugoslavia: £148 bilaterally and £135 million through the European Community. A further breakdown of bilateral expenditure, by financial year, is as follows:

  1993–94: £51.8 million

  1994–95: £43.508 million

  1995–96: £14.15 million (latest figure).

  We are unable to provide a separate breakdown for Bosnia.

  The aim of the aid programme to the former Yugoslavia has been constant: to alleviate the suffering of people affected by war by getting food and medical relief into the country and assisting with infrastructure and utilities works.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  British Rail (Members' Parking Passes)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what discussions he has had with British Rail about the continued issue of free parking passes to hon. Members.

  Mr. Newton
  None. This will be a matter for Railtrack and the train operating companies to consider.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Disabled People
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many disabled persons in Northern Ireland are presently awaiting adaptations to their homes. [5664]

  Mr. Moss
  Most of those disabled persons awaiting adaptations to their homes are either in public sector housing or in the private sector awaiting decisions on grant aid. These are matters for the Housing Executive. I understand from the chief executive that the information requested is not readily available. I will, however, write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many disabled persons in Northern Ireland are presently awaiting new build disabled accommodation. [5665]

  Mr. Moss
  I understand from the chief executive of the Housing Executive that the information relating to public sector housing is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  International Investments Ltd. (Gibraltar)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions have taken place with the Government of the Irish Republic in respect of International Investments Ltd. (Gibraltar). [6248]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Irish Government are aware that there are continuing inquiries into this company's activities.

  Housing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the population of Northern Ireland live in(a) public and (b) private housing. [6529]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The 1991 census of population shows that 70 per cent. of the Northern Ireland population live in private housing and 28 per cent. in public housing. The remaining 2 per cent. of the population mostly live in communal establishments.

  George Finbar Ross
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action has been taken to secure the extradition of George Finbar Ross with regard to contacts with the United States Government since May 1995. [6247]

  Sir John Wheeler
  There have been no contacts with the US Government in the period since May 1995.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects Crown counsel to respond to queries arising from the direction to prosecute George Finbar Ross. [6215]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 25 October,Official Report, column 652.

  Pensioners (Transport Concessions)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the reciprocal arrangements for Northern Ireland pensioners to be entitled to free transport in Eire and for Eire pensioners to be entitled to transport concessions in Northern Ireland; and how the scheme is funded. [6452]

  Mr. Moss
  There are no reciprocal arrangements. The cross-border free travel scheme is promoted and funded by the Republic of Ireland's Department of Social Welfare.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimate of the cost of running his departmental office, and that of his predecessor, for each year since 1990–91 including an estimate for the current year, broken down into(a) telephone bills (b) total staff costs (c) press and communications (d) entertainment (e) alcoholic drinks (f) non-alcoholic drinks (g) stationery (h) office refurbishment and (i) other. [6389]

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

  Firearms
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many legally held firearms there are in Northern Ireland(a) in total and )b) of each type. [6729]

  Sir John Wheeler
  At 31 October 1995 there were 133,769 firearms held legally in accordance with article 3 of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.

  These are broken down as follows:

  Type

  Number

  Shotguns

  85,186

  Pistols

  9,580

  Revolvers

  3,448

  Rifles .22

  12,456

  Rifles centrefire

  1,279

  Air weapons

  20,982

  Humane killers

  122

  Signal Pistols

  118

  Starting pistols

  87

  Collectors items

  501

  Spear guns

  10

  Total

  133,769

  Belfast Corporation Act 1930
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to repeal section 42 of the Belfast Corporation Act 1930. [7166]

  Mr. Moss
  None.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what advice has been given to procurement staff on the implications of purchasing from small and medium enterprises;[6630]

  (2) what work his Department has done to develop best practice in the publication of departmental procurement guidance material relevant to small and medium enterprises' needs;[6628]

  (3) what work his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1994–95; [6502]

  (4) what meetings his Department has had since May 1995 with organisations representing small firms to review tendering procedures; [6629]

  (5) what progress his Department has made regarding establishing a contact point with responsibility for liaison with relevant business support organisations and taking forward small and medium enterprise related public procurement initiatives. [6715]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 18 December,Official Report, column 909.

  EU Peace and Reconciliation Programme
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will provide a breakdown of the provisional allocations from the European Union peace and reconciliation programme included in the 1995 public 1076
  expenditure survey for health and personal social services programme; [6437]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown of the provisional allocations from the European Union peace and reconciliation programme included in the 1995 public expenditure survey for the education, arts and libraries programme; [6438]

  (3) if he will provide a breakdown of the provisional allocations from the European Union peace and reconciliation programme included in the 1995 public expenditure survey for the environmental and miscellaneous services programme; [6439]

  (4) if he will provide a breakdown of the provisional allocations from the European Union peace and reconciliation programme included in the 1995 public expenditure survey for the housing programme; [6440]

  (5) if he will provide a breakdown of the provisional allocations from the European Union peace and reconciliation programme included in the 1995 public expenditure survey for the roads and transport programme; [6441]

  (6) if he will provide a breakdown of the provisional allocations from the European Union peace and reconciliation programme included in the 1995 public expenditure survey for the agriculture, fisheries and forestry services and support programmes; [6445]

  (7) if he will provide a breakdown of the provisional allocations from the European Union peace and reconciliation programme included in the 1995 public expenditure survey for the energy programme; [6446]

  (8) if he will provide a breakdown of the provisional allocations from the European Union peace and reconciliation programme included in the 1995 public expenditure survey for the industry, trade and employment programme. [6447]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:

  European union peace and reconciliation programme—provisional allocations

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

  3

  11

  8

  —

  Industry, Trade and Employment

  4

  28

  31

  17

  Energy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Roads and Transport

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Housing Environmental and Miscellaneous

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Services1

  1

  25

  40

  7

  Education, Arts and Libraries

  3

  12

  15

  1

  Health and Personal Social Services

  5

  11

  13

  6

  Note:

  1 The allocation set aside for the Partnership Measure is included in the Environmental and Miscellaneous Services Programme.

  Public Expenditure
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide a breakdown of the reduction in
  1077
  planned expenditure for 1996–97 in "Other Public Services" in the 1995 public expenditure survey. [6442]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The decrease in provision falls mainly in the superannuation vote, where 1995–96 includes provision for early departure costs under a Government—wide scheme. Provision in 1996–97 will be agreed when the position on redundancies is clearer.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide a breakdown of the estimated reduction in expenditure in the industry, trade and employment programme for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99, as shown in the 1995 public expenditure survey. [6443]

  Mr. Ancram
  The breakdown of the estimated reduction in expenditure in the industry, trade and employment programme is as follows.

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Industrial Development Board

  3

  —

  EC Pool

  1

  —

  Training and Employment Agency

  2

  2

  EU Peace Package

  —

  14

  Total

  6

  16

  Action for Community Employment
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will define the extent of proposed reductions in expenditure on the ACE training scheme in each of the three years covered in the 1995 public expenditure survey. [6444]

  Mr. Ancram
  The proposed reductions in expenditure on the ACE training scheme in each of the three years covered in the 1995 public expenditure survey are as follows:

  1996–97: £12.5 million (23 per cent.)

  1997–98: £14.3 million (27 per cent.)

  1998–99: £11.4 million (21 per cent.).

  Acute Hospitals Reorganisation Project
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what studies or reports have been provided to those people who have been consulted, or who have a right to be consulted, about the work of the acute hospitals reorganisation project currently being undertaken by the steering group headed by Dr. James McKenna; [7338]

  (2) what provision is made for access to the relevant studies for those people who are entitled to be consulted about the work of the acute hospitals reorganisation project currently being undertaken by the steering group headed by Dr. James McKenna; [7339]

  (3) if he will ensure that all relevant parties have full and complete access to all studies relevant to the work of the steering group chaired by Dr. James McKenna. [7340]

  Mr. Moss
  The steering group which is taking forward the acute hospitals reorganisation project has published two reports for consultation. These are "In Shape for the future" and "A Singular Service". Both documents were 1078
  issued to a wide range of interested parties for comment. The steering group hopes to publish a third report for consultation in the near future and, as before, this will he made available to all interested organisations and individuals.

  Child Support
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to prevent the Child Support Agency from declaring the parent with custody the absent parent in equal shared care arrangements. [7358]

  Mr. Moss
  In establishing who is the parent with care and who is the absent parent for child support purposes account is taken of the amount of overnight care provided by each parent. Where overnight is divided equally the parent receiving child benefit is treated as the parent with care. There are no plans to change these arrangements.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will amend the child benefit regulations to give a parent with custody the sole right to payment of child benefit in equal shared care cases. [7359]

  Mr. Moss
  No. Where both parents satisfy the conditions for entitlement to child benefit and the parents are unwilling to make a joint election as to which of them shall be entitled, the Department may at its discretion determine which of them is to be entitled. In reaching such a decision, the Department must consider the actual costs each customer incurs in looking after the child, and the impact of its decision on the welfare of the child. Court orders for the care of children cannot be accepted in isolation as a decision on child benefit.

  Housing Benefit (Tenants)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Housing Executive provides the Inland Revenue with details of housing benefit paid to tenants of private landlords. [7362]

  Mr. Moss
  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive does not provide the Inland Revenue with details of housing benefit paid to tenants of private landlords.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about the evasion of tax in respect of housing benefits paid to tenants of private landlords. [7364]

  Mr. Moss
  None.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was paid in housing benefits to tenants of private landlords in each of the last three years. [7363]

  Mr. Moss
  The amount of housing benefit paid to tenants of private landlords in each of the last three years is as follows:

  Year

  Total payment made to tenants of private landlords

  1992–93

  42,986,889.41

  1993–94

  51,605,437.17

  1994–95

  60,670,126.62

  Motor Vehicles (Damage Claims)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) policy in respect of acceptance of liability in respect of claims submitted for damage to motor vehicles when failure to maintain the carriageway is alleged. [7373]

  Mr. Moss
  Article 8 of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 allows vehicles damage compensation claims to be made against the Department for failure to maintain the road. The same article, however, provides the Department with defences to such claims. If, for example, the Department can show that it operated a reasonable system of inspection and repair of the road in question, there is no entitlement to compensation and a claim in such circumstances must be refused. It is the policy of the Department to investigate fully all damage claims made against it and after a thorough investigation a decision is taken either to settle it, reject it or refer it to another party, for example, a contractor.

  Housing Policy Review
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to publish the housing policy review and if he will make a statement. [7546]

  Mr. Moss
  I have today placed in the Library of the House the Government's proposals for future housing policy in Northern Ireland entitled "Building on Success". This review has taken place following extensive local consultations in Northern Ireland. Those who responded, almost without exception, praised the work of the Housing Executive in providing and managing public sector housing. The Government are determined to build on that success. The proposals published today seek to strengthen the executive's role in a number of important strategic ways including the determination of the locations for all new social housing, their subsequent allocation, the monitoring and oversight of housing associations and the private rented sector, and urban and rural regeneration. I want to maximise the private housebuilding sector's contribution, and also that of housing associations which have access to private finance. The document outlines proposals through which this could take place, together with a number of other policy proposals which the Government believe will help achieve their housing objectives for Northern Ireland. I have now initiated consultations on these proposals, with comments sought by 31 March 1996, following which decisions will be taken.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Military Aircraft Exports (Indonesia)
  Sir Alan Haselhurst
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about exports of military aircraft to Indonesia. [7545]

  Mr. Nelson
  I have authorised the issue of licences to British Aerospace in respect of the contract signed in 1993 to export Hawk aircraft and support equipment to Indonesia. This decision has been made, following consultation with the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in the light of the established 1080
  and internationally agreed criteria for military exports. In accordance with Government policy, a thorough assessment of the likelihood of these aircraft being used for internal repression in Indonesia or East Timor has been undertaken. This assessment has concluded that it is not likely that these aircraft will be so used. In addition, the Indonesian Government have given assurances that the aircraft will not be used for internal security or against civilians in any part of Indonesia or East Timor.

  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to disclose details of individual export licence cases, but, as I consider that the public interest in this matter outweighs the need for confidentiality, I have decided to make an exception.

  British Coal Enterprise
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to maintaining outstanding commitments to projects or partnerships not completed by British Coal Enterprise at the time of its sale. [5887]

  Mr. Page
  The sale of British Coal Enterprise is a matter for British Coal. Where projects or agreements have been entered into prior to the completion of the sale these will pass, subject to the consent of the third parties involved in certain cases, to the purchasers of the relevant activities of BCE.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if any European regional development fund grants paid to British Coal Enterprise will have to be repaid after privatisation. [5888]

  Mr. Page
  Where projects supported by ERDF grant and grant payments are complete, the Government do not believe that the sale of British Coal Enterprise or of its workspace activities, will affect the status of the projects or of the grants, provided that the assets continue to be used for eligible purposes and in accordance with the terms of the relevant offers of grant.

  Where projects supported by ERDF grant or the associated grant payments are not complete, or where offers of grant are still to be made in response to applications from BCE, the Government will seek assurances from any prospective purchaser of BCE, or of its workspace activities, that they will complete the projects in accordance with the terms of the offer of ERDF grant, continue to use the assets for eligible purposes and comply with the other requirements, both of the Government and of European Community law, as they relate to the offer of those grants.

  Electricity Prices
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in real terms, and expressed as a percentage of the 1994 figure, what is the annual average for the electricity component of the retail prices index in(a) 1979, (b) at the time of privatisation and (c) at the present time. [7031]

  Mr. Lang
  In real terms, domestic electricity prices, excluding VAT, have fallen by 7 per cent. between privatisation—taken to be the second quarter of 1990—and the third quarter of 1995. The detailed information requested is given in the table.
  1081

  Index number in current terms1

  Real terms index number2

  Percentage of 1994 figure

  1979

  44.2

  96.4

  100.2

  1990

  100.0

  100.0

  104.0

  1994

  112.5

  96.2

  100.0

  1995

  111.9

  93.6

  97.3

  1 The average of the monthly electricity components of the Retail Prices Index over the year (rebased to 1990=100).

  2 Using the Gross Domestic Product (market prices) deflator with 1990=100.

  The average of the monthly electricity components of the Retail Prices Index over the period January to November (rebased to 1990= 100). Data exclude VAT at 8 per cent. which became payable from 1 April 1994.

  Business Investment
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate his Department has made of the level of investment by United Kingdom industry since 1979. [5895]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Business investment is over a third higher, in volume terms, than in 1979.

  Mr. Booth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate his Department has made of the proportion of investment in United Kingdom industry by foreign sources for each year since 1979. [5894]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information required is given in the table.

  Percentage of UK manufacturing investment by foreign-owned companies

  Year

  Number

  1979

  23.2

  1981

  25.5

  1983

  23.1

  1984

  21.1

  1985

  21.9

  1986

  20.4

  1987

  21.3

  1988

  21.4

  1989

  27.6

  1990

  27.0

  1991

  33.5

  1992

  31.7

  Notes:

  1. 1992 figures are the latest available.

  2. Prior to 1983 figures were only collected biannually.

  3. Information is only available for manufacturing industries.

  Source:

  Annual Census of Production: CSO Business Monitor PA1002.

  Mr. Booth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the figures for investment in the United Kingdom in industry in relation to(a) investment in Germany and (b) investment in France in industry for each year since 1979. [5896]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  OECD estimates for business investment in the UK, France and Germany, expressed in relation to levels of GDP, are shown in the table. Since 1979, business investment in the UK has averaged 12.5 per cent. of GDP compared with 12 per cent. in Germany and 11 per cent. in France.
  1082

  Business investment as a proportion of GDP

  At 1990 Prices

  Per cent

  UK

  Germany

  France

  1979

  12.0

  11.8

  11.4

  1980

  11.8

  12.0

  11.7

  1981

  11.1

  11.6

  11.3

  1982

  11.7

  11.1

  11.0

  1983

  11.4

  11.4

  10.5

  1984

  12.1

  11.1

  10.1

  1985

  12.4

  11.4

  10.3

  1986

  11.9

  11.6

  10.8

  1987

  12.8

  11.9

  11.1

  1988

  14.1

  12.1

  11.7

  1989

  14.7

  12.5

  12.2

  1992

  14.1

  13.0

  12.4

  1991

  12.9

  13.3

  12.2

  1992

  12.5

  12.7

  11.5

  1993

  12.3

  11.1

  10.6

  1994

  11.9

  10.6

  10.4

  Source:

  OECD Business Sector database.

  Oil and Gas Exploration
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has concerning the exploration of oil and gas fields in the firth of Clyde, the sound of Jura and the sound of Mull; and if he will make a statement. [5163]

  Mr. Page
  There are no extant oil and gas exploration licences for the firth of Clyde, sound of Jura and sound of Mull. No applications were received for these areas in the recent seventh round of onshore oil and gas licensing.

  As in previous onshore rounds, all unlicensed areas including estuarine and near shore waters, referred to as "watery areas", were offered for licensing.

  Chauffeur-driven Cars
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what the cost of chauffeur-driven cars used by his Department was in each of the past five years. [5861]

  Mr. Lang
  The total cost, excluding VAT, of chauffeur-driven cars is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  197,496

  1991–92

  213,295

  1992–93

  321,664

  1993–94

  399,180

  1994–95

  411,827

  These figures also reflect structural and ministerial changes within the Department resulting from machinery of government changes.

  Docks Dispute (Merseyside)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will establish an inquiry into the dispute between Merseyside dockers and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, and if he will make a statement. [7323]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No. The dispute is solely a matter for the parties concerned.
  1083
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the talks between ACAS and the Transport and General Workers Union concerning the dispute between the dock workers and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. [7156]

  Mr. Taylor
  No. ACAS does not divulge details of its contacts with the parties to a dispute without their permission.

  Company Name Changes
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many companies have changed their name following direction by the Secretary of State under section 32 of the Companies Act 1985, in each of the last 10 years; and if he will name the companies involved and the nature of their business. [5773]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Our records show that, in the last 10 years, one company has changed its name following a direction under section 32 of the Companies Act. It is not our practice to disclose details of a company so directed.

  Marked Goods
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action is available by his Department or trading standards officers if goods purporting to be made in Sheffield and so stamped are not; and if he will make a statement. [6681]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, it is a criminal offence to mark goods with a false indication of their place of manufacture or production. The Act empowers trading standards officers to prosecute cases of false origin marking in the courts.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress his Department has made regarding establishing a contact point with responsibility for liaison with relevant business support organisations and taking forward small and medium enterprise related public procurement initiatives. [6722]

  Mr. Page
  The small firms and business link division of my Department is the contact point for general small business issues relating to public procurement. However, departmental procurement contacts for specific goods and services have also been established in DTI headquarters. Contacts for general departmental procurement queries exist in headquarters and the Department's executive agencies. Details are published in "Tendering for Government Contracts".

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many and what percentage of small and medium enterprises(a) have been informed of and (b) have used the regional supply network; and what has been its cost to public funds. [6518]

  Mr. Page
  Information about how many small and medium enterprises have been informed of, or have used, the regional supply network could be obtained only at 1084
  disproportionate cost. DTI expenditure was £1.3 million in 1994–95 and expenditure to end of November in 1995–96 is £1.4 million. The budget for each of the years 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 is £2.8 million.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what advice has been given to procurement staff on the implications of purchasing from small and medium enterprises; [6612]

  (2) what work his Department has done to develop best practice in the publication of departmental procurement guidance material relevant to small and medium enterprises, needs.[6610]

  Mr. Page
  A copy of the chapter from the Department's procurement manual providing guidance on purchasing from small and medium enterprises has been placed in the Library of the House.

  My Department has published a guide for small firms on "Tendering for Government Contracts", which contains advice on and details of the procurement requirements for each Government Department and its agencies, and a guide for Government procurement officers on purchasing from small firms called "Think Big, Buy Small". These publications are currently being updated and will be placed in the Library of the House in due course.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what meetings his Department has had since May 1995 with organisations representing small firms to review tendering procedures.[6611]

  Mr. Page
  My Department was represented at a meeting held by Her Majesty's Treasury officials between departmental purchasing officers and representatives of the CBI small firms council, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Forum of Private Business on 27 September 1995 to review tendering procedures.

  Exporting Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many United Kingdom firms were exporting(a) in April 1995, and (b) on the latest available date. [6553]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  According to the most recent information from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, there were approximately 112,000 firms exporting from the UK in 1994. This figure includes shipping agents but excludes those firms below the United Kingdom VAT registration threshold.

  Design Advisers (Business Links)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many design advisers are currently in place in business links; in which business links they are situated; and who they are. [6517]

  Mr. Page
  There are currently 18 design counsellors in business links. A list of the counsellors and the business links in which they are based has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what account is taken of human rights records in determining whether to permit the export of United Kingdom arms to overseas Governments. [7067]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My Department seeks the advice of the FCO in making decisions on individual export licence applications for military, security and para-military equipment, which are taken in the light of extensive information on the human rights situation. Export licences would not he granted for equipment likely to be used for internal repression.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list the dates since 1985 when Wickman Harrison applied for export licences for the sale of machine tools to the Nasr, Badr, Shuala, Aquabin Nafi and Al-Am facilities in Iraq; [5597]

  (2) if he will list the dates since 1985 when Philips Scientific applied for export licences for the sale of an atomic absorption spectrometer to the Tuwaitha and Hutteen facilities in Iraq; [5598]

  (3) if he will list the dates since 1985 when Avesta Steels Ltd. applied for an export licence for the sale of non-corrosive steel to the State Organisation for Technical Industries in Iraq; [5604]

  (4) if he will list the dates since 1985 when Atlas Equipment Ltd. applied for an export licence to sell nuclear triggers to the Al-Qaqaa General Establishment in Iraq; [5606]

  (5) if he will list the dates since 1985 when Astra Holdings applied for an export licence for the sale of munitions to the Huteen and Nasr facilities in Iraq; [5605]

  (6) if he will list the dates since 1985 when Cincinati Milacron Ltd. applied for export licences for the sale of machine tools to the Nasr, Badr, Shuala, Aquabin-Nafi and Al-Am facilities in Iraq; [5603]

  (7) if he will list the dates since 1985 when Norman Rushworth Ltd. applied for export licences for the sale of machine tools to the Nasr, Badr, Shuala, Aquabin Nafi and Al-Am facilities in Iraq; [5599]

  (8) if he will list the dates since 1985 when Gatewood Engineering Ltd. applied for an export licence for the sale of earth moving equipment to the Hutteen and Nasr facilities in Iraq; [5600]

  (9) if he will list the dates since 1985 when Marconi applied for an export licence for the sale of artillery metereological systems to the Hutteen and Nasr facilities in Iraq; [5601]

  (10) if he will list the dates since 1985 when Millitorr Engineering Ltd. applied for export licences for the sale of resin mixers to Iraq. [5602]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: Successive Administrations have not routinely disclosed such information, which is covered by commercial confidentiality, unless there is a clear public interest in doing so. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is the
  1086
  investigating authority for breaches of export controls, and if the hon. Member has any evidence of such breaches he should inform customs.

  Regional Grants
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial assistance through Government schemes will be available from 1 January 1996, for which the Lowestoft area will be eligible for support, development and diversification of its economic base; and if he will make a statement. [6201]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The following are the main measures of Government and European assistance for which funding could be sought for projects to promote regeneration, economic development and direct support for businesses in the Lowestoft area:

  (i) Objective 5b funding for the designated area within Lowestoft, in accordance with East Anglia Single Programming Document:

  (ii) Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Funding in accordance with the bidding guidance to be issued early in 1996;

  (iii) Two National DTI grant schemes for businesses. The Small Firms Merit Award for Research and Technology (SMART) is an annual competition offering financial support towards the development of commercially viable innovative projects. Support for Projects under Research (SPUR) offers flat rate grants to develop innovative products and processes;

  (iv) Financial assistance to undertake market research or to visit overseas markets is also available through the DTI/Foreign and Commonwealth Overseas Trade Services programme.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions his Department is having with businesses, local authorities and other partners in Waveney to produce funding bids for support, development and diversification of the economic base of Lowestoft, in 1996 and beyond; and if he will make a statement. [6204]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The government office for eastern region has indicated to the various interests in the Lowestoft area that it stands ready to discuss such bids. Preliminary discussions based on objective 5b funding and the third round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund will be taking place before the end of the month.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the eligibility criteria for gas and oil-related projects in the next round of regional challenge, mainstream objective 5b and single regeneration budget funding grants; how they are administered on a regional basis; and if he will make a statement. [6190]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: There are no specific criteria under these funding and challenge competitions in relation to oil and gas-related projects, but depending on the nature of any future projects account might need to be taken of any wider impact that they might have on the sector in terms of its existing capacity and employment. The same considerations would apply to projects in other industrial sectors. It is expected that the regional administrative arrangements for these measures will remain unchanged.
  1087
  Mr. Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the eligibility criteria by which a scheme in Swaffham, Norfolk, won the regional challenge funding for East Anglia; and if he will make a statement. [6203]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: All bids, including the winning regional challenge project for the East Anglia objective 5(b) area, were assessed against the criteria for the regional challenge competition and those provided for in the East Anglia single programming document.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what (i) consultation, (ii) visits and (iii) submissions the government office for the eastern region was involved in and when they took place, to date in 1995, in connection with regional challenge and objective 5b funding in Suffolk and Norfolk; and if he will make a statement. [6196]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: Prior to the formal submission of the regional challenge bids, visits were made to Breckland district council on 10 July and Waveney district council on 26 July at the request of those councils. A sub-group of the objective 5b monitoring committee, accompanied by GOER officials, visited Breckland district council on 4 September and Waveney district council on 13 September for presentations on the regional challenge bids, in preparation for the consideration of those bids by the monitoring committee on 18 September. Senior officials from GOER visited Waveney district council on 10 November to discuss developments in market conditions affecting the regional challenge proposals for the marine base.

  Other contacts, mainly by telephone and in writing, have taken place throughout the period, largely for clarification of the bids.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the considerations above the strict eligibility criteria he employed in determining the regional challenge and objective 5b funding applications for Suffolk and Norfolk. [6198]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: No special considerations above those applying to regional challenge and objective 5b funding were employed in determining the eligibility of the applications for the regional challenge competition. Projects considered to be eligible were assessed against the criteria in the regional challenge bidding guidance and the selection criteria provided for in the East Anglia single programming document. Those project selection criteria included value for money, taking into account the likelihood of achievement of the projected outputs from the proposals.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade at what stage during 1995(a) his officials, (b) the government office for the eastern region and (c) he personally, determined that gas and oil-related projects were ineligible for regional challenge and objective 5b funding; and if he will make a statement. [6202]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: No such decisions have been taken.
  1088
  Mr. Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade under what circumstances his Department reconsiders reworked bids from the Lowestoft area for funding assistance for projects relating to(a) gas and oil, (b) a port and (c) technological development, during 1996; and if he will make a statement. [6197]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The government office for the eastern region stands ready to consider both new and revised bids from the Lowestoft area against the criteria for the range of measures listed in my previous answers. Any revised bids for oil and gas projects would also be expected to take account of the recent, local market developments in the offshore supply sector which have affected the feasibility of the regional challenge bid for an integrated offshore marine base.

  Radio Communications Agency
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many times the Radio Communications Agency has had cause to reject an application from Scope Marketing (Communications UK) Ltd. Totnes, for an EC type examination certificate under the Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations 1992 due to presentational errors from the type approvals laboratories. [7006]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The Radiocommunications Agency has not rejected any applications from Scope Marketing (Communications UK) Ltd. Totnes for an EC type examination certificate under the Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations 1992 No. 2372, solely on the grounds of presentational errors.

  Contractorisation
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what systems are in place in(a) the Patent Office, (b) Companies House and (c) the Insolvency Service to compare costs of outside bidders with in-house services prior to any contractorisation; and if he will make a statement on the timetable and stages of contractorisation at each agency. [5836]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The basis for assessing bids in each agency will be overall value for money, including both the cost and quality of service. On costs, any bids will be assessed against a benchmark of the cost of continuing in-house provision, taking into account any planned efficiencies.

  On the timetables for each exercise: (a) Patent Office.

  Contracting out is being considered for four areas of the Patent Office—the operation of London front office; accommodation and office services; marketing and information services and information technology services. The first two are in the early stages of competitive tender. If it is decided to award a contract, it is envisaged that contractors would begin work in the early summer of 1996. The other two areas are the subject of feasibility studies.

  (b) The Insolvency Service: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) on 12 December 1995, Official Report, column 599.
  1089
  (c) Companies House: Tenders are currently being evaluated for the London and satellite offices in England, the Edinburgh office, and the central inquiry unit and postal search services and the cheque processing functions in Cardiff. If it is decided to award any contract, it is currently envisaged that contractors would be in place by April.

  Tender invitations are due to be issued in January 1996 in relation to office services in Cardiff which covers typing, reception, and so on.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations have taken place with staff and unions and(a) the Patent Office and (b) the Insolvency Service with particular reference to benchmarking. [5839]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: Regular meetings have been held with the agency trade unions and staff have also been briefed regularly regarding the progress of the contracting-out process in both agencies. The issue of benchmarks has been covered in discussions or in correspondence with trade unions. Suggestions for efficiency improvements from staff put forward to management and agreed in the normal way are incorporated in the benchmarks.

  Table: Public opinion surveys commissioned by the DTI from December 1992 to December 1995

  Survey

  Date

  Location

  Organisation

  Number of questionnaires

  Mountain bike study

  March 1994

  United Kingdom

  Nottingham University Institutue for Occupational Ergonomics

  1,490

  Metrication survey

  April 1994

  Great Britain

  RSGB Ltd.

  2,000

  Child usage of gas and electrical consumer products

  November 1993

  GB

  Children's Research Unit

  310

  Renewable energy awareness

  September 1993

  UK

  RSGB Ltd.

  2,200

  Citizen's band radio licence

  August 1995

  UK

  Radiocommunications Agency

  53,000

  Wind turbine design research

  November 1995

  GB

  Martin Hamblin Research

  472

  Potential for green electricity supply to UK domestic consumers

  January 1995

  UK

  Ratcliffe Hall International

  90

  Insolvency Service user survey

  November 1994

  England and Wales

  Price Waterhouse

  545

  Patent Office customer survey

  November 1994

  UK

  DTI

  465

  Overseas trade services publicity study

  April 1994

  UK

  Metra Martech

  900

  Attitudes towards the publications of the small firms division

  October 1993

  UK

  BLM Research

  130

  Farmers and growers attitude to renewable energy opportunities

  August 1993

  UK

  ADAS

  8,180

  1993 renewable energy awareness study—industrial and commercial sectors

  September 1993

  GB

  BMRB

  500

  Departmental Grants
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about inquiries taking place into grants made by his Department in the south-west region. [5465]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 December 1995]: The Department's internal inquiries referred to in my answer on 7 November 1995 about the information given by my hon. Friends on 2 March 1995, Official Report, column 719, and 19 July 1995, Official Report, columns 1561–62, have now been completed. The situation is that, although some checks may have been made into the

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. [5979]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: Surveys carried out by my Department into aspects of public attitudes and opinions in the three years to December 1995 are given in the table. In the time available, it has not been possible to assimilate information on the date the research was commissioned, the time scale, and on which individuals and organisations have been given access to the findings, nor to distinguish between general and specific policy proposals. The date in the table shows the survey was conducted. Information on the fee paid cannot be disclosed due to commercial confidentially considerations.

  background to the directors of ROM-Data Corporation Ltd. before an offer of grant was made to the company in 1991, the subsequent investigation has revealed no documentary evidence that these checks were made.

  It would therefore appear that those involved in appraising the case were not aware that Mr. John Dawson, who was involved with the ROM-Data Coroporation Ltd., was a discharged bankrupt even through that information was held by the Insolvency Service.

  In addition to the meeting held on 29 October 1993 between a DTI official and Mr. Brad Shepard, a subsequent meeting was held between DTI officials and

  1091
  the company on 2 June 1994 in connection with an application under the small firms loan guarantee scheme, a point which was omitted from the earlier reply on 19 July 1995, Official Report, columns 1561–62.

  I regret these errors. Ministers are considering what steps need to be taken to ensure that they do not recur. In general, the record for RSA grants has been good. In 1994–95 offers worth £159 million were made and only £2.4 million of grants paid in earlier years were written off in that year. I would also draw attention to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 7 December 1995, Official Report, column 334, about the Department's policy in respect of making grants available to companies whose directors have had previous bankruptcies.

  The Department's own inquiries into other aspects of its handling of the case are continuing and I will report the outcome to the House further as appropriate.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Departmental Staff (Members' Letters)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy 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 costs of replying to them in each of the last three years. [5623]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 18 December 1995,Official Report, column 880.

  Departmental Committees
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will list the cost of each committee of inquiry listed in his answer of 25 May,Official Report, columns 717–20, and the amount of remuneration paid to the chairman; and if he will make a statement; [6336]

  (2) if he will list the cost of each of the inquiries cited in his answer to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) of 25 May, Official Report, columns 717–20; and if he will make a statement. [7132]

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not held centrally.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress his Department has made regarding establishing a contact point with responsibility for liaison with relevant business support organisations and taking forward small and medium enterprise related public procurement initiatives. [6709]

  Mr. Willetts
  The contact points for my Department and its agencies will be published in the revised edition of the booklet "Tendering for Government Contracts", which will be available next month.

  HMSO (Privatisation)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has yet had the opportunity to respond to 1092
  the Speaker's letter of 28 November to the Lord President about HMSO. [7062]

  Mr. Freeman
  I wrote to the Speaker on 12 December 1995 and placed a copy of my response in the House Libraries on 14 December 1995. My reply reads as follows:
  Dear Madam Speaker,Thank you for the copy of your letter of 28 November to the Lord President about our plans to privatise HMSO.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. There are two strands to the protection which I believe can be made strong enough to satisfy the House. At present, the quality of the service is dictated both by the requirement, which is set down in writing, and by long history and tradition creating a culture within HMSO which ensures that Parliament is seen and treated as the key customer. I believe these can be carried forward into the relationship with a private sector Stationery Office and can be even stronger than they are now.Under the type of sale which we have proposed, HMSO staff, and with them tradition, knowledge and experience, would transfer to the new employer, who would have every interest in maintaining the best possible relationship with the House. House business would be financially important and would also carry significant prestige. 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.The agreement between the House and the privatised Stationery Office would be an enforceable, legally binding contract. Ultimately, the content of that contract is for the House to decide, although the Government would be happy to offer advice.The contract terms could make it clear that local overnight production facilities together with space and facilities for the staff of the House are required. The transfer would be subject to TUPE and therefore staff and management of the existing HMSO would transfer to the new employer. In addition, the contract could specify that it is dependent on the provision of properly trained staff. It would be quite normal to include a requirement for prior consultation in the event that significant changes to management or organisation are planned. It would also be quite usual, I think, for there to be a named senior individual responsible for the contract and for the relationship with the House. The Supply and Service Agreement would be the foundation of the contract, with the advantage that the minimum standards it establishes would be enforceable at law.I would expect the examination of prospective purchasers to include an evaluation of their intentions and understanding with regard to the services which they will be supplying to the House. The rights of the House in respect of the production and reproduction of its documents will be made explicit in the contract. I see no difficultly whatsoever in building on the financial arrangements of the new Supply and Service Agreement in order to ensure that the House continues to benefit from the negotiations which have been so recently completed.You raised the question of the possible future fragmentation of the organisation or sale to an unacceptable buyer. The Government intends to seek a buyer for the whole business and that buyer will have to be acceptable to key customers and in particular to the House. If, after the sale, the buyer sought to sell on to another party or sought to break-up the business the House could be protected both commercially and contractually. The contract could include the right to terminate on a change of supplier status; and commercially, of course, a considerable part of the value of the business would lie in the contract with the House. An owner who put this at risk would soon find that he had devalued what he wished to sell.I hope that this outline of responses to the views of the Commission indicates the seriousness I attach to these issues but also perhaps the degree to which I have already begun to address

  1093
  them. I have invited House officials to join mine in carrying forward the privatisation process including advising me on the selection of a buyer.I did, as you know undertake to make an oral statement to the House at the earliest opportunity and I hope to make this on Wednesday 14 December. I should also be pleased to seek an opportunity for the House to discuss its interest in the matter, in a debate as soon as possible after my statement.I should like to thank you for your helpful and constructive approach to these issues and for the considerable amount of work which has been undertaken by the House of Commons Commission and the Finance and Services Committee and by the House officials concerned. I am confident that from this excellent starting point we shall be able to take this work forward together to achieve the sale, and end the uncertainty, by summer next year.I understand that the House of Lords has similar concerns to yours though some details may be different, reflecting present business arrangements. But whatever the concerns, I am clear that they must be satisfied as a pre-requisite to the sale of HMSO.I am copying this letter to the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal and the Lord Chairman of Committees.Please he assured of my close attention to this matter.
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the office locations which will form part of the proposed sale of HMSO, indicating the number of staff employed in each. [6731]

  Mr. Willetts
  HMSO employs 2,898 staff in various locations around the United Kingdom. The geographical breakdown of those employees is as follows:
  1,105 in Norwich: 399 in Chadderton, Manchester; 210 in Edinburgh and South Gyle; 198 in Bristol, 67 in Belfast and Newtonards; 49 in Cardiff; 17 in Birmingham; 10 in Leeds; in London there are 220 in Elephant and Castle, 253 in Southwark, 303 in Vauxhall, 18 in Whitehall, 28 in Holborn, 16 in Docklands; and five in Monchengladbach serving the MOD in Germany.Under the proposed sale, all the staff assigned to the undertaking would transfer to the new employer. The number of staff involved in the residual body and who therefore would not transfer is not expected to amount to more than about 30.

  Expense Reimbursement
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those organisations holding national charters in which there are targets set for collecting statistics on claims for reimbursement of expenses submitted which are delayed for more than 50 per cent. of the average number of days for the year claimed. [4693]

  Mr. Freeman
  I am not aware that any of the organisations holding national charters have set targets for expense reimbursement. Whether such targets should be included in charter revising will be kept under review.

  Chauffeur-driven Cars
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what the cost of chauffeur-driven cars used by his Department was in each of the past five years. [5857]

  Mr. Willetts
  Expenditure on the use of chauffeur-driven cars by the Cabinet Office including the Office of Public Service and its executive agencies, which includes expenditure for the Government and Opposition Whips, for the Leader of the Opposition and for ex-Prime Ministers, is as follows:
  1094

  1993–94: £544,900

  1994–95: £745,600

  1995–96: £455,800.

  Notes:

  Actual expenditure to end of November. The figure for the Cabinet Office excludes expenditure by the Office of the Prime Minister, which was the subject of a separate Answer by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Figures for earlier years are available only at disproportionate cost.

ENVIRONMENT

  City Challenge
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment from which city challenge partnerships he has received annual reports for 1994–95. [4890]

  Mr. Curry
  Annual reports for 1994–95 have been received from all 31 city challenge partnerships. The reports are very encouraging and they indicate that city challenge is having a major impact on the regeneration of our cities.

  House Insulation
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the standard of insulation of housing in the United Kingdom with particular reference to the record of the last 20 years. [4892]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The standard of insulation of housing has improved dramatically over the last 20 years.

  Information for the whole of the United Kingdom is not available. However, the proportion of homes in Great Britain with lofts that are insulated has more than doubled from 42 per cent. to 89 per cent.; the percentage with cavity walls that are insulated has increased nearly tenfold from 2.5 per cent. to 23 per cent.; and the proportion of homes with windows double glazed has risen over sevenfold from 8 per cent. to 59 per cent.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussion he has had with local authority leaders on the Government contribution to overall local authority revenue. [4893]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the leaders of the local authority associations on 11 December to discuss a range of issues affecting local government, including the financing of local authority revenue expenditure. He will be meeting them again on 15 January at the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance.

  North East Lincolnshire Authority
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much will be lost to the new North East Lincolnshire authority as a result of the impact of the 1996 area cost adjustment on its financial allocations. [4894]
  1095
  Mr. Curry
  Nothing. The effect of using data from the 1994 new earnings survey is to reduce the area cost adjustment factors for authorities in London and the south-east and distribute more to other authorities, including North East Lincolnshire.

  South Pennines
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what special protection is provided by statute for the environment of the south Pennines. [4895]

  Mr. Clappison
  Large areas of the south Pennines have been notified as sites of special scientific interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Parts of the area fall within the Peak District national park, or are designated as green belt or areas of special landscape quality. The area also contains buildings listed as being of special architectural or historic interest.

  Urban Design
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage high standards of urban design so that new developments in towns and villages enhance the urban landscape. [4897]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  As part of my Department's initiative, "Quality in Town and Country", we have launched a national urban design campaign to promote greater consideration of urban design at a local level. About 20 of the more promising proposals submitted under the campaign will receive modest financial support from my Department and will feature in a major exhibition next year. We hope to announce our selection of proposals early in the new year.

  Rough Sleepers Initiative
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to continue the rough sleepers initiative beyond March 1996. [4898]

  Mr. Curry
  The housing White Paper, "Our Future Homes", issued on 27 June 1995, undertook to continue the Government's rough sleepers initiative in central London beyond March 1996, and to assist the development of the successful RSI model in other areas where rough sleeping could be demonstrated to be a major problem. Over the next three years, 1996–97 to 1998–99, my Department plans to make available £73 million to meet these commitments. Following analysis of the responses to a consultation paper issued on 3 October 1995, we will be issuing a strategy paper in the new year inviting bids for these resources.

  Rented Homes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes for renting were started by local authorities and housing associations in total in 1978–79; and what is his estimate for 1996–97. [4899]

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To asks the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes for renting were started by local authorities and housing associations in total in 1978–79; and what is his estimate for 1996–97. [4900]
  1096
  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration earlier today to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice).

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to revise the criteria for the calling in of planning applications. [4901]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to revise his policy for calling in planning applications.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much in total will be available for investment in the renovation of local authority housing from(a) credit approvals, (b) estate action and the single regeneration budget and (c) capital receipts in 1996–97; and what the equivalent figures were for 1989–90 and 1993–94. [4902]

  Mr. Curry
  We are making £699 million available in 1996–97 for general housing credit approvals, £30 million for the housing partnership fund and £256 million for estate action. Seventy schemes in round 1 of the single regeneration budget challenge fund have a significant housing content and are expected to receive about £125 million of SRB resources in 1996–97. Similar details for round 2 are not yet available; £40 million will also be available from the deprived estates challenge fund, out of a three-year total of over £314 million. The amount available from capital receipts will depend on authorities' success in selling assets. I will arrange for figures for the earlier years to be put in the Library.

  The proportion of these resources invested in the renovation of council housing will depend on authorities' own decisions about priorities.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals or plans he has for the transfer of the current responsibilities of the London Docklands development corporation subsequent to its dissolution in 1998. [4903]

  Mr. Curry
  The corporation's planning and development control responsibilities are transferring to the relevant local authority.

  Successor arrangements for other responsibilities are the subject of detailed discussions between the corporation, the local authorities, the Department and other bodies, including English Partnerships.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many pensioners and people over the age of 60 years have received help under the home energy efficiency scheme. [4904]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Age became a ground for grant in April 1994. Since then, some 530,000 grants have been paid to householders who claimed on the basis that they
  1097
  or their spouse was aged 60 or over. Grant eligibility for over-60s currently depends solely on age, not income, and no information is available on how many grant recipients are pensioners.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he expects to lay before Parliament the order altering the structure of local government in Rutland and Leicestershire; [6207]

  (2) what he expects to be the date of the first local government elections in Rutland within the proposed unitary county. [6208]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend intends to lay the order giving effect to structural change in Leicestershire before Parliament early in the new year. This will allow for elections to the future unitary authorities in May 1996 and reorganisation on 1 April 1997.

  Cryptosporidium
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest advice he has received on cryptosporidium in drinking water. [4896]

  Mr. Clappison
  The expert group, chaired by Sir John Badenoch, published its second report on 2 November this year.

  This confirmed that control over the catchment areas from which source waters are drawn and meticulous control and management of water treatment processes are the main safeguards against further outbreaks of waterborne cryptosporidiosis.

  Outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis, which are thought to be linked to drinking water, are investigated by the drinking water inspectorate and the case for prosecuting a water company for supplying water unfit for human consumption is considered.

  Landfill Sites (Essex)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the landfill sites in Essex; and what type of waste can be deposited in each of these sites. [6049]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department of the Environment does not keep records of individual landfill sites. This information can be obtained from the register maintained by Essex waste regulation authority.

  Glow Worms
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the numbers of glow worms in England over the past 30 years. [6180]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government's statutory scientific advisers, English Nature, advise that quantitative data on the abundance of the glow worm—Lampyris noctiluca—in England is scarce. Accurate recording of the population trends is difficult, in particular because the species is nocturnal and is easily detected only for around two weeks of the year.
  1098
  Available information suggests that the British population of Lampyris noctiluca may have declined over the past 50 years but is still present over most of its natural range.

  Departmental Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) orders and (b) firms arc represented by the percentage of invoices not paid by his Department within 30 days in 1994–95. [6492]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is not held centrally by my Department and is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Waste Collection and Disposal
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the number of tonnes of(a) inactive waste and (b) other waste, collected by local authorities in England and Wales and disposed of to landfill, in each year since 1990; [6821]

  (2) what is the forecast number of tonnes of (a) inactive waste and (b) other waste, which local authorities in England and Wales will collect and dispose of to landfill, in each year from 1995 to 2000; [6822]

  (3) what is the expected total amount of money that local authorities in England and Wales will pay in landfill levy in each year from 1996 to 2000; [6823]

  (4) what is the current range of landfill costs per tonne in England and Wales; [6825]

  (5) what assessment has been carried out by his Department into the price elasticity of demand for landfill. [6890]

  Mr. Clappison
  Local authorities are responsible for the collection and disposal of household and commercial waste. The Government's strategy for sustainable waste management, published last week, records that the estimated annual arisings for household and commercial waste in the United Kingdom are 35 million tonnes. Around 90 per cent. of household waste and 85 per cent. of commercial waste currently go to landfill. Very little of this is likely to fall within the definition of inactive waste. Figures are not available centrally on an annual basis.

  Local authorities are responsible for meeting the cost of disposing of the 20 million tonnes of household waste produced each year. They are able to recover the cost of disposing of the 15 million tonnes of commercial waste from the producers of the waste. Assuming that the full amount of landfill tax is passed on to local authorities by landfill operators, the cost of disposing of the proportion of the 20 million tonnes of household waste that goes to landfill would increase by about £126 million. As the landfill tax and other policies in the Department's strategy for sustainable waste management will act as incentives to move away from landfill, we would expect this figure to fall over a period of time. Local authorities will also benefit from a reduction of 0.2 per cent. in the main rate of employer national insurance contributions in 1997–98, as part of the Government's policy of moving business taxation away from employment towards activities which damage the environment.
  1099
  A study published by the Department shows that in April 1993 the cost of landfilling domestic and commercial waste ranged from £5 to £30 per tonne. Prices varied according to the type of waste and the location of the landfill site. Prices have risen since then, partly as a result of the implementation of the more stringent licensing regime under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  The price elasticity of demand for landfill depends on the suitability and availability of alternative waste management practices. This will vary to some extent across the country and between different types of waste. It will also vary over time as the practices of waste producers and handlers change to reflect policies contained in the waste strategy.

  Landfill Levy
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total increase in council tax bills in England and Wales forecast as a result of the introduction of the landfill levy, for each year from 1996 to 2000. [6824]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Levels of council tax will depend upon budget decisions taken by local authorities. The net amount attributable to the landfill tax will depend on authorities' waste disposal policies and on the effect of offsetting savings in employers' national insurance contributions.

  Pollution
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of how the best practice programme will save 2 million tonnes of carbon emissions. [7324]

  Mr. Clappison
  The energy efficiency best practice programme produces authoritative guidance on energy efficiency measures, promoted to industry, commerce and buildings professionals. It has a target of stimulating energy savings that, by the year 2000, will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 5 million tonnes of carbon per year. Market research shows that the programme has already generated annual reductions of some 2 million tonnes of carbon, and that it is well on course to meet its target for 2000.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the energy efficiency programmes whose continuing effects are expected to contribute to reducing carbon emissions as stated in the progress report on carbon dioxide emissions, and the date that each programme(a) commenced and (b) finished or is expected to finish. [7331]

  Mr. Clappison
  Of the many energy efficiency initiatives which predate the United Kingdom climate change programme, the principal ones—the energy efficiency best practice programme and the Government's work in promoting combined heat and power—began in 1989 and 1990 respectively. Both programmes are on-going.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what factors underlay the reduction in forecast carbon dioxide savings from energy efficiency 1100
  measures in the progress report on carbon dioxide emissions published on 14 December; [7325]

  (2) what conditions led to the increase in the forecast contained in the progress report on carbon dioxide emissions for savings in carbon dioxide emissions as a result of road fuel duty. [7355]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to pages 23 and 24 of the report.

  English Nature
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the budget for English Nature in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96, (c) 1996–97 and (d) 1997–98. [7207]

  Mr. Clappison
  English Nature's grant in aid for the financial years in question are:

  Year

  Grant in aid £ million

  (a) 1994–95

  40.405

  (b) 1995–96

  40.419

  (c) 1996–97

  39.166

  (d) 1997–98

  138.904

  1Baseline planning figure.

  Countryside Commission
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the budget for the Countryside Commission for(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96, (c) 1996–97 and (d) 1997–98. [7206]

  Mr. Clappison
  The grant in aid budget for the Countryside Commission was £46.137 million for 1994–95 and is £42.124 million for 1995–96. The allocation for 1996–97 is £25.787 million and the planning figure for 1997–98 is £24.727 million.

  The reduction in 1995–96 included £2 million for the national forest, work on which was commenced by the commission but which is being taken forward by the National Forest Company. The reductions in 1996–97 and 1997–98 take account of agreed transfers to MAFF—£13.293 million in each year—to support the transfer of responsibility for countryside stewardship, and to the groundwork foundation, £1.200 million in each year, for work in groundwork trust areas formerly funded by the Commission, as well as the 5 per cent. reduction in running costs being applied generally to the Department's sponsored bodies.

  Pesticides (Drinking Water)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has made to improve the standard of drinking water in response to the publication of the National Rivers Authority report into the levels of pesticides being found in water supplies; and if he will make a statement. [7335]

  Mr. Clappison
  The report makes it clear that serious incidents of pesticide pollution are rare, and that the data presented did not reflect drinking water quality. The quality of drinking water is very high; in 1994, of 3.5 million tests carried out, 99.3 per cent. met the
  1101
  relevant standards. Where standards were not met, water companies have provided legally binding undertakings to carry out the necessary improvements.

  Advisory Committee on Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the final report of the advisory committee on Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; and if he will make a statement. [7435]

  Mr. Clappison
  I am today placing a copy of the committee's final report in the Library of the House, together with responses by the inspectorate and the Environment Agency.

  I am grateful to the committee for producing a final report, which will assist in preparing for the inspectorate's entry into the agency. The report provides a valuable independent assessment of the inspectorate's strengths, and it provides a set of recommendations to guide the further development of the effectiveness and efficiency of pollution regulation in the future.

  I am pleased that the inspectorate and the agency have responded constructively to the committee's recommendations and are taking the necessary action to implement them.

  National Park Authorities
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements have been made for appointing the members to the new national park authorities provided for by the Environment Act 1995. [7437]

  Mr. Clappison
  The new independent national park authorities, whose creation was provided for by the Environment Act, are intended to be established in England on 1 October 1996, and to take over their full powers and responsibilities on 1 April 1997.

  During the passage of the Environment Act, the importance of the role for the Secretary of State's appointed members in bringing the wider national viewpoint to the deliberations of the national parks was emphasised.

  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside has today written to all Members who have a constituency interest in national parks, inviting nominations for Secretary of State members of the new authorities. Officials will also seek nominations from a wide range of organisations.

  Candidates are sought from a wide range of backgrounds and interests. All those with an interest in the parks are encouraged to put forward names for consideration. Local publicity will be arranged in the individual national parks.

  Nominations are required by 29 February 1996.

  In making these appointments to the new authorities, we will wish to bear in mind the desirability of maintaining some continuity of membership as well as of introducing some new members. We will select individuals for their personal qualities and experience, and not as representatives for specific groups or organisations.
  1102
  We expect them to have regard to the interests of all those who are concerned with a specific park, but our primary concern is that those members should bring the wider national viewpoint to the authorities' discussions.

  The Secretary of State will continue to be advised on his appointment by the Countryside Commission, which provides an independent input in to the selection process, and whose advice has always been valuable.

  UK Round Table on Sustainable Development
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the UK round table on sustainable development has held another meeting; and if he will make a statement. [7694]

  Mr. Gummer
  The UK round table on sustainable development held its fifth meeting on 11 December, with Professor Sir Richard Southwood and me in the chair. The meeting discussed the liberalisation of the supply of gas and electricity to domestic consumers, freight transport and environmental audit. Reports by the round table on each of these topics will be published shortly. The round table also considered a framework for a sustainable transport policy, on which discussion will continue at the next meeting in February, and agreed to undertake further work on the structure and powers of economic and environmental regulators in the UK, and how these can best reflect the needs of sustainable development.

  Packaging Industry
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the outcome of his meeting with the packaging industry on producer responsibility on 15 December. [7695]

  Mr. Gummer
  On 15 December, I met 30 representatives of leading businesses involved in packaging to hear their views on the best form of legal obligation to implement producer responsibility for packaging. This was a final opportunity to hear industry views before Government make their decision.

  The first part of the meeting was chaired by Sir Peter Parker, president of the Industry Council on Packaging and the Environment, whom I had asked to help resolve remaining differences of view in industry on alternative methods of achieving a shared approach to producer responsibility for packaging. As a result of his discussions a proposal combining elements of both approaches and agreed by the meeting has now been submitted to me.

  The main elements of this industry proposal are as follows:
  Information. The Environment Agency should develop and acquire data on major package material flows, waste streams and recovery processes and make this available to the industry.The legal obligation to valorise packaging to specific targets. A staged approach should be applied as follows, with the introduction of regulations in summer 1996:By the end of Year 1 (mid-1997) individual businesses or schemes should be under an obligation to provide packaging flow data to the Environment Agency;By Year 3 (1998–99) individual businesses or schemes should be assessed on completion of the first (3 year) tranche of recycling/recovery obligations. Compliance with Interim targets should not be enforced before 1998.1103 A review of the legal obligation involving all sectors of the packaging industry should be carried out on behalf of the Secretary of state by the end of 1997.An Advisory Committee, giving balanced representation to the industry sectors involved, should be established early in 1996 to advise the Secretary of State on the drafting and implementation of the regulations and on arrangements for carrying out a review of the legal obligation, including consideration of actual burden on individual companies.The principles on which the legal obligation should be based are:

  1. the use of packaging;

  2. the need to ensure effective co-operation throughout the packaging chain to achieve recycling and recovery, taking account of equity and the different roles of each sector.

  c. that each sector must play an equitable part in relation to the domestic waste stream.For the first two years, the legal obligation for sectors having taken into account exports and imports at all levels should he initially as follows (these would be the basis for figures applied to businesses outside a collective scheme):Raw materials and imports: 5½per cent.Converters and imports: 14½per cent.Packer fillers and imports: 35 per cent.Retailers, importers and distributers: 45 per cent.In the operation and monitoring of the obligation, the maximum practicable use should be made of sampling; "ready reckoners" and counting at the interface between 2 sectors.Companies supporting this approach are clearly committed to the principle that costs will be passed down the chain and through to the ultimate consumer.Companies supporting this approach and wishing to join a collective scheme would be expected to commit themselves for the first 2 years (or such longer period as may be agreed) to raise funds through a turnover-related annual membership fee, subject to a maximum of £50,000 for the largest UK turnover and with proportionately smaller fees for smaller companies.
  I welcome the very real efforts made by businesses in all sectors to achieve a consensus on the best means of implementing a shared responsibility approach in which they can have confidence.

  Government will now need to consider and decide on the best form of the legal obligation, taking account of all relevant considerations.

  I am placing copies of the full text of the industry proposal and a list of those who attended the 15 December meeting in the Library.

  Land Disposal (Local Authorities)
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to alter the arrangements whereby local authorities obtain consent to dispose of land at less than best price. [7696]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department and the Welsh Office have today issued the Local Government Act 1972 general disposal consent 1995, a copy of which has been placed in the Library, with the covering letter and explanatory commentary. This gives effect to proposals on which local authority associations and other interested organisations, including the Audit Commission, were consulted in March and which were generally welcomed.

  This general consent defines certain circumstances in which local authorities may, in future, dispose of land for less than best price without making specific application to the Secretary of State. For example, local authorities will
  1104
  now have greater freedom to grant long leases to other local authorities, health authorities or charities, or for purposes for which they have powers to provide grants or loans.

  The consent is designed to strike a balance between protecting the public purse and giving greater autonomy to local authorities to manage their own affairs.

  Valuation Tribunals
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response was received to the consultation paper on the appointment and jurisdiction of valuation tribunals in respect of local government reorganisation in parts of England. [7697]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The list of responses received has been placed in the Library of the House; copies of individual response may be obtained through the Library. Regulations will be introduced shortly to give effect to the following measures.

  (i) The Avon Valuation Tribunal is to be renamed the "Severnside Valuation Tribunal", and its members appointed by the four successor authorities in that area. Its complement will be increased to 40 members, with these shadow authorities entitled to appoint one member each immediately. As vacancies arise, they are to be replaced by appointments by the authorities in the following order in rotation: North West Somerset, South Gloucestershire, Bristol, Bath and North East Somerset.

  (ii) The Cleveland Valuation Tribunal is to be renamed the "Teeside Valuation Tribunal", and its members appointed by the four successor authorities in that area. Its complement will be increased by one, which may be appointed by the shadow Hartlepool UA immediately. As vacancies arise, they are to be replaced by appointments by the authorities in the following order in rotation: Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, Stockton-on-Tees and Hartlepool.

  (iii) The areas of the Selby District Council and the City of York Unitary Authority will be transferred from the area of jurisdiction of the North Yorkshire Valuation Tribunal into that of East Yorkshire Valuation Tribunal. The complement of the North Yorkshire tribunal will remain the same.

  (iv) The Humberside Valuation Tribunal is to be renamed the "East Yorkshire Valuation Tribunal", and its area of jurisdiction will cover the unitary authorities of East Riding of Yorkshire, Kingston-upon-Hull and York, and the district of Selby. Its members are to be appointed by the unitary authorities and the North Yorkshire County Council (in the ratio of 3:2:1:1). Its complement will be increased to 49, with York and North Yorkshire councils entitled to appoint one member each immediately. As vacancies arise, they are to be replaced by appointments by the authorities in the following order: twelve by York and North Yorkshire councils alternately, and the remainder by East Riding and Hull councils in the ratio 3:2.

  (v) The area of jurisdiction of the Lincolnshire Valuation Tribunal is to be extended to include the area south of the Humber which previously formed part of the area of the Humberside tribunal. Its complement will be increased to 90, with North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire entitled to appoint 14 members each immediately. The first vacancy to arise will be replaced by these authorities, and the remainder by Lincolnshire County Council.

DEFENCE

  Gazelle Helicopter (Alleged Misuse)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the outcome of the
  1105
  investigation by the special investigation branch of the Royal Military police in Edinburgh into the alleged misuse of a Gazelle helicopter by an Army officer with regard to a golf course in Scotland earlier in 1995 and other similar incidents. [5312]

  Mr. Soames
  Investigations into this incident have been completed and the findings have been considered by the Army chain of command. A Gazelle helicopter deviated from its task to take two Army officers to a golf tournament. There was no dishonest intent on the part of the officer responsible. He did, however, make an error of judgment and he has been subject to the appropriate disciplinary action. In addition, the procedures for authorising requests for helicopter flights have been amended to ensure that similar incidents cannot happen in future. There is no connection between this incident and other allegations of the misuse of Army assets, which have not been substantiated.

  Absence without Leave
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines apply to the payment of members of the armed forces who are on unauthorised absence from service; how many such absences there have been in each year since 1990–91; how much pay has been received by individuals while on unauthorised absence; and if he will make a statement. [7165]

  Mr. Soames
  When a member of the armed forces absents him or herself without authority, action is taken to stop pay, including increments and additional pay, from day one of the absence. On recovery from absence, disciplinary action is usually taken and, if the case against the individual is proven, pay for the entire period of absence is forfeited; it follows that no pay is received by individuals while on unauthorised absence. Details of the numbers of such absences there have been in each year since 1990 are currently being collated and I will write to the hon. Member with this information.

  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the steps to be taken following receipt of expressions of interest in the buildings of the Royal Naval college, Greenwich. [7199]

  Mr. Portillo
  In my capacity as sole trustee of the Crown charity, Greenwich hospital, and with the agreement of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for National Heritage and for the Environment, I have invited Lord Faringdon, Dame Jennifer Jenkins, Lord Sainsbury and Jocelyn Stevens to form an advisory group to advise me on the expressions of interest and on the future use and management of the Royal Naval college, Greenwich. Hayden Phillips and Sir Moray Stewart—from the Department of National Heritage and the Ministry of Defence—would also participate in the work of the group.

  It will be asked to give particular attention to the extent to which the proposals are sympathetic to the status of the building and their wide enjoyment by the public. A short list may be produced early in the new year; a final decision is not expected until summer 1996.

  Directorate of Operational Capability
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role and responsibility of the directorate of operational capability; to whom it reports; and what organisation it has replaced in his Department. [7139]

  Mr. Soames
  The directorate of operational capability was formed earlier this year. Its primary function is to provide a strengthened ability to assess defence-wide operational capability through a process of operational audit. This task was previously the responsibility of Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff (Operations).

  The directorate also provides the military element of the secretariat for the Defence Council. The director of operational capability reports directly to the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Commitments).

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work his Department has done to develop best practice in the publication of departmental procurement guidance material relevant to small and medium enterprises' needs. [6640]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department produces a publication, "Selling to the Ministry of Defence", which, in addition to setting out our basic procurement procedures, also provides a range of useful contact points within the Department. This publication, has been well received by small and medium enterprises. I will place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings his Department has had since May 1995 with organisations representing small firms to review tendering procedure. [6641]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Department maintains regular contact with a variety of trade associations representing companies involved in the defence sector that count among their membership small firms. Those discussions will from time to time include consideration of the Department's tendering procedures.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [6657]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The Ministry of Defence has always encouraged small firms to hid for work appropriate to their skills and capabilities. No specific review of this area of the Department's procurement activity is currently being undertaken.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1994–95. [6497]
  1107
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department publishes each year in "UK Defence Statistics" an analysis of its expenditure on goods and services in the UK, broken down by industry group. The analysis for 1994–95 is not yet available; that for 1993–94 appears in the 1995 edition of "Defence Statistics", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. These figures do, however, include some expenditure on goods and services purchased from the public sector, such as rail transport and postal services. They exclude expenditure by the then Defence Research Agency.

  RB44 Army Light Vehicle
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date his Department withdrew from service the RB44 Army light vehicle; and on what date his Department was first alerted to the problems with braking mechanisms of the RB44. [6987]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The issue of braking first arose during trials in 1989, but the shortcomings were addressed before the production contract was placed in 1990.

  The vehicles were temporarily withdrawn from service in June 1992 following problems with braking performance reported by the Royal School of Artillery in May 1992; after modifications, they were restored to service in November 1992. Following the results of further testing under stringent conditions in August 1993, the vehicles were withdrawn from service in December 1993, but were accepted again for service in August 1995.

  Biological and Toxic Weapons
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made at the ad hoc group meeting of states parties to the biological and toxic weapons convention in Geneva; what work has been carried out on compliance measures; and when the ad hoc group will complete its owrk. [6992]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The second substantive meeting of the biological and toxic weapons convention ad hoc group, which was held in Geneva from 27 November to 8 December 1995, made useful progress, building upon the work of the previous meeting in July. On compliance measures, a number of issues were explored on mandatory declarations; on-site visits/inspections, in particular regarding the role of non-challenge visits; and investigation of alleged biological weapon use. Much work remains to be done, however, and it is not possible at this stage to predict when the process will be concluded. The ad hoc group is mandated to complete its work as soon as possible and to submit its report to be considered at the fourth review conference, scheduled for November-December 1996, or later at a special conference.

  Honourable Discharges
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Army service men have been given an honourable discharge in each of the last 36 months; and if he will indicate their units. [6887]

  Mr. Soames
  Honourable discharge is not an officially recognised term. However, excluding those who have been discharged as a result of sentencing by court martial or for misconduct, 48,377 soldiers have left the Army 1108
  "honourably" since the beginning of 1993. This figure could be further broken down only at disproportionate cost.

  Merchant Vessels
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 December,Official Report, column 344, relating to the charter of merchant vessels by his Department, what was the total cost of chartering these vessels. [6990]

  Mr. Soames
  The total cost of chartering these vessels is £25,807,174.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the name of every merchant vessel and its country of registration chartered by his Department for(a) exercises and (b) military support and re-supply operations in (i) 1992, (ii) 1993 and (iii) 1994. [6988]

  Mr. Soames
  The names of merchant vessels and their country of registration chartered for(a) exercises and (b) military support and re-supply in 1992, 1993 and 1994 are as follows:

  Vessel name

  Flag

  1992: Vessels chartered for exercises

  Rosa Dan (Twice)

  Danish

  Tor Caledonia (Twice)

  Danish

  King of Scandinavia (Twice)

  Danish

  Mercandian Arrow (Four times)

  Danish

  Mercandian Duke

  Danish

  Mercandian Senator

  Danish

  Mercandian Prince II

  Danish

  Mercandian Queen II

  Danish

  Norona

  Danish

  Winston Churchill

  Danish

  Thomas Wehr

  Danish

  Stena Traveller (Twice)

  Swedish

  Stig Gorthon

  Swedish

  Este Submerger II

  German

  Condock III

  German

  Skene

  German

  Alster Rapid

  German

  Baltic Sun

  Dutch

  Danica Red

  Danish

  Danica Green

  Danish

  Miranda

  Danish

  Dina

  Grenadines

  Vessels Chartered for support

  Northella

  British

  Indomitable

  British

  Oil Mariner

  British

  RTK Raiding Craft

  British

  Polar Circle

  British

  ROV Achilles Eyeball

  British

  ROV Scorpio 34

  British

  Flying Spindrift

  British

  Marine Explorer

  British

  Proud Seahorse

  British

  Artic Nanook

  Bahamian

  6.5 Beach Rider

  British

  Steadfast

  British

  Seagull

  British

  Maersk Ascension

  British (IOM)

  Maersk Gannet

  British (IOM)

  ONL Producer

  Norwegian

  British Wye

  British

  ESSO Mersey

  British

  Solaro

  Italian

  Rita Maersk

  Danish

  1109

  Vessel name

  Flag

  Golconda

  Panamian

  Valentino

  Italian

  ESSO Fawley

  British

  Granada

  Norwegian

  Lisbet (Twice)

  Norwegian

  Rathmoy

  Irish

  Sonja

  Norwegian

  Four Skies

  Maltese

  Confidence

  Singaporean

  Maersk Harrier

  British

  Milford Haven

  British

  Rathkyle

  Irish

  Shell Trans

  Dutch

  Longobarda

  Italian

  Conny

  liberian

  Stella Procyon

  German

  Ankergracht

  Dutch

  Jens Munk

  Danish

  Castor

  Singaporean

  Malene

  Danish

  St. Brandon

  British

  Jetta Dainia

  Danish

  Dansus

  Danish

  Kleven

  Danish

  Stig Gorthin

  Swedish

  Ben Ellan

  British

  Bcursgracht

  Dutch

  Conti Blue

  St. Vincent

  Puma

  Danish

  Atlantic Conveyor

  British

  Atlantic Cartier

  French

  Baltic Breeze

  Singaporean

  Jaguar

  Danish

  Bassro Star

  Norwegian

  Belvaux

  Luxemburg

  Maersk Kent

  Bahamian

  Maria J

  German

  Via Tirreno

  Italian

  Nornews Service

  Norwegian

  Rheiderland

  German

  Rosa Dan

  Danish

  Santa Maria

  German

  Sea Bird

  Danish

  1993: Vessels Chartered for exercise

  Mercanian Duke

  Danish

  Tor Britannia (Twice)

  Swedish

  Submerger I

  German

  Tor Dania (Five times)

  Swedish

  Salar (Twice)

  Swedish

  Princess of Scandinavia

  Danish

  Sophie

  Danish

  Nornews Service

  Norwegian

  Submerger II

  German

  Bassro Star

  Norwegian

  Arktis Bay

  Danish

  Atlanic Cartier

  French

  Merida

  Danish

  Rosa Dan

  Danish

  Arktis Sky

  Danish

  Maria (Twice)

  Danish

  Cecilia

  Danish

  Vessels charterd for support

  Northella

  British

  Indomitable

  British

  Oil Mariner

  British

  Marine Explorer

  British

  Proud Seahorse

  British

  Paragon VSV 10

  British

  Bramley Moore

  British

  Waterloo

  British

  CS Monarch

  British

  Rockwater I

  British

  1110

  Vessel name

  Flag

  MFV Brighter Morn

  British

  Maersk Ascension

  British(IOM)

  Maersk Gannet

  British(IOM)

  Navigo

  Swedish

  Antonio D'Alesio

  Italian

  ESSO Fawley (Three times)

  British

  United Star

  Swedish

  Oderstern

  British(IOM)

  ESSO Mersey (Twice)

  British

  Echoman

  British

  Star Penbroke

  Bahamian

  British Tamar

  British

  Helen Knutsen

  Norwegian

  Panther

  Danish

  Sophie (Twice)

  Danish

  Parkgracht

  Dutch

  Maria

  Danish

  St. Brandon

  British

  Maria D

  German

  Ben Ellan

  British

  Barde Team

  Norwegian

  Celebrity

  British

  St. Angus

  British

  Glencloy

  British

  Condock III

  German

  MV Anomis

  Danish

  MV Amulet

  Danish

  MV Brandaris

  German

  Mercandian Queen II

  Danish

  Puma

  Danish

  Glenfyne

  British

  Mercandian Duke

  Danish

  Belvaux

  Luxembourg

  Nornews Service

  Norwegian

  Arroyofrio Dos

  Spanish

  1994: Vessels charted for exercise

  Mercandian Queen 11

  Danish

  Tor Dania

  Swedish

  Nesborg

  Danish

  Arcade Eagle

  Norwegian

  Arktis River

  Danish

  Jaguar

  Danish

  Puma

  Danish

  Danica Red

  Danish

  Danica Green

  Danish

  Vessels chartered for support

  Indomitable

  British

  Oil Mariner

  British

  Marine Explorer

  British

  Proud Seahorse

  British

  VSV 50 (Three times)

  British

  Aquamarine (Twice)

  Liberian

  Seaway Harrier (Twice)

  British

  CS Sovereign

  British

  Northella

  British

  Fennica

  Norwegian

  Maersk Gannet

  British(IOM)

  Pride of Portsmouth

  Bahamian

  Ben Viking

  Norwegian

  The Performa

  Bahamian

  Flying Enterprise

  Cypriot

  Seaway Pelican

  Norwegian

  ESSO Fawley

  British

  Lisbet

  Norwegian

  Harpoen

  Dutch

  Minibex

  British

  Seashake

  Sardinian

  Nordfast

  Bahamian

  Lowland Cavalier

  British

  Torm Ragnilo

  Bahamian

  Rasmine Maersk

  Norwegian

  Dubalti

  Latvian

  1111

  Vessel name

  Flag

  Arion

  German

  Creon

  Cypriot

  Petro Milford Haven

  British

  ESSO Mersey

  British

  Sidsel Knutson

  Norwegian

  Maersk Ascension

  British (IOM)

  Atlanta Forest

  Maltese

  Arktis Spring

  Danish

  St. Brandon

  British

  Carman

  Swedish

  Arktis Fighter

  Danish

  Happy Bucaneer

  Dutch

  Tiger

  Danish

  Spes

  Italian

  Klippergracht

  Danish

  Rosen

  Danish

  Glenrosa

  British

  Glenlyne

  British

  Arkstis Star

  Danish

  Germania

  German

  Elbemond

  Dutch

  Alster Rapid

  German

  Bassro Star

  Spanis

  Mercandian Prince

  Danish

  Ministry of Defence Police (Colchester)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the MOD police are based in Colchester. [6827]

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently 43 MOD police officers, of whom six are CID, and two civilian members of staff based in Colchester.

  Bosnia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 6 December,Official Report, column 241, if he will list the US navy ships which have been chartered by his Department to move United Kingdom equipment to Bosnia; what consideration he gave to the chartering of British merchant vessels; and if he will provide details of the financial arrangements concerning this charter. [6989]

  Mr. Soames
  The names of the two US navy ships chartered to move United Kingdom equipment to Bosnia are USNS Cape Rise and USNS Cape Race. The Ministry of Defence charters shipping that best meets its sealift requirements in the most cost-effective manner possible. As they are non-trading vessels and therefore not committed to existing commercial charters, the US naval ships provide guaranteed availability with the ability to meet the initial rapid deployment time scales required of us by NATO. The US navy ships have been chartered under the auspices of a UK-US bilateral arrangement on a reimbursement basis. It is intended to charter civilian shipping on the international market for the balance of the sea deployment requirement for which British ship owners will have an opportunity to offer their vessels. The defence freight market representative at the Baltic exchange, acting on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, has now approached the market.

  RAF Bases (Planned Closures)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 December,Official
  1112
  Report, column 485, if he will list the closure dates of (a) RAF Carlisle, (b) RAF Quedgeley and (c) RAF North Luffenham. [6993]

  Mr. Soames
  The planned closure dates for RAF Carlisle and RAF Quedgeley are 31 March 1997 and 31 March 1996 respectively. RAF North Luffenham is expected to close towards the end of 1997.

  Ministry of Defence Police (Redundancies)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many redundancies there have been in the MOD police in each of the last five years. [6826]

  Mr. Soames
  There have been no redundancies in the MOD police during the past five years.

  Special Investigations Branch (Colchester)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of his Department's special investigations branch are based in Colchester. [6828]

  Mr. Soames
  Five members of the special investigations branch of the Royal Military police are based in Colchester.

  Departmental Targets
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how his Department performed against performance measurements in the period 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995; and if he will make a statement. [7542]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has today published a performance report covering the period 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995, and I have placed a copy in the Library of the House.

  Army Attack Helicopter
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the manufacture of the Army's attack helicopter will be made in Britain. [6991]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 13 July 1995,Official Report, columns 1091–92, we have received guarantees that at least 50 per cent. of the Army's attack helicopter procurement by cash value will be manufactured in the United Kingdom. The details of how this will be achieved are being negotiated currently, and will be reflected in the contract, which we expect to place with Westland helicopters in the new year.

  Service Housing
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost to date of consultancy payments made to firms in relation to work carried out to develop his Department's plans for the proposed sell-off of its housing stock. [6888]
  1113
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The total cost to date of consultancy payments made to firms in relation to new arrangements for the married quarters estate, including work carried out on the previous proposal for a housing trust and on the establishment of the Defence Housing Executive, amounts to some £5.9 million, exclusive of VAT, on the basis of invoices received by early December. Such firms include financial legal and property advisers. Of this total, approximately £1.6 million has been incurred, subsequent to the abandonment of the housing trust proposal, on the development of the proposal to transfer the married quarters estate to the private sector announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 30 November 1995,Official Report, columns 810–11.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the approximate value of(a) land that has planning consent and (b) land that does not have planning consent that is planned to be sold in addition to the 73,000 dwellings already announced in the plans to privatise his Department's service dwellings. [5944]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: As set out in the preliminary information memorandum for the sale of the married quarters estate, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, the current expectation is that the number of dwellings to be sold will be approximately 60,000. The extent of the land to be included in the sale varies from, in a few cases, little more than that on which the quarters stand to, at the other extreme, spacious grounds with low density housing. Our assessment of the value of the married quarters estate under the terms of the proposed sale is commercially confidential.

  Departmental Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) orders and (b) firms are represented by the percentage of invoices not paid by his Department within 30 days in 1994–95. [6489]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 19 December 1995:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of orders and firms whose invoices are not paid by his Department within 30 days and what amount is owed to businesses by his Department whose invoices are not paid within 30 days. I am replying to both questions on behalf of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, formerly the Defence Research Agency.I explained in my letter to you of 1 November that virtually all our validated invoices are paid within 9 days of reaching our bill paying section. As the number of bills not paid within this period is so small I am afraid that we do not keep statistics on them.I am sorry I cannot be more helpful on this occasion.1114
  Letter from P. J. Trevelyan to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 19 December 1995:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) orders and (b) firms are represented by the percentage of invoices not paid by his Department within 30 days in 1994–95. As Chief Executive of the Defence Accounts Agency I have been asked to reply.The payment performance statistics which arc readily available are held in volume of invoices only so the information requested could only be provided as disproportionate cost.I am sorry I cannot be more helpful.
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the amount owed to those businesses whose invoices were not paid within 30 days or within agreed contractual arrangements for 1994–95. [6513]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 19 December 1995:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of orders and firms whose invoices are not paid by his Department within 30 days and what amount is owed to businesses by his Department whose invoices are not paid within 30 days. I am replying to both questions on behalf of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, formerly the Defence Research Agency.I explained in my letter to you of 1 November that virtually all our validated invoices are paid within 9 days of reaching our bill paying section. As the number of bills not paid within this period is so small I am afraid that we do not keep statistics on them.I am sorry I cannot be more helpful on this occasion.
  Letter from P. J. Trevelyan to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 19 December 1995:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the amount owed to those businesses whose invoices were not paid within 30 days or within agreed contractual arrangements for 1994/95. As Chief Executive of the Defence Accounts Agency I have been asked to reply.We monitor our prompt payment performance closely. Of the almost 3 million bills received by the Liverpool payment office in 1994/95, 329 were not paid within 30 days. The payment performance statistics which are readily available are held in volume of bills only, therefore the amount of money owed in respect of this very small percentage of invoices could only be provided at disproportionate cost.I am sorry I cannot be more helpful.

  Gulf Medical Assessment Programme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many veterans have had a medical examination under the Gulf veterans medical assessment programme to date; and how many of these have(a) had a second medical examination or (b) been referred to specialists. [5316]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 11 December 1995]: To date, a total of 339 veterans have received an initial medical examination under my Department's Gulf medical assessment programme. Twenty-four of these veterans are still in the process of having their tests completed and evaluated. Of the remaining 315 individuals, 80 have received a second examination on the assessment programme and 158 have been referred to specialists.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what inquiries were made of Mr. Joseph Spinelli, former New York State Inspector General, about the due diligence meeting with the independent non-executive directors of Camelot before the award of the contract to Camelot, with particular reference to participants at the meeting; and if she will make a statement. [6685]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have no knowledge of any such meeting.

  Mr. 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 general, and when, on acceptable levels of hospitality; and if she will make a statement. [6334]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  (pursuant to her reply, 18 December 1995 c.849-50): I have today written to the Director General of the National Lottery and am placing copies of the letter in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Computer Services
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will(a) place in the Library a copy of the full study report referred to in paragraph 12, (b) list the computer services referred to in paragraph 13 and (c) list the computer system faults referred to in paragraph 18 of the memorandum submitted by the Information Technology Services Agency to the Social Security Committee and published with the Committee's fifth report of Session 1994–95, the work of the Department of Social Security and its agencies (HC382). [4333]

  Mr. Burt
  It would not be appropriate to place a copy of the full study report in the library. The report contains information which is commercial in confidence, and also contains technical, security, and audit details, which would have potential security implications if in the public domain.

  The operational accounting system functionality is a customised version of the accounting portion of the FLORIDA—Florida recipient integrated data access—application. It is composed of the following modules:

  Financial Management and Control Module

  Collection Module

  Distribution Module

  Disbursement Module

  Enforcement Module

  Reporting Module

  Data Exchange Module.

  Maintenance and Assessment, another adaptation from modules within FLORIDA, provides the following facilities:

  Client Registration

  Interactive Interview

  1116

  Aging and Tracking

  Case Load Management

  Client Notices

  Reporting

  Enquiry

  History Maintenance

  Security Maintenance.

  Three faults, relating to the incorrect issue of notifications by the child support computer system were recorded, analysed and corrected.
  Fault 1: Relates to notifications which invited payment even though funds are already held through payment of a lump sum which has been allocated and de-allocated through a clerical process.Fault 2: Relates to incorrect amounts contained within notifications because of a fault in a weekly to monthly conversion routine. Variations were always small in value.Fault 3: Relates to requests for incorrect direct debit payments in certain circumstances following the restart of a computer program after failure in a specific area of processing.
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 27 November,Official Report, column 510, in respect of the legal dispute between EDS and Computer Associates, on which occasions his Department was able to obtain the Computer Associates products (a) Telon and (b) Eastrieve for use with the CSA computer system; what impact access to these products had on the completion of the project; and how much his Department had to pay for these products. [4692]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department obtained licences to run the Computer Associates products TELON and Easytrieve on the new child support computer system from 24 November 1992. The system as provided by EDS could not have been run without these products. They were obtained in sufficient time to ensure that successful delivery of the system was unaffected.

  The cost of the products is commercial in confidence.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the average amount of maintenance received by parents with dependent children claiming income support in each year since 1985 in constant prices. [4688]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the Child Support Agency measures travelling distance between(a) Clydebank and Greenock and (b) other places where water crossings or journeys around peninsulas are involved. [6062]

  Mr. Mitchell
  From April 1995, the formula used to assess liability for child support maintenance has included an allowance in recognition of the costs of travelling to work where these costs are high. The allowance is broad-brush in nature and is based upon the straight-line distance between the parents' home and their normal place of employment. The allowance is designed to be straightforward to administer and, in the vast majority of cases, will be a reasonable reflection of the additional costs involved.
  1117
  It is recognised, however, that basing the calculation on the straight-line distance may cause some inequities, especially where there are geographical obstructions between the two locations. It is with these cases specifically in mind that high travel-to-work costs may be cited as grounds for varying the formula calculation under the new departure direction scheme which is to be piloted from April next year.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown of the number of items of unlinked mail at the Child Support Agency at each month end since April 1994. [4173]

  Mr. 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 18 December 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State about the number of items of unlinked post at the Child Support Agency.I am sorry that it is not possible to provide an answer to your Question in exactly the form you have asked, but I will try to address what I think is your main concern.All items of mail received at the Agency's six Centres are promptly sorted. A letter responding to a request for information is passed immediately to the relevant section which requested the information and staff will then take the necessary action. Other items of mail will have details of the correspondence entered immediately on the appropriate file held on the computer system.If an item of post is received which we are unable to associate with the case (ether clerical or computer based) because, for example, there is insufficient information, the Agency writes to the correspondent asking for more details. The number of such items of unactioned and unlinked mail held by the Agency's Centres at 1 December 1995 amounted to 57.I hope this is helpful.
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) of 18 May,Official Report, column 331, concerning maintenance assessments by the Child Support Agency with reference to cases cleared since April. [4717]

  Mr. Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the chief executive of the Child Support Agency on 12 December,Official Report, columns 625–27.

  Child Support Appeals
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many appeals which have been lodged with a child support appeal tribunal are currently pending; [4686]

  (2) what is the average length of time between the lodging of an appeal to a child support appeal tribunal and the hearing of the appeal by the tribunal; [4684]

  (3) how many appeals have been determined by a child support appeal tribunal; and in how many appeals the tribunal held that there had been no error by the child support officer. [4683]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  At 30 November 1995, there were 4.617 appeals outstanding at the child support appeal tribunals. In the last 12 months, 4,565 appeals have been 1118
  determined; in 1,169 cases the child support officer's decision was upheld. The average clearance time is 41 weeks.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total gross cost to public funds to date of the operation of(a) the child support appeal tribunals and (b) the child support commissioners. [4685]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information requested on child support appeal tribunals is not available. However, we estimate that, excluding start-up expenditure, for the first two years of operation the child support appeal tribunals cost approximately £600,000. I am informed by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor that the information requested on the child support commissioners is not collected.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what undertakings he has given the Data Protection Registrar regarding the powers of the Child Support Agency to require the disclosure of personal data; and how these undertakings have been followed up. [5303]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The Child Support Agency is registered in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984. The agency's chief executive, Miss Ann Chant, has met the registrar several times and officials from this Department, the agency and the registrar's office are in regular contact to ensure effective liaison.

  Motability
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how leasing or hire purchase agreements through Motability will be affected in circumstances when the disabled person is hospitalised for a period of more than four weeks; [5090]

  (2) in what respects the treatment of vehicle owners under the Motability scheme differs from that applying to disabled people with vehicles obtained under independent car or wheelchair hire or leasing agreements. [5091]

  Mr. Burt
  Existing Motability agreements will he unaffected by the proposals. Agreements will not be renewable while a patient is in hospital. No special arrangements are proposed for people with private agreements.

  Income-related Benefit Recipients
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children in families were(a) dependent on income support, and (b) in receipt of family credit, by region, in each of the last five years. [4921]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the tables. No breakdown by Government standard statistical region is available in any year for family credit or for income support in 1990. Regional data for income support in 1995 are not yet available.
  1119

  Number of children in families receiving income support 1990–95

  Number of Children

  May

  May

  May

  May

  May

  February

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Great Britain

  2,045

  2,368

  2,703

  2,966

  2,980

  2,977

  South East (excluding London)

  —

  315

  380

  442

  434

  —

  London (Inner and Outer)

  —

  357

  445

  491

  508

  —

  North

  —

  165

  173

  182

  184

  —

  Wales

  —

  131

  146

  163

  165

  —

  Scotland

  —

  239

  251

  251

  248

  —

  Yorks and Humberside

  —

  239

  255

  268

  170

  —

  East Midlands

  —

  143

  166

  182

  190

  —

  East Anglia

  —

  51

  67

  80

  80

  —

  South West

  —

  149

  174

  195

  191

  —

  West Midlands

  —

  244

  278

  312

  310

  —

  North West

  —

  336

  368

  402

  400

  —

  Number of children in families receiving family credit 1990–1995

  Thousands

  Number of children in Great Britain

  May 1990

  669

  May 1991

  736

  May 1992

  828

  May 1993

  992

  May 1994

  1,123

  February 1995

  1,205

  Notes:

  1. All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Regions are GSS Standard Statistical Regions.

  3. Children are defined as aged 15 or under.

  Source:

  Income support annual statistical inquiries 1990–1993.

  Year

  Rent allowance

  Rent rebate

  Recipients (000)

  Expenditure (£ million)

  Recipients (000)

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1991–92

  1.151

  2,404

  2,966

  3,971

  1992–93

  1,346

  3,238

  3,034

  4,555

  1993–94

  1,549

  4,173

  3,053

  5,020

  1994–95

  1,686

  4,908

  3.006

  5,345

  1. Figures given for recipients relate to benefit units which may be a single person or a couple.

  2. Figures for recipients are an average of 100 per cent. caseload counts taken at the end of May, August. November and February of each year.

  3. Expenditure figures for 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 are outturn. 1994–95 is estimated outturn.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what protection will be available to the children of asylum seekers under the Children Act 1989 when the changes in benefits to asylum seekers come into operation. [5162]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The proposed changes in benefits for asylum seekers would not alter the existing provisions of the Children Act.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the maximum amount of disability living allowance that may be claimed by an applicant for asylum; and what amount is then deducted from the amount paid to such an applicant in income support. [7135]
  1120
  Income support quarterly statistical inquiries May 1994 and February 1995.

  Family credit 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  National Insurance
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the estimated total value of employers' contributions to national insurance in 1994–95 on behalf of all non-retired households, by gross income decile group, following the latest report on the family expenditure survey. [5381]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [5580]

  Mr. Burt
  Departmental expenditure on official hospitality in 1994–95 was £127,785. For the financial year to date—end of October—it is £58,007. The 1995–96 projected outturn is in the region of £100,000.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many housing benefit claimants are in(a) the rent rebate and (b) the rent allowance categories; and what was the total amount paid under each heading in each year since 1991–92. [5052]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table:

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The current maximum rate of disability living allowance payable to an asylum seeker is £79.35 a week. This is fully taken into account when assessing an asylum seeker's entitlement to income support under the urgent cases provisions.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what work his Department has done to develop best practice in the publication of departmental procurement guidance material relevant to small and medium enterprises' needs; [6616]

  (2) what advice has been given to procurement staff on the implications of purchasing from small and medium enterprises; [6618]
  1121
  (3) 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. [6665]

  Mr. Burt
  Procurement staff in the DSS follow the guidance on procurement from small and medium enterprises issued by HM Treasury's central unit on procurement. The DSS is working with CUP to review examples of best practice in this area in order to update current guidance.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what meetings his Department has had since May 1995 with organisations representing small firms to review tendering procedures. [6617]

  Mr. Burt
  The director of procurement for DSS attended a meeting on 27 September 1995 organised by HM Treasury's central unit on procurement.

  The meeting, which was also attended by the CBI small firms panel, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Forum of Private Business, reviewed tendering procedures.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress his Department has made regarding establishing a contact point with responsibility for liaison with relevant business support organisations and taking forward small and medium enterprise related public procurement initiatives. [6719]

  Mr. Burt
  The director of procurement for DSS has taken personal responsibility to act as a contact point for all issues relating to small and medium enterprises.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1994–95. [6506]

  Mr. Burt
  In 1994–95, the DSS paid £1.42 billion to third parties for goods and services. This includes payments of £360 million to Post Office Counters.

  Benefits (Disabled People)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average amount in benefit currently claimed by a disabled person. [6448]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Depending on a person's circumstances, he or she may be entitled to the following benefits:

  Incapacity Benefit

  Attendance Allowance

  Disability Living Allowance

  Disability Working Allowance

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

  Other Industrial Injuries Benefit

  Severe Disablement Benefit

  Invalid Care Allowance

  Independent Living Fund

  Income Support

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax Benefit.

  1122
  Attendance allowance and disability living allowance are the two main benefits available to help disabled people with some of the extra costs arising from disability. Information for these benefits are in the table.

  Average amounts for disabled people

  Average amount1 (£ per week)

  Disability Living Allowance2

  44.11

  Attendance Allowance34

  37.55

  Source:

  DSS (Analytical and Services Division): 5 per cent. data.

  1 Based on April 1995 rates of benefit.

  2 As at 31 August 1995.

  3 As at 31 March 1995.

  4 Provisional.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance is issued to general practioners about charges for completion of disability living allowance claim forms. [6277]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 18 December 1995:
  The Secretary of Stae for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about what guidance is issued to general practioners about charges for completion of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) claim forms.The Benefits Agency has produced booklet IB204: A Guide for Registered Medical Practitioners. It contains specific details of when fees are paid for the information GPs may be asked to provide. It is available to all GPs and a copy has been placed in the Library.1B204 informs GPs that their patients may ask them to complete a statement at the back of the DLA claim form and all that is required is a brief note on their disabling condition(s). It clearly states that a fee is not paid for completing this statement.Information is also included with the DLA claim form outlining the help available to a customer who requires assistance completing a DLA claim form. The notes and advice section which accompanies the DLA claim form stresses that all of these services are available to customers at no cost.I hope you find this reply helpful.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Dumping at Sea
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will conduct an investigation into the environmental impact of dumping at sea. [4891]

  Mr. Baldry
  Deposit at sea is controlled by means of licences issued under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

  In considering a licence application a full assessment is made by our marine scientists and fisheries inspectorates of the potential implications for the marine environment, of any risk to human health and of any nuisance or interference which may he caused to other users of the sea.
  1123
  Licensed sites are monitored periodically to assess the extent of any environmental effects and to determine the dispersal characteristics of any material disposed of in this way.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated to determine whether (i) bovine spongiform encephalopathy and (ii) Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease can be caused by organo-phosphate pesticides; and if he will make a statement. [6070]

  Mrs. Browning
  Scientists from this Department, the Department of Health and the Medical Research Council have met the proponent of the theory that BSE is caused by exposure of cattle to organo-phosphate pesticides to discuss his ideas in detail. They concluded that the ideas were unsubstantiated, as they failed to explain a number of key facts about the disease. In addition, the MRC has carried out an independent test, designed in full collaboration with the proponent of this theory, to test the hypothesis, that OPs bind to the BSE prion protein. The independent MRC scientists found no evidence of binding and have said that the theory does not merit further investigation.

  The hypothesis has also been considered by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, which noted that any possible association between the use of agricultural pesticides, including OP insecticides, and the occurrence of BSE had been considered in the original epidemiological investigation, and none had been found; that the lesions of delayed neurotoxicity induced by OPs are clearly distinguishable from those in BSE; that many countries without BSE use OPs on cattle; and that Guernsey, where OPs are not significantly used, does have BSE. It also noted that the OP hypothesis does not explain the temporal occurrence of BSE.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money his Department 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 into the risk of transmission of the BSE agent from cattle to(a) humans and (b) other primates. [6183]

  Mrs. Browning
  This Department has a very wide-ranging research programme on BSE, many elements of which address the question of the risk of transmission of the BSE agent. It is not possible, without disproportionate cost, to separate out the elements as requested.

  Since BSE was first identified in November 1986, this Department has spent, or intends to spend, the following sums on research into the disease:

  Financial Year

  £ million

  1988–89

  0.5

  1989–90

  1.0

  1990–91

  1.5

  1991–92

  5.0

  1992–93

  5.9

  1124

  Financial Year

  £million

  1993–94

  5.7

  1994–95

  5.4

  1995–96

  5.4

  1996–97

  6.4

  No estimates are available of expenditure beyond the next financial year.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the reasons for not extending the Specified Bovine Offal Order to all calves and young cattle. [6128]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 14 December 1995,Official Report, column, 830.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what research has(a) been commissioned and (b) evaluated into the number of BSE-infected cattle being eaten in British abattoirs. [6975]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: None, since cattle are not eaten in abattoirs.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of asymptomatic bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected cattle(a) that have been consumed and (b) that will have been consumed by 2001; what estimate he has made of the number of bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected dairy cattle slaughtered at the end of their milking life that will have been consumed in these periods; and if he will make a statement. [6957]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to him on 31 October 1995, Official Report, column 223. All the controls in place to protect the public from any remote theoretical risk from BSE are based on the assumption that any cattle going for slaughter may be infected with BSE.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what action is being taken to ensure that animal tissue being eaten in the United Kingdom does not contain bovine spongiform encephalopathy infection. [6955]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: All cattle suspected as suffering from BSE are killed and the carcase incinerated. In addition, the specified bovine offals, which include the tissues known potentially to contain BSE infectivity, have to he removed from all cattle at slaughter, and cannot he used for human food or animal feed.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the murine test in respect of its sensitivity towards infectivity of the various tissues of an infected cow. [6972]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The effectiveness of the murine assay for the presence of BSE infectivity is clearly demonstrated by the success of this assay in detecting infectivity by both intracerebral and

  1125
  by oral ingestion routes of exposure. The intracerebral route is the more sensitive. Using the appropriate strains, the murine test is the most sensitive currently available consistent with obtaining answers in experiments with reasonable speed. We are also currently carrying out a comparative bioassay experiment to assess the differences in sensitivity of cattle to cattle to mice transmission of BSE. The results will be published in the normal way when the experiment is completed.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangement his Department has made of the dangers posed by central nervous tissue in the production of manufactured meat. [7020]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) on 28 November, Official Report, columns 530-31.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what considerations underlay his Department's response to the conclusions of the 1984 report of the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens on the handling of bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected liver. [6959]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: No infectivity has ever been demonstrated in bovine liver.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the sensitivity of the mouse inoculation test to assess the level of infectivity of bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected(a) brain and spinal cord, (b) other specified bovine offal, (c) bovine tissue other than SBO and (d) bovine milk; and if he will make a statement. [6964]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The sensitivity of the mouse bioassay test is independent of the tissues assayed. Using this test, BSE infectivity has been detected in the brain, spinal cord and retina of clinically affected cattle and in the distal ileum of calves experimentally challenged with BSE, but no other tissue.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected cattle which have been eaten in the United Kingdom each year from 1965 to 1985. [6953]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The first case of BSE is believed to have occurred in April 1985. There is no evidence that it occurred in previous years.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence his Department evaluated in respect of bovine liver in their determination in 1988 of which offals should he banned from human consumption. [6970]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The choice of offals for inclusion in the specified bovine offal ban when it was introduced in 1989 was based on an assessment of the risk that tissues would contain significant levels of the BSE infective agent if BSE behaved in the same way as scrapie. Subsequent experimental evidence has shown that BSE infectivity is detectable in a narrower range of tissues than scrapie
  1126
  infectivity. No BSE infectivity has ever been demonstrated in the liver of affected cattle, but, in one exceptional case, the liver of a clinically affected sheep has shown a trace level of scrapie infectivity. In eight others in the same study no infectivity was detected.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken to ensure that all bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected cattle with symptoms are picked out and marked; and to what extent cattle sold in markets have been so checked at abattoirs. [6949]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: BSE is a notifiable disease and farmers and other people in control of cattle must report to MAFF any animal they suspect of having BSE. The animal is then examined by a Ministry veterinary officer and if the suspicions of BSE are confirmed it is killed and incinerated. Cattle at markets are subject to some checks by market inspectors, and any displaying potential symptoms of BSE are reported to the Ministry. We do not rely on these checks as the final level of protection, as all cattle going for slaughter, including those which have not been sold through markets, are subject to an ante mortem check and all adult cattle and any displaying unusual signs are subject to veterinary examination prior to slaughter at abattoirs. Again, any BSE suspects identified will be killed and incinerated.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of spinal columns used in the production of manufactured meat since the beginning of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy epidemic; and how many of these he estimates derive from infected bovine, including young cattle. [6966]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: It is not possible to make meaningful estimates.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what considerations underlay the conclusions of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee that unimportant amounts of infectivity would be found in(a) the liver, (b) the lung, (c) the kidney and (d) the peripheral nerves of the cows; [7018]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the research findings available to the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee on (a) the infectivity of animal tissue and (b) the species barrier between bovines and humans when it determined which tissue were considered acceptable for human consumption. [6967]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee is an independent advisory committee. In a recent open letter to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, the chairman of the SEAC, Professor John Pattison, and the deputy chairman, Dr. Robert Will. said:
  "SEAC regularly receives a great range and amount of information. Much of it is in the public domain but SEAC also has a data monitoring function with respect to long term research. Thus we are able to regularly look at the interim results of experiments that will take some years to complete so that we may have the earliest warning of any information which may be important for human and animal health."1127
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what considerations underlay his conclusions that(a) the majority of confirmed cases of BSE born since 1988 are due to cattle feed contamination by ruminant protein set out in his answer of 31 January 1995, Official Report, column 646, and (b) that this has arisen from failings in the handling of a specified bovine offal after removal from the carcase which could have resulted in the offal entering the food chain. [7019]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 31 October 1995, Official Report, columns 220–21.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the cattle(a) in the current bovine spongiform encephalopathy study and (b) of the group in the study that died of bovine spongiform encephalopathy were fed feed concentrates before becoming part of the study; and what proportion of the cattle in the study were separated from their farm, indicating the specific ages in weeks. [6952]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The Ministry is undertaking a number of different studies into BSE using groups of cattle and it is not clear to which in particular the hon. Member refers.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has received from veterinary surgeons on failures fully to recover bovine offals prior to carcases being dispatched to produce mechanically recovered meat. [6969]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) on 22 November, Official Report, columns 192–93. Since that question was answered, and up to 14 December, we have found a further four cases in which small pieces of spinal cord were left attached to carcases after dressing.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what experiments his Department has funded into the transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy from cow to offspring. [6961]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: This Department has funded a number of pieces of research into the possibility of maternal and horizontal transmission of BSE, some of which are still in progress. The four main studies are the on-going epidemiological study of the epidemic; the bioassay of reproduction tissues from clinically affected cattle; the case control study, all the details of which were published in the progress report on BSE presented to Parliament in May of this year, copies of which are in the Library of the House; and, finally, the cohort study: this is a blind study which will end in 1997. Details of this are given in the latest edition of the progress report on BSE, which was laid in the Library of the House on 14 December. So far, there is no statistically significant evidence for maternal transmission of BSE.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his 1128
  Department's research into the links between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and scrapie.[6965]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: Details of research into the links between BSE and scrapie are given in the report by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, entitled "Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies: A Summary of Present Knowledge and Research—September 1994", which was published in February 1995, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the degree of under-reporting of cases of clinical BSE. [7021]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: Our analysis does not show any under-reporting of clinical cases of BSE.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number and proportion of(a) sheep, (b) goats, (c) pigs, (d) mink, (e) mice and (f) chickens that have developed a spongiform encephalopathy after being fed bovine spongiform encephalopathy as part of experimental work; and if he will make a statement. [6963]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: In experiments funded out by this Ministry, sheep, goats, mink and mice have succumbed to disease when fed orally with BSE-infected brain material. Pigs and chickens have not succumbed to oral challenge with BSE-infected brain material.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tests the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee conducted on primates in respect of bovine spongiform encephalopathy transmission to humans. [6950]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee gives advice to the Government; it does not carry out research itself.

  Spongiform Encephalopathy (Dogs)
  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports his Department has received of dogs displaying symptoms similar to those of spongiform encephalopathy. [6948]

  Mrs. Browning
  Up to 31 October 1995 material from 14 dogs had been examined in veterinary investigations centres for spongiform encephalopathy. None of these suspected cases was confirmed, and SE has never been confirmed in dogs in the UK or anywhere else.

  Calves (Feed)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what guidelines his Department issues in respect of the normal calf age for feeding(a) the colostrum of the mother. (b) milk substitute and (c) feed concentrates. [6973]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: This Ministry, excluding agencies, issues no guidelines on

  1129
  the feeding of calves. The milk and colostrum of a cow under restriction as a BSE suspect can be fed only to that cow's own calf.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the current permitted levels of pesticide residues in British(a) beef and (b) milk. [6068]

  Mrs. Browning
  Pesticides maximum residue levels have been set for a number of active ingredients in a range of commodities, including meat and milk. The MRLs are set out in the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) Regulations 1994, as amended.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the names and manufacturers of the pesticides licensed for the treatment of British cows. [6069]

  Mrs. Browning
  The following table lists all ectoparasiticides and endectocides currently authorised as veterinary medicines for the treatment of cattle in the United Kingdom, as shown in our records:

  Ectoparasiticides

  Product

  Authorisation number

  Company

  Active ingredient

  Ivomec SR bolus for cattle

  00025/4058

  Merck Sharpe and Dohme Ltd.

  Ivermectin

  Renegade pour on

  10228/4000

  Sorex Ltd.

  Alphacypermeth

  Negasunt

  00010/4070

  Bayer(UK) Ltd.

  Coumaphos

  Paratect flex bolus

  00057/4090

  Pfizer Ltd.

  Morantel Tartrate

  Ridect

  00038/4093

  Beecham Group PLC T/A Beecham Research Laboratory

  Permethrin

  Stockguard insecticidal ear tag for cattle

  00095/4041

  Cyanamid (GB) Ltd.

  Flucythrinate

  Coopers spot-on

  05869/4007

  Mallinckrodt Veterinary Ltd.

  Deltamethrin

  Oramec drench for cattle

  00025/4045

  Merck Sharpe and Dohme Ltd.

  Ivermectin

  Ivomec super injection for cattle

  00025/4046

  Merck Sharpe and Dohme Ltd.

  Ivermectin

  Enzec injection for cattle

  00025/4060

  Merck Sharpe and Dohme Ltd.

  Abamectin

  Dectomax (Doramectin) injectable for cattle

  00057/4094

  Pfizer Ltd.

  Doramectin

  Flectron fly tags

  10228/4004

  Sorex Ltd.

  Cypermethrin

  1130

  Ectoparasiticides

  Product

  Authorisation number

  Company

  Active ingredient

  Auriplak

  05653/4028

  Virbac Laboratories (France)

  Permethrin

  Stomoxin fly tags

  05869/4009

  Pitman-Moore Ltd./Coopers Animal Health

  Permethrin

  Grenade emulsifiable concentrate 20 per cent.

  05869/4000

  Mallinckrodt Veterinary Ltd.

  Cyhalothrin

  Deosan deosect pour-on

  05645/4020

  Deosan Ltd.

  Cypermethrin

  Debantic ear tags

  08476/4001

  Fermenta Animal Health (Europe) Ltd.

  Tetrachlorvinphos

  Tirade spray

  10228/4002

  Sorex Ltd.

  Fenvalerate

  Youngs swift

  01447/4106

  Robert Young and Co. Ltd.

  Permethrin (Cis 80: Trans 20)

  Grisovin power

  05869/4193

  Pitman-Moore Ltd./Coopers Animal Health

  Griseofulvin

  Grenade 2 per cent. pour-on

  05869/4132

  Mallinkrodt Veterinary Ltd.

  Cyhalothrin

  Deosan flectron

  01476/4034

  Diversey Ltd.

  Cypermethrin

  Taktic

  00086/4086

  Hoechst (UK) Ltd.

  Amitraz

  Ivomec pour-on for cattle

  00025/4050

  Merek Sharpe and Dohme Ltd.

  Ivermectin

  Ivomec injection for cattle

  00025/4040

  Merek Sharpe and Dohme Ltd.

  Ivermectin

  Young's poron 20

  01447/4077

  Robert Young and Co. Ltd.

  Phosmet

  Barricade 5 per cent. pour-on

  10228/4001

  Sorex Ltd.

  Cypermethrin Cis 50: Trans 50

  Cydectin 1 per cent. injectable solution

  00095/4059

  Cyanamid (GB) Ltd.

  Moxidectin

  Panomec injection for cattle. sheep and pigs

  00025/4071

  Merek Sharpe and Dohme Ltd.

  Ivermectin

  Endectocides

  Product

  Authorisation number

  Company

  Active ingredients

  Oramec drench for cattle

  00025/4045

  Merek Sharpe & Dohme Ltd.

  Ivermectin

  Ivomec super injection for cattle

  00025/4046

  Merek Sharpe & Dohme Ltd.

  Ivermectin

  Enzec injection for cattle

  00025/4060

  Merek Sharpe & Dohme Ltd.

  Abamectin

  1131

  Endectocides

  Product

  Authorisation number

  Company

  Active ingredients

  Dectomax (Doramectin)

  00057/4094

  Pfizer Ltd.

  Doramectin

  Injectable for cattle grisovan power

  05869/4193

  Pitman-Moore Ltd./Coopers Animal Health

  Griseofulvin

  Cydectin 1 per cent. injectable solution

  00095/4059

  Cyanamid (GB) Ltd.

  Moxidectin

  Dioxin Monitoring
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the sites in the United Kingdom being monitored for dioxin emissions. [7208]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry has collected cows' milk from farms around 29 industrial sites representative of processes that may release dioxins or related compounds. These sites are:

  Chineham Municipal Waste Incinerator, Basingstoke, Hampshire

  Otterbourne Municipal Waste Incinerator, Winchester, Hampshire

  Brockhampton Municipal Waste Incinerator, Havant, Hampshire

  Vine Street Incinerator Plant, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire

  Avonmouth Refuse Disposal Works, Bristol, Avon

  Stoke Incineration Plant, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire

  Coventry Waste Reduction Unit, Coventry, West Midlands

  Eastcroft Municipal Waste Incinerator, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire

  Coleshill Sludge Disposal Plant, Coleshill, Warwickshire

  Hillingdon Hospital Incinerator, Uxbridge, Middlesex

  New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, West Midlands

  Cherry Tree Hospital, Stockport, Greater Manchester

  Stepping Hill Hospital, Stockport, Greater Manchester

  ICI Chemicals and Polymers, Runcorn, Cheshire

  Cleanaway Ltd. Incineration Plant, Ellesmere Port, Cheshire

  Fine Organics Ltd., Middlesbrough, Cleveland

  Polymeric Treatments Ltd., Kilamarsh, Derbyshire

  CBDE, Porton Down, Wiltshire

  Rechem International Ltd., Hythe, Southampton, Hampshire

  John Betts Refiners, West Bromwich, West Midlands

  Specialist Metal Services, Tilbury, Essex

  West Thurrock Power Station, Essex

  Tilbury Power Station, Essex

  Castle Cement Ribblesdale Works, Clitheroe, Lancashire

  Tip 2/1, Lostock Gralam, Northwith, Cheshire

  Sutton Walls, Herefordshire

  Higher Kiln Quarry, Hampton, Devon

  Villa Farm, Wolvey, Warwickshire

  Commonside Tip, Alvanley. Cheshire

  Results are available for seven of these sites and none exceeds the normal background range for dioxins in milk.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minster of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many statutory instruments his Department sponsored in the last Session of Parliament; 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. [2467]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 28 November 1995]: In the 1994–95 Session the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sponsored 121 statutory instruments.

  The cost of analysing each to provide detailed responses would be disproportionate. However, approximately half the SIs involved new rules or regulations and about a third were introduced to implement European Community directives, neither category being exclusive.

  It is firmly not our policy to amplify the minimum standards set out in directives unless there are overwhelming policy reasons for doing so. We have recently introduced new internal procedures to ensure this.

HEALTH

  Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what have been the gross redundancy payments made by each(a) health authority and (b) trust in each region in each year since 1990. [4187]

  Mr. Malone
  The information will be placed in the Library. The figures for 1994–95 are provisional.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many long-stay geriatric beds have been closed since 1979; and how many private residential nursing home beds opened since that date. [5592]

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

  Mental Health
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what checks and safeguards are in place in respect of inmates in institutions for the criminally insane ordering goods by mail order for individuals outside that institution who do not wish to receive them. [6025]

  Mr. Bowis
  This is a matter for the Special Hospital Services Authority. Decisions to withhold mail are subject to review by the Mental Health Act Commission.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he proposes to take to bring up to the average the spending of those English local authorities which is below the average expenditure of personal social services budgets on mental health services. [6748]

  Mr. Bowis
  None. It is for the elected member of local authorities to decide how much to spend on particular services in the light of local needs and priorities.
  1133
  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he plans to take in response to the sixth biennial report of the Mental Health Act Commission on acute hospital beds in (i) all major conurbations, (ii) Devon, (iii) East Anglia and (iv) Cheshire. [6750]

  Mr. Bowis
  We shall be responding in due course.

  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many detained non-UK national hospital patients have been removed to a country abroad since 1983, under the provision in the Mental Health Act 1983. [6926]

  Mr. Bowis
  Twenty-five.

  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of detained non-UK national hospital patients requiring mental health treatment and removed to a country abroad have had their cases considered by the mental health review tribunal; and to how many of these the tribunal has refused to give its approval for removal since 1983. [6922]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what checks and safeguards are in place to regulate the use of telephones by inmates in institutions for the criminally insane. [6024]

  Mr. Bowis
  This is a matter for the Special Hospital Services Authority.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken by his Department and by the relevant professional organisations to organise training for their members in respect of the provisions of the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Act 1995, and their duties under the Act. [6749]

  Mr. Bowls
  The Department will be issuing comprehensive guidance on the implementation of the Act's provisions which will assist in training.

  Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [6561]

  Mr. Horam
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Lindane
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the level of risk to human health from the use of lindane as a pesticide. [6216]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government are advised on the safety of pesticides by the independent expert statutory Advisory Committee on Pesticides. It has reviewed the use of lindane as a non-agricultural pesticide and concluded that used in accordance with the conditions of approval there would be no undue risk to human health. Details of this review were published in December 1992 in the document "Evaluation of Gamma HCH (Lindane 2)", copies of 1134
  which are available in the Library. A review of the agricultural uses of lindane is presently being undertaken by the committee and the results of this are expected early next year.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has evaluated in respect of a possible link between lindane and breast cancer. [6220]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health's independent expert Advisory Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment reviewed the available epidemiology data on breast cancer in women and levels of lindane in serum and breast fat tissue at its meeting on the 16 March 1995. The committee concluded that there was no clear evidence of an association between serum and fat levels of lindane and breast cancer at the present time, but recommended that the matter be kept under review.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the countries which have banned the use of lindane as a pesticide and their reasons for doing so. [6221]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not collected by the Government. I am aware that approvals have been withdrawn for uses of lindane in Denmark, Sweden and Finland.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the statutory maximum safe level for lindane in milk for human consumption in each European country; [6218]

  (2) what is the maximum recommended safe level for consumption of lindane by humans in each European country. [6219]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have been asked to reply.

  Statutory pesticide maximum residue levels—MRLs—for all active ingredient/commodity combinations in the EU are being established through an EC Commission priority programme. The MRL for lindane in milk was included in directive 93/57/EC and is set at 0.008 mg/kg of milk.

  Safety limits are expressed in terms of the acceptable daily intake—ADI—of a particular pesticide from all sources, which is the level that can he consumed every day for an individual's entire lifetime in the practical certainty, on the basis of all known facts, that no harm will result. ADIs are agreed internationally through a World Health Organisation procedure, and for lindane the recommended level is 0.008 mg/kg/bodyweight.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the maximum safe level of lindane in milk for human consumption; and how many times in each of the last five years milk has been found to contain higher amounts than the maximum safe level. [6217]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have been asked to reply.

  For lindane in milk, the current maximum residue level is 0.008 mg/kg, and at no time during the last five years has monitoring by the Government's working party on pesticide residues revealed an exceedance of this limit.

  Latex Sensitivity
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress his Department has made in assessing the cost to the NHS of skin diseases caused by certain types of latex surgical gloves; and if he will make a statement; [6316]

  (2) if the Medical Devices Agency has now issued a device bulletin to the health service in respect of latex sensitivity. [6318]

  Mr. Horam
  The Medical Devices Agency expects to publish the device bulletin on latex sensitivity in the health care setting early in the new year. Information on the cost of particular skin diseases to the national health service is not available centrally.

  Finished consultant episodes—ordinary admissions and day cases combined—National Health Service hospitals—England–1993–94

  All ages

  0–4

  5–14

  15–44

  45–64

  65–74

  75–84

  85 and over

  Male

  317

  5

  45

  136

  82

  41

  7

  1

  Female

  2,296

  9

  135

  1,386

  604

  134

  26

  2

  Total

  2,613

  14

  180

  1,522

  686

  175

  33

  3

  Source: Hospital Episode Statistics.

  The Department's principal channel of support to voluntary organisations is the section 64 general scheme. Lupus UK, the main charity providing help for sufferers from systemic lupus erythematosus in the United Kingdom, is currently receiving a core grant under the scheme totalling £24,000 spread over the three years 1994–95 to 1996–97 towards its administrative costs. Information on grants awarded specifically to self-help groups is not separately identified.

  The Department of Health is not currently funding research into systemic lupus erythematosus. The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Waiting Lists
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on equality of access to services in the national health service with particular reference to waiting lists.[6231]

  Mr. Horam
  We are committed to improving the health of the population as a whole and reducing variations in health status by targeting resources where needs are greatest. As far as patients requiring admission to hospital are concerned, emergency cases are always treated immediately. Patients not requiring emergency treatment are treated on the basis of clinical priority within the terms of the contracts agreed between health authorities and general practitioner fundholders and trusts.

  Family Planning Clinics
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many family planning clinics there were in each of the last five years. [6233]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people are suffering from systemic lupus erythematosus in England; what is the age-sex distribution of the disease; and if he will make a statement on systemic lupus erythematosus; [6296]

  (2) what was his total budget for (a) self-help groups and (b) self-help groups dealing with systemic lupus erythematosus in each of the last five years; [6298]

  (3) what was the total amount of research money given for systemic lupus erythematosus by his Department in each of the last five years. [6297]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information available centrally is shown in the table. The information covers admissions to hospitals.

  Tuberculosis Notifications
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will list the three areas with the highest number of TB notifications in the last year. [6237]

  Mr. Horam
  The three local authorities with the highest number of notifications of all forms of tuberculosis, excluding chemoprophylaxis, in 1994 are shown in the table:

  Birmingham: 263 notifications

  Newham: 206 notifications

  Brent: 162 notifications

  GP Notes
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, who owns the written notes used by general practitioners and the equivalent computer data. [6238]

  Mr. Malone
  Ownership of records on patients maintained by national health service general practitioners in accordance with their terms of service, is vested in family health services authorities.

  Health Authority Allocations
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the funding allocation by health authority for 1995–96 and 1996–97. [6214]

  Mr. Horam
  For details of 1995–96 district health authority initial revenue cash limits 1 refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 11 December at column 520. Details of 1996–97 planned initial cash limits for the new health authorities will he placed in the Library.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the district health authority budget allocations for next year have been determined; what representations he has received from medical professionals and academics
  1137
  on the calculation of the budget allocations; what work has been done in respect of these allocations by the York centre for health economics; and if he will make a statement. [6678]

  Mr. Horam
  Planned general allocations for 1996–97, as given in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on 30 November at columns 869–71, have been informed by the national weighted capitation formula. I am unaware of any representations concerning the calculation of these allocations.

  The national formula includes adjustments for age and need which are based on work commissioned by my Department from a team from York university.

  GP Fundholding
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the percentages of GP practices which are fund-holders in each family health services authority. [6226]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the percentage of fund-holding general practitioners for each family health services authority will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Bodies
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total amount of subscriptions to(a) the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts and (b) the Trust Federation from (i) health authorities, (ii) trusts and (iii) family health services authorities in each of the last five years. [6227]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  "The Health of the Nation"
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list "The Health of the Nation" targets that have not been met in the last five years. [6232]

  Mr. Horam
  "The Health of the Nation" strategy was launched in July 1992. It is essentially a medium-to-long-term strategy—target years vary in each key area and range from 1994 to 2010. Only one target was set for 1994, and this has not been met. It was:
  "To reduce the smoking prevalence among 11–15 year olds by at least 33 per cent. (from about 8 per cent. in 1988 to less than 6 per cent)".
  The second progress report on "The Health of the Nation" strategy, "Fit for the Future", presents full details of progress towards targets. This document was published in July 1995, and copies are available in the Library.

  Public Health Consultants
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make reductions in public health consultant posts. [6234]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Consultants
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of(a) female and (b) male
  1138
  consultants at September 1994, indicating the Government target for female consultants at that date. [6236]

  Mr. Malone
  The number of female and male consultants in England at September 1994 was:

  Female: 3,070

  Male: 14,030.

  The Department of Health's target was to increase the percentage of women consultants from 15.5 per cent. in 1991 to 20 per cent. by 1994.

  Child Day Care
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of children under the age of five years who are in the care of(a) private child minders, (b) nannies and (c) private or voluntary playgroups. [6527]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the publication "OPCS Survey of Day Care Services for Children".

  Edgware Hospital
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on future accident and emergency arrangements at Edgware general hospital, following the meeting he held on Wednesday 13 December with the official deputation from the area. [6879]

  Mr. Malone
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's primary concern is to ensure that the quality of service for local people is at least maintained, and wherever possible improved. There will continue to he an accident service at Edgware hospital which will have close links with the new accident and emergency centre at Barnet general hospital. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also asked Barnet health authority to examine with general practitioners their possible role in the new arrangements at Edgware.

  Fluoridation
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of public opinion towards water fluoridation with particular reference to(a) inner-city residents and (b) ethnic minority groups; [6653]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the benefits of community-based water fluoridation for (a) inner-city residents and (b) ethnic minority groups. [6676]

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which areas had artificially fluoridated water supplies before privatisation; and which have fluoridated since. [7319]

  Mr. Malone
  The Government remain fully convinced of the safety and efficacy of fluoridation, in providing a cost-effective method of improving oral health for all members of the community. Studies have consistently shown that the prevalence of dental decay in fluoridated areas is between one third to one half lower than in comparable non-fluoridated water areas.
  1139
  Professionally conducted opinion polls have consistently shown public support for fluoridation running at around 70 per cent. for fluoridation. Opinion surveys of particular groups are not routinely undertaken as water fluoridation benefits all sections of the population served, including inner-city residents and ethnic minorities.

  United Kingdom water companies supplying artificially fluoridated water supplies to various localities within their catchment area before water privatisation include:

  Severn Trent Water

  South Staffordshire Water

  East Worcestershire Waterworks Company (now part of Severn Trent)

  North East Water

  North West Water

  Welsh Water

  Yorkshire Water

  Anglian Water

  Colne Valley Water Company.

  Severn Trent Water and Anglian Water have extended artificially fluoridated water supplies to new locations within their areas since water privatisation.

  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole-time equivalent NHS community psychiatric nurses were employed by English regions per thousand population on 30 September 1994. [6751]

  Mr. Horam
  The available information about nurses working in psychiatric areas in the community who are employed by the national health service is shown in the table.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services Nursing and Midwifery staff working within the Community Psychiatric Nursing Area of Work (excluding Senior nurses and Agency staff)—England by Region as at 30 September 1994

  Whole-time equivalents

  Nurses working in community psychiatric areas of work

  Per 1,000 head of population

  England

  4,760

  0.098

  Northern and yorkshire

  670

  0.101

  Trent

  480

  0.101

  Anglia and Oxford

  420

  0.080

  North Thames

  610

  0.089

  South Thames

  560

  0.083

  South and West

  800

  0.122

  West Midlands

  470

  0.089

  North West

  750

  0.113

  Special Health Authorities

  n/a

  Notes:

  1. Community psychiatric nursing figures include qualified, unqualified and 'other' nursing staff working within community psychiatric nursing area of work.

  2. Community psychiatric nursing staff in region headquarters are included.

  3. 1denotes figure less than five n/a denotes not applicable.

  4. Total may not equal the sum of components due to rounding.

  5. All nursing data are rounded to the nearest ten whole-time equivalents.

  1140
  Source:

  Nursing figures—Department of Health non-medical workforce census.

  Population figures—Public Health Common Data Set 1995.

  Blackburn Royal Infirmary
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the access to brain scanning facilities afforded to Mr. Craig Yates of Darwen. [7068]

  Mr. Horam
  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care national health service trust has announced a review of the clinical management of Mr. Yates's case. The hon. Member may wish to approach Mr. W. Woolley, chairman of the trust, for more information.

  Alcohol
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response the Government will now be making to the World Health Organisation's European alcohol action plan. [7120]

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths there have been from alcohol-related illness in each of the last five years. [7322]

  Mr. Bowis
  There is no accepted definition of the term "alcohol-related".

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisation he consulted before his announcement on changes to the recommended weekly amounts of consumption of alcohol. [7221]

  Mr. Bowis
  Interested persons and organisations were invited to submit written evidence to the inter-departmental group reviewing the sensible drinking message.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to the national health service of alcohol-related disease in each of the last five years. [7321]

  Mr. Bowis
  There is no generally accepted method of producing such estimates.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many violent deaths have been caused by care in the community patients with particular reference to(a) homicides, and (b) suicides; and if he will make a statement. [7119]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally. We have no reason to believe that the implementation of community-based mental health care has led to an increase in either homicides or suicides.

  "Policy Appraisal and Health"
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish guidance on how to assess the impacts of policies on health. [7438]
  1141
  Mr. Horam
  I am today publishing a guide, "Policy Appraisal and Health". Copies have been placed in the Library and will be distributed to Government Departments, local authorities, health authorities and other interested organisations.

  The guide is designed to give practical guidance to Government Departments and other public sector agencies on how to assess the impact of their policies on health. It describes how to incorporate health impacts into the wider assessments of costs and benefits required for policy development. The advice is intended to be helpful and to encourage consistency throughout the public sector but is not mandatory.

  Appraisal in Government is concerned with the best use of the nation's resources. Health is a key aspect of the nation's well-being. Any significant effects on the health of the nation should therefore be assessed and taken into account.

  The costs and benefits of alternative policies, programmes and projects need to be carefully compared in order to make best use of the nation's resources. The Treasury's guidance, "Economic Appraisal in Central Government", explains how to do this. The guide I am publishing today provides specific advice in the health field to supplement the more general Treasury guidance.

  The guide was prepared with assistance from many Government Departments and other organisations. I am grateful to them for their contribution to producing this useful guide.

  Frozen Embryos
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the report of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority on the statutory storage period for embryos; and will he make a statement. [7544]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have today published the report from the authority.

  I thank the authority for this helpful and thoughtful review of problems arising from the current five-year limit on the storage of embryos. The authority recommends that regulations should be brought forward to allow for embryo storage up to 10 years and exceptionally for longer, where this is justified on medical or social grounds.

  The Government intend to lay regulations which will give effect to the authority's recommendation. These regulations will allow those whose embryos will have been in store for five years or more by July 1996 to be consulted and counselled about extending the storage period for their embryos, before the five-year period expires.

  Copies of the authority's report have been placed in the Library.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's policy regarding residential services for people with learning disabilities; what research he has commissioned to evaluate such facilities; and when he expects to receive the results of that research. [7623]
  1142
  Mr. Bowis
  Current policy on residential services for people with learning disabilities as set out in LAC(92)15 recognises that authorities should provide a range of residential services in order to meet the diverse needs of this client group. Authorities are able to purchase or provide places in a range of residential facilities—for example, in group homes or residential and village communities—provided they meet the criteria set out in the guidance. The primary concerns are the needs and preferences of each person and his or her family. Authorities should exercise their discretion in a way that maximises choice within available resources. Guidance on the National Assistance Act 1948 (Choice of Accommodation) Directions 1992 (LAC(92)27) makes it clear that where a prospective resident cannot express a preference authorities should act on the preferences of the carer unless, exceptionally, to do so would be against the best interests of the resident. Copies of LAC(92)15 and LAC(92)27 have been placed in the Library.

  To help authorities in their task of making the best use of resources in meeting the needs of people with learning disabilities the Government have set up an independent evaluation of the cost and outcomes of various types of provision, including village and residential communities. The first phase of the evaluation will be completed by 31 May 1996. It will comprise a review of relevant research literature conducted by Professor Cullen of Keele university and Dr. Emerson of the Hester Adrian research centre and an analysis of any readily available information on costs conducted by the personal social services policy unit at the university of Kent.

  Access to Health Records
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has concluded his review of the need for regulations to provide a complaints procedure for handling complaints by patients who are denied access to their health records under the Access to Health Records Act 1990; and if he will make a statement. [7690]

  Mr. Horam
  As announced by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Health on 21 March 1995 at column 130, the Government arc introducing on 1 April 1996, a new national health service-wide complaints procedure. This will include arrangements for dealing with patients' complaints about access to their health records.

  Small and Medium Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings his Department has had since May 1995 with organisations representing small firms to review tendering procedures.[6623]

  Mr. Horam
  Meetings are normally held with suppliers to give them information about their tendering performance, once a competitive tendering exercise has been completed. This procedure is particularly valued by companies, no matter what their size. Feedback from these meetings suggests that suppliers are generally content with the tendering procedures used by the Department.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work his Department has done to develop best practice in the publication of departmental procurement
  1143
  guidance material relevant to small and medium enterprises' needs. [6622]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department's guidance on procurement procedures is used by all staff engaged in buying goods and services. It ensures that ail legal requirements are complied with and sets out good practice relating to the whole tendering process. This material guides staff to deploy an objective and fair competitive tendering process that will achieve best value for money for the Department and does not, therefore, distinguish between small and large firms.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice has been given to procurement staff on the implications of purchasing from small and medium enterprises. [6624]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department's purchasing manual and guidance on the use of management consultants includes advice on the selection of companies. This guidance has been circulated not only to procurement staff but to those involved occasionally in purchasing goods and services.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress his Department has made regarding establishing a contact point with responsibility for liaison with relevant business support organisations and taking forward small and medium-sized enterprise related public procurement initiatives. [6717]

  Mr. Horam
  The head of purchasing in my Department is the single point for contact for companies of all sizes, on all procurement issues. He is actively engaged in improving the value for money we obtain by assisting all interested suppliers improve their competitiveness.

  GP Funding
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many family doctor practices in the area covered by Leeds family health services authority have had their funding(a) increased and (b) decreased as a result of the changed criteria for fund distribution; what is (c) the largest increase and (d) the largest reduction in funding; and in which area of the city practices (c) and (d) are located. [6598]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Primary Care
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes have been made, for the financial year 1996–97, in the use of census data by local family health services authorities, in the formula for the distribution of funding to primary care practices. [6597]

  Mr. Malone
  Family health services authorities will continue to use 1991 census data as the basis for calculating deprivation payments to general practitioners in 1996–97.

  Health Authorities (Management Costs)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for 1995–96 and 1996–97, using the Audit Commission's M2 definition, the management costs of all district health authorities and trusts; and what this data is as a per capita figure. [6928]
  1144
  Mr. Horam
  The Audit Commission's M2 definition is applicable only to trusts. Planned trust management costs, using the M2 definition, are not available centrally for either 1995–96 or 1996–97.

  Insulin
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy in respect of the continued universal availability of animal insulin to NHS patients who prefer such insulin to synthetic insulin. [7026]

  Mr. Horam
  We recognise that some people with diabetes prefer to use animal rather than human insulin. Decisions as to the most suitable type of insulin for particular patients are matters for professional clinical judgment. The main supplier of animal insulin in this country has assured us that it has no plans to discontinue its production in the foreseeable future. Therefore, animal insulin will continue to be available for those patients who are prescribed it.

  Camden and Islington District Health Authority
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total level of grant made available to Camden and Islington district health authority in each year from 1992 to the current financial year; what grant he expects to make in 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [6830]

  Mr. Horam
  The 1992–93,1993–94 and 1994–95 final revenue cash limits, the 1995–96 initial revenue cash limit and the 1996–97 initial planned revenue cash limit for Camden and Islington health authority are shown in the table.

  Camden and Islington Health Authority cash limits

  thousand

  1992–93 Final Revenue Cash Limit

  1254,759

  1993–94 Final Revenue Cash Limit

  247,858

  1994–95 Final Revenue Cash Limit

  255,344

  1995–96 Initial Revenue Cash Limit

  226,343

  1996–97 Planned Initial Revenue Cash Limit

  268,145

  1 This is the sum of the final cash limits for Bloomsbury and Islington DHA and Hampstead DHA, which merged to form Camden and Islington DHA on 1 April 1993.

  Notes:

  1. Final revenue cash limits for 1992–93 to 1994–95 were made by North East Thames regional health authority. In 1995–96 the initial revenue cash limit was made by North Thames regional health authority. In 1996–97 Secretary of State was responsible for making the planned initial revenue cash limit.

  2. 1996–97 cash limits are planned only as formal cash limits cannot be made until the new health authority legally comes into existence on 1 April 1996.

  3. For 1995–96 and 1996–97 figures recorded are initial cash limits and will exclude any in year adjustments made during the year. For 1992–93 to 1994–95, the figures are final cash limits and hence include any adjustments made in year.

  Hospitality
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent from his hospitality budget on alcohol in each of the last five years. [7720]

  Mr. Horam
  Expenditure on alcohol is not separately identified within the hospitality budget.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply to the third report of the Health Committee on breast cancer services, Cm 3007, what targets he has set for the number of specialist breast cancer care units. [7129]

  Mr. Horam
  No targets have been set for the number of specialist breast cancer units. It is for the local health authorities to determine the number of cancer units specialising in the treatment of breast cancer and where they should be situated based on the needs of their local populations.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that adequate resources are made available to establish the number of specialist breast care units recommended by the Health Committee in its third report of Session 1994–95, HC 324, on breast cancer services; and what plans he has to proceed with the target set out by the Committee. [7130]

  Mr. Horam
  National health service spending will grow by £1.3 billion in 1996–97. This will enable further improvements in cancer services to be made in line with the recommendations set out in the document "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services", which sets out the new strategic framework for the organisation of all cancer services.

  Portman Group
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings he has had with members of the Portman group in the last year; with which members; and when the meetings took place.[7175]

  Mr. Bowis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Sir Anthony Greener, the chairman of Guinness plc, on 14 November 1995 to discuss a wide range of matters of mutual interest.

  NHS Capital Expenditure
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to P0513/1995/96 Friday 8 December 1995, what figures he has for total NHS capital expenditure in 1994–95 and forward years; and if he will give those figures. [7177]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 8 December at columns 429–30 for details of capital expenditure by national health service bodies in 1994–95.

  The figures for NHS capital spending for the current and future years were announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer On 28 November 1995. These are shown in the table.

  NHS Capital Spending 1995–96 to 1998–99

  Revised plan 1995–96

  Plan 1996–97

  Provisional 1997–98

  Plans 1998–99

  Hospital and community health services

  Government spending

  1,806

  1,543

  1,495

  1,430

  Receipts from land sales1

  250

  310

  300

  290

  1146

  NHS Capital Spending 1995–96 to 1998–99

  Revised plan 1995–96

  Plan 1996–97

  Provisional 1997–98

  Plans 1998–99

  PF1 Investment

  47

  165

  200

  300

  Other NHS Capital Spending2

  17

  20

  17

  17

  Total

  2,120

  2,038

  2,012

  2,036

  1 Estimated.

  2 Central Health and Miscellaneous Services and Departmental Administration.

  Factor 8
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if recombinant, genetically engineered, factor 8 is available on the NHS to all patients. [7176]

  Mr. Horam
  Like other treatments, recombinant factor 8 is available to national health service patients if their doctor decides that they should receive it having taken account of the patient's individual needs, the alternative treatments available and the availability of resources.

  GP Commissioning Groups
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sums health authorities are spending on GP commissioning groups. [7178]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the Committee on Safety of Medicines considered the manuscript produced by Professor Jick and what supplementary written material was made available from that study at its meeting on 13 October; [6085]

  (2) pursuant to his oral statement to the House on 23 October, Official Report, column 701, on what date the Medicines Control Agency commissioned Professor Jick to conduct a study to examine safety questions regarding third generation oral contraceptives; and what was the cost of that study to the Medicines Control Agency. [5968]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The Medicines Control Agency did not commission Professor Jick to conduct a study of the safety of oral contraceptives and did not provide him with funding. During June and July 1995 the MCA discussed with him the feasibility of his conducting a study which would help to evaluate further concerns regarding venous thromboembolism arising from a study conducted by the World Health Organisation. The findings of Professor Jick's study were considered by the Committee on Safety of Medicines at its meeting on 13 October. The committee also considered the findings of a study by Professor Jick of fatal cardiovascular events in users of oral contraceptives.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the publication date of the report produced by Professor Spitzer and colleagues and considered by the Committee on Safety of Medicines at its meeting on 13 October; [6084]
  1147
  (2) on what date (a) the Medicines Control Agency requested expedited analysis of the trinational study on oral contraceptives, (b) the Medicines Control Agency first received data from the study and (c) the Medicines Control Agency received a written report of the study. [5970]

  (3) what discussions his officials held on 9 October regarding safety concerns relating to third generation contraceptives. [5969]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: Official of the Medicines Control Agency first saw preliminary data from the transnational study on 10 July 1995. It made a written request for an expedited analysis of the study on 13 July 1995. Such an analysis was presented by the investigators to officials from the MCA at a meeting held on 9 October 1995, and to a meeting of a working group which included members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines and invited experts on 10 October 1995. The MCA has not received a final report of the study but it has reviewed the published protocol and received written documentation of the findings including an abstract which was understood to have been submitted to a scientific meeting.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action has been taken with respect to third generation oral contraceptives by(a) the licensing authority and (b) the Medicines Control Agency under powers conferred by the Medicines Act 1968 and subsiduary legislation; [6086]

  (2) from what date he proposes to (a) suspend, (b) revoke and (c) vary the licences of the third generation oral contraceptives which were recently the subject of advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines; [5916]

  (3) what regulatory action has been taken in respect of the third generation oral contraceptives referred to in the "Dear Doctor" letter of 18 October; and if he will make a statement. [5919]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: Any consideration of possible regulatory action is treated in confidence between the licensing authority and the company or companies concerned. The licensing authority makes a public announcement only after any regulatory action has been completed.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) at whose request, and when, the issue of the third generation oral contraceptives was placed on the agenda of the meeting of the Committee on Proprietary Medicinal Products held on 17 and 18 October; [5914]

  (2) if the United Kingdom representatives at the meeting of the Committee on Proprietary Medicinal Products on 18 October told that committee of the intention to issue later that day the "Dear Doctor" letter relating to third generation oral contraceptives; [5910]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the licensing authority's compliance with its obligations to its European partners in relation to those matters relating to the safety of third generation oral contraceptives considered at the meetings of the Committee on Proprietary Medicinal Products held on 17 and 18 October and on 26 and 27 October. [5913]
  1148
  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The Medicines Control Agency has an obligation to keep other European Community member states informed of issues on the efficacy, quality and safety of medicines and it has taken extensive action in this respect for oral contraceptives. When information from the World Health Organisation study was first provided to the MCA in confidence, it sought to ensure its release to other member states, although its request was not granted. The safety of third generation oral contraceptives was placed on the agenda of the Committee on Proprietary Medicinal Products—CPMP—pharmacovigilance working party in August 1995 and other member states were informed that important new evidence was about to emerge. The United Kingdom made it clear that the issue would need urgent consideration and that steps were being taken to obtain further information.

  The safety of third generation oral contraceptives was placed on the agenda of the CPMP meeting of 17 and 18 October at the formal request of the UK representatives of the committee on 11 October, after further information on the issue became available. At the meeting on 17 and 18 October, UK representatives presented the new data to the committee and made it clear that the UK considered that there was an urgent need to communicate the findings with appropriate recommendations to doctors and women in the UK without delay.

  The CPMP was unable to reach a position at the meeting of 17 and 18 October and a further meeting was convened for 26 and 27 October. UK representatives participated in this meeting and arranged for Professor Rawlins and Professor Langman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines to attend as additional UK experts. The CPMP assessment which was issued following the meeting of 26 and 27 October makes it clear that, on the basis of three studies, oral contraceptives containing desogestrel or gestodene are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. Its position statement recommends that preparations containing desogestrel and gestodene should not be withdrawn but does not make specific recommendations for action. This and the fact that the CPMP's position statement is not a binding opinion indicate that the matter of informing and advising doctors and users is for individual member states to deal with based on their particular prevailing circumstances.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information relating to third generation oral contraceptives was considered by the sub-committee on pharmacovigilance before the meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines on 13 October; [5921]

  (2) which members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines and what other persons were present at the special meeting of the committee held on 13 October; [5925]

  (3) what arrangements were made for the chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines to attend the special meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines held on 13 October; [5966]

  (4) at what date and time the special meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines held on 13 October was called; [5931]
  1149
  (5) if he will list the names and appointments of all persons present at the ad hoc sub-committee of the Committee on Safety of Medicines which met on 11 October, to consider issues relating to the third generation oral contraceptives; [5907]

  (6) if he will publish the full text of the recommendations of the Committee on Safety of Medicines on third generation oral contraceptives; [5930]

  (7) what factors led the sub-committee on pharmacovigilance not to consider safety concerns relating to third generation oral contraceptives prior to the meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines on 13 October; [5911]

  (8) when he will publish the full documentation which was made available to the Committee on Safety of Medicines before its meeting on 13 October. [5917]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: No ad hoc meeting of a sub-committee of the Committee on Safety of Medicines was held on 11 October. A working group which included members of the CSM and invited experts was convened on 10 October to consider new information relating to the safety of third generation oral contraceptives. This issue was not considered by the sub-committee on pharmacovigilance before the meeting of the CSM on 13 October due to the urgency of the matter. It is normal practice for urgent safety issues to be considered by CSM without prior consideration by the sub-committee on pharmacovigilance when there are time constraints. In these circumstances ad-hoc working groups are convened as necessary.

  Arrangements for the meeting of the CSM of 13 October were made during the morning of 11 October and by agreement with the chairman of the committee.

  The papers and proceedings of meetings of the CSM, its sub-committees and ad hoc working groups which advise the CSM are confidential. The recommendations made by the CSM at the meeting on 13 October are embodied in the letter from the chairman dated 18 October.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of deaths which would be prevented annually if the prescribing advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines on third generation oral contraceptives were acted on by all United Kingdom general practitioners. [5929]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: It is estimated that about two deaths and 100 to 150 cases of venous thromboembolism would be prevented annually in the United Kingdom if the Committee on Safety of Medicines' recent advice on third generation oral contraceptives was acted upon.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information relating to the potential beneficial effects of third general oral contraceptives was made available to the Committee on Safety of Medicines before its meeting on 13 October; what steps the Medicines Control Agency took to establish that all currently available information was presented to the committee; and what steps the Medicines Control Agency took to establish when further information might be available; [5918]
  1150
  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the information made available to the Committee on Safety of Medicines before its meeting on 13 October. [5967]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The Medicines Control Agency sought to obtain data on all information relevant to the cardiovascular risks of oral contraceptives. This included whether the third generation oral contraceptives might be associated with a lesser risk of arterial disease than other oral contraceptives that might offset the increased risk of venous thromboembolism. The data examined related to large populations of women in the United Kingdom with careful and exhaustive analyses to assess factors which could influence the findings. Two of the studies provided to the committee prior to the meeting included data on the risk of stroke and myocardial infarction and one study provided data on mortality. In October 1995, the MCA discussed with the investigators of the studies the availability of further information on the relative risks of myocardial infarction and stroke with different oral contraceptives and understood that substantive data would not be available for one to two years.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information was made available by the Medicines Control Agency to Wyeth, Schering and Organon, relating to safety concerns regarding third generation oral contraceptives before the meetings held between the Medicines Control Agency and those companies on 12 October. [5908]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: These companies were already aware of the preliminary findings of the World Health Organisation's study through their attendance at a meeting held in Geneva in July 1995 to discuss the data. After a review of the findings of the three studies on third generation oral contraceptives that were provided to the Medicines Control Agency in confidence by the investigators, the MCA arranged meetings with companies to present the findings to them. The MCA provided the companies with Professor Jick's data with his agreement and requested and received assurances from the investigators of the other studies that the companies were being provided with the data from these studies.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the despatch of the "Dear Doctor" letters relating to safety concerns about third generation oral contraceptives was begun; [5923]

  (2) when the Government's Chief Medical Officer was informed of the decision to issue the "Dear Doctor" letter to general practitioners dated 18 October; [5912]

  (3) when the order was placed for the printing of the "Dear Doctor" letters which were dated 18 October; [5927]

  (4) on whose authority the "Dear Doctor" letters relating to safety concerns on third generation oral contraceptives dated 18 October were issued. [5909]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The decision to issue the letter to all United Kingdom doctors and pharmacists from the chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines was taken by Ministers following advice from the Committee that there was an urgent need to inform doctors and users about new information relating to the safety of third generation oral

  1151
  contraceptives. The Chief Medical Officer was made aware of the CSM's advice on 13 October and was made aware of the CSM's advice on 13 October and was informed of the decision to issue the letter on 16 October. The order for the printing of the letters was placed on 16 October and dispatch began at 4.30 pm on the 18 October.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps the Medicines Control Agency and the Committee on Safety of Medicines have taken to establish that the information which they considered on 13 October in relation to third generation oral contraceptives was final; [6087]

  (2) when the Medicines Control Agency received the final version of the reports for each of the three studies on third generation oral contraceptives which were considered by the Committee on Safety of Medicines on 13 October. [5928]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The Medicines Control Agency investigated the safety of oral contraceptives in the light of the new evidence emerging from three studies during the period July to October 1995. During this time it received several manuscripts from the World Health Organisation and Professor Jick providing the findings of their respective studies. The final reports of the studies conducted by the WHO and Professor Jick were received by MCA on 6 and 11 October respectively. Near-final drafts of both papers were provided by the end of September 1995 and, in each case, the MCA was assured by the investigators that there would be no substantive change to the analysis. In the case of the transnational study, MCA was presented with an analysis of the data on 9 and 10 October. During these meetings assurances were given by the investigators that these analyses were final.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish the advice which he received during the period 9 to 18 October from the Medicines Control Agency with respect to safety concerns relating to third generation oral contraceptives; [5915]

  (2) what advice the licensing authority received from the Medicines Control Agency following the special meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines on 13 October. [5920]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: Following the meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines on 13 October, Ministers received from the Medicines Control Agency a submission containing the CSM's advice. It is not normal practice to publish such internal documentation.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what public sector dividend capital each trust has been required to pay in each year since its inception. [6101]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The information requested will he placed in the Library.

  Progestogens
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has in respect of clinical trials for third generation progestogens for their metabolites. [5922]
  1152
  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: Any company or investigator wishing to conduct a clinical trial with third generation progestogens or their metabolites would have to apply to the Medicines Control Agency in accordance with the Medicines Act 1968 and would have to provide a justification for the use of third generation progestogens taking into account the recent advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  Prodigy
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what mechanisms will be used by Prodigy to allow general practitioners to make choices from alternative lists; [6312]

  (2) which skin preparations and drugs used in the treatment of skin disorders will appear in the first choice list provided for general practitioners in the Prodigy trial; [6311]

  (3) if his Department has determined which general practitioner's practices will be included in the Prodigy trial; and if he will make a statement. [6310]

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the general practitioners prescribing computer pilot project, Prodigy, and its cost. [6239]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 18 December,Official Report, columns 945–46.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the drugs and preparations which appear on the first choice list offered by Prodigy will be generics. [6313]

  Mr. Malone
  The majority of drugs are listed by approved name. The only exception is where it is established as clinically important that the patient should always receive the same brand, in which case the brand name has been stated.

  Advice contained within the British National Formulary, and that of experts in clinical pharmacology, has been followed.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how his Department will choose between a number of similarly efficacious products when deciding which will appear on the first choice list offered to general practitioners by Prodigy; [6314]

  (2) what mechanisms are used to determine the preparations and drugs appearing in the first choice list of Prodigy. [6315]

  Mr. Malone
  Where one or more drugs are clinically efficacious, choice for inclusion in the guidelines was then based on other factors including safety, known side effects, hest practice and cost. The guidelines were then referred to a clinical expert panel for peer review.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what mechanisms products excluded from the first choice list under Prodigy can later he added to it. [6319]
  1153
  Mr. Malone
  The content of the guidelines used in the project will be kept under review. Discussion with the medical profession and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry about how this is best done will take place in the new year.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what surveys his Department has(a) carried out and (b) plans to carry out, in order to determine whether general practitioners are likely to take the first choices offered them by Prodigy or whether they will make alternative choices. [6320]

  Mr. Malone
  The extent to which general practitioners use, amend or override the guidelines will be carefully monitored during the project.

  Advisory Committee on Pesticides
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and their qualifications. [6222]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have been asked to reply.

  Members of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and their qualifications are:

  (Chairman) Professor Sir Colin Berry Dsc, MD, PhD, FRCPath, FFPM, FRCP

  (Deputy Chairman) Professor Geoffrey Sagar CBE, BA, MA, DPhil(Oxon)

  Dr. Andree Carter Bsc, MISoilSci, MIWEM

  Professor Nicola Cherry MD, PhD, FFOM

  Professor Michael Claridge MA, Dphil, FIBiol, FLS, FRES

  Professor Anthony Dayan Bsc, MD, FRCP, FRCPath, FFRM, FIBiol

  Mr. John Leahy MA(Oxon), CChem, MRSC

  Professor Donald Lee Bsc, PhD(Cantab), FIBiol, FRSA Dr. Alexander Proudfoot MB, ChB, FRCP, FRCPE

  Dr. Eve Roman Bsc, PhD

  Mr. Roger Tayler BSc(Agric), Postgrad Dip Agric(Reading), NDA, Cbiol, MIBiol

  Professor Paul Webster Bsc, PhD, FBIM, FRSA.

WALES

  Departmental Performance
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the work of his Department since May 1993. [3485]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department's main achievements since May 1993 are as follows:The NHS has treated a record number of patients and waiting times have fallen substantially;
  Performance against patient's charter standards has continued to improve, and further expansion of the GP fundholder scheme has extended patient choice;
  Over 340 inward investment projects have been secured. promising nearly 16,000 new jobs and safeguarding a further 13,000, with capital investment of over £2 billion;
  Over 260 small or medium-sized businesses have been helped to enter market overseas;
  1154
  Modern apprenticeships were successfully introduced to manufacturing in 1994–95. By March 1996, the estimated number of participants will have grown to over 4,000 covering the manufacturing, service and business sectors;
  Increased levels of careers advice and guidance for young people are being delivered through the new careers service companies. Provision in 1995–96 represents an increase of over one third on previous local authority expenditure on the service;
  Plans have been made to launch Business Connect Wales on 15 January 1996. This new initiative, which can be accessed through one low-cost telephone call, will greatly simplify access to publicly funded business support services throughout Wales;
  At least £1 billion of private finance has been recorded in support of Welsh Office programmes;
  Construction of the Cardiff bay barrage has started;
  The final link of the M4 motorway and the dualling of the A55 across the mainland have been completed;
  Significant progress has been made in improving standards in schools in Wales and I have set the framework for the way ahead following the publication of "A Bright Future: Getting the Best for Every Pupil at School in Wales".
  Student enrolments on further and higher education courses in Wales have increased to record levels;
  Public and Crown bodies are working towards the provision of a better service in Welsh for the public in Wales in accordance with the Welsh Language Act 1993. The Welsh Office will have its Welsh language scheme operating by 1 April 1996;
  Local government is being reorganised into 22 unitary authorities under the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994;
  More than £770 million has been made available for the renovation and improvement of the housing stock in Wales. By the end of March Housing for Wales will have secured over £12,000 additional units of social housing;
  More people have received community care in their own homes or in their choice of accommodation in the community;
  Implementation of the reformed common agricultural policy has progressed.

  Further details arc set out in the Welsh Office departmental reports for 1994, Cm 2515, and 1995, Cm 2815, together with the update which I gave to the Welsh Grand Committee on 29 November.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will allocate sufficient resources to establish specialist breast care units in Wales; [7123]

  (2) what plans he has to establish specialist breast care units in Wales in accordance with the recommendation of the Health Committee's third report of Session 1994–95, HC324, on breast cancer services. [7131]

  Mr. Richards
  Recommendations for the future provision of cancer services are set out in "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services", a report by the chief medical officers of England and Wales. An expert advisory group has been established in Wales to assist health authorities to implement the recommendations of the report.

  Health authorities will he expected to prioritise their resources to ensure that the health needs of their local population are met. In doing so, they will need to take into account the recommendations of the chief medical officers' report.
  1155
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the mortality rate figures for women with breast cancer aged 50 to 69 years in 1992 for each health authority in Wales.[5677]

  Mr. Richards
  The information, provided by the Office for Population Censuses and Surveys, is given in the following table. As mortality rates for small subsets of the population can fluctuate considerably from year to year, an average based on five years' data has also been included.

  Female breast cancer (ICD I74)—Deaths per 100,000 female residents aged 50 to 69

  1992

  1990–19941

  Clwyd

  99

  93

  East Dyfed

  133

  107

  Pembrokeshire

  129

  95

  Gwent

  92

  91

  Gwynedd

  64

  87

  Mid Glamorgan

  85

  90

  Powys

  88

  103

  South Glamorgan

  78

  81

  West Glamorgan

  100

  103

  1 Data for 1993 and 1994 are provisional.

  International Classification of Diseases, Injuries and Causes of Death (9th revision).

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the age standardised mortality rate figures for women with breast cancer aged 50 to 69 years in Wales in(a) 1992 and (b) 1993. [5676]

  Mr. Richards
  In Wales, age-standardised mortality rates for women aged 50 to 69 years with breast cancer—ICD9 code 174–are 99.7 in 1992 and 105.4 in 1993. Data for 1993 are provisional. Using data provided by OPCS, these standardised rates are worked out by adjusting the actual rates for Wales so that they are based on the age distribution within the relevant age group of women in England. For example, on the basis of the figure for 1993, for every 100 deaths from breast cancer in England there would be 105.4 in Wales if the proportions of women in each five-year age band were the same for the two countries.

  National Disability Council
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what Welsh representation there will he on the National Disability Council; and if he will make a statement. [6463]

  Mr. Richards
  The appointment of members to the National Disability Council is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security; I refer the hon. Member to the answer he gave on 13 December,Official Report, columns 671–72.

  Council Houses (Construction)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many council houses were built in 1994; [6467]

  (2) how many housing association homes were built in 1994. [6468]
  1156
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information provided by local authorities on the number of completions, by tenure, in 1994 has been published in table 2.3 of Welsh housing statistics, No. 15 1995, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of jobs in the construction industry which would be created by a building programme of(a) 500, (b) 750, and (c) 1,000 houses in one year. [6465]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office has made no such assessment.

  Council Houses (Receipts)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the amount of cash in district and borough council balances from the sales of council housing; and if he will make a statement. [6466]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The usable amount of receipts from the sale of council houses available at 31 March 1995 is set out in the following table.

  Receipts from the sale of council houses1

  £ million

  Usable receipts from the sale of council houses available at 31 March 1995

  Outstanding loan debt as at 31 March 1995

  Alyn and Deeside

  0.5

  35.1

  Colwyn

  0.6

  27.8

  Delyn

  0.0

  32.3

  Glyndwr

  0.5

  12.0

  Rhuddlan

  0.4

  27.7

  Wrexham Maelor

  1.0

  74.6

  Carmarthen

  0.8

  35.8

  Ceredigion

  1.2

  21.6

  Dinefwr

  0.6

  28.1

  Llanelli

  0.0

  47.7

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  2.6

  41.8

  South Pembrokeshire

  1.2

  21.1

  Blaenau Gwent

  2.2

  103.9

  Islwyn

  0.4

  50.8

  Monmouth

  3.6

  45.8

  Newport

  7.6

  122.0

  Torfaen

  2.7

  83.1

  Aberconwy

  0.2

  20.3

  Arfon

  0.0

  29.7

  Dwyfor

  0.3

  15.9

  Meirionnydd

  0.0

  10.6

  Ynys Mon

  0.2

  53.7

  Cynon Valley

  0.0

  52.9

  Methyr Tydfil

  0.3

  64.2

  Ogwr

  0.6

  74.9

  Rhondda

  0.0

  87.3

  Rhymney Valley

  0.0

  71.7

  Taff Ely

  0.5

  42.0

  Brecknock

  1.2

  31.6

  Montgomeryshire

  0.7

  23.2

  Radnorshire

  0.4

  13.2

  Cardiff

  7.1

  184.0

  Vale of Glamorgan

  6.7

  60.0

  Port Talbot

  0.0

  40.2

  1157

  Receipts from the sale of council houses1

  £ million

  Usable receipts from the sale of council houses available at 31 March 1995

  Outstanding loan debt as at 31 March 1995

  Lliw Valley

  0.0

  39.7

  Neath

  0.0

  40.0

  Swansea

  0.2

  135.6

  1 Includes receipts from the sale of dwellings and the repayment of principal from local authority mortgages.

  Departmental Priorities
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the current priorities of his Department; and if he will make a statement. [6470]

  Mr. Hague
  Current priorities for the Welsh Office are set out in the departmental report 1995. Good progress is being made.

  Wye and Lugg Rivers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that the National Rivers Authority becomes the navigation authority for the Rivers Wye and Lugg; [6667]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the future control and supervision of the Rivers Wye and Lugg. [6668]

  Mr. Hague
  The National Rivers Authority has undertaken a consultation exercise on its proposals to become the navigation authority for the Rivers Wye and Lugg. The consultation paper issued by the authority outlined their views on the future management of the rivers. As the River Wye flows through England and Wales any application made by the NRA for navigation authority status following the consultation exercise would be considered jointly by myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will submit the River Wye to the European Commission as a special area of conservation in accordance with the EU habitats and species directive, 92/43/EEC; and if he will make a statement. [6669]

  Mr. Hague
  Consideration is being given as to which riverine sites might be submitted to the EC as special areas of conservation. Before sites are submitted there will he consultation with those who may be affected. Not all the potential riverine sites are yet wholly covered by designation as a site of special scientific interest, the building block for special area of conservation.

  Welsh Language Schemes
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all bodies required to submit language schemes to the Welsh Language Board, indicating which have so far submitted schemes and how many have as yet been recommended by the board to be accepted; and if he will make a statement. [6003]
  1158
  Mr. Hague
  This is an operational matter for the Welsh Language Board. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member with the information he is seeking, and I will arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what advice has been given to procurement staff on the implications of purchasing from small and medium enterprises; [6636]

  (2) what work his Department has done to develop best practice in the publication of departmental procurement guidance material relevant to small and medium enterprises' needs;[6634]

  (3) what progress his Department has made regarding establishing a contact point with responsibility for liaison with relevant business support organisations and taking forward small and medium enterprise related public procurement initiatives. [6713]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 18 December 1995,Official Report, column 998.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what meetings his Department has had since May 1995 with organisations representing small firms to review tendering procedures. [6635]

  Mr. Hague
  None. The Department plans to hold meetings soon with training and enterprise councils and Welsh chambers of commerce to discuss how access to the Department by small firms can be improved through the review and revision of procurement procedures.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1994–95. [6500]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested and could he provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tai Cymru
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) on what date he decided to sell to the private sector the loan book of Tai Cymru; and to which divisions of the departmental budget he will apply the proceeds of the sale; [6930]

  (2) what proposals he has to spend the receipts from the sale of the Tai Cymru/Housing for Wales loan hook on additional public expenditure on housing by that corporation. [6817]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), on 28 November,Official Report, column 568, and by my statement on 13 December, Official Report, column 1007.

  A477
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what inquiries his Department has carried out into the
  1159
  quality of the new road surface laid between Redberth and Sageston on the A477. [7125]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Testing of the materials used in the resurfacing together with testing of the new surface for skidding resistance and surface irregularity to check compliance with the specifications have taken place both during the contract in April 1995 and on three occasions since.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the new road surface was laid on the A477 between Redberth and Sageston, how many road traffic accidents were recorded in each of the 12 months preceding the laying of the new surface; and how many have been recorded in each month following the laying of the new surface. [7126]

  Mr. Jones
  In the 12 months preceding the laying of the new surface there were no accidents recorded; since the new surface was laid there have been two accidents—one in July and one in October.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many road traffic accidents resulting in personal injury have occurred in each of the last five years on the A477 between(a) St. Clears and Red Roses, (b) between and including the service station, Llanteg and Folly Cross, Llanteg and (c) Nash and Bangeston. [7127]

  Mr. Jones
  The accident details are set out in the following table:

  Location

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  (a)

  15

  10

  11

  16

  11

  (b)

  3

  2

  3

  2

  6

  (c)

  3

  4

  10

  2

  6

  European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what programme was agreed with the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund for the current and subsequent years in Wales; and on what dates he made the announcements covering the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund. [7128]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  An announcement concerning the approval of the objective 5b programme for rural Wales 1994 to 1999, including the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund element, was made on 8 February 1995. The programme will in total provide £28 million in grant from the fund of which £17 million will be for the specific development of agriculture and forestry.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the actual and planned expenditure of the Countryside Council for Wales in each year since 1992–93; and what is the planned expenditure for the current year and for 1996–97. [7200]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Details of actual and planned expenditure for the years up to 1994–95 are in the Welsh Office's departmental report, copies of which are held in the Library of the House. The Countryside Council for Wales's planned expenditure for 1995–96 is £18.39 1160
  million. On 13 December my right hon. Friend announced the provision of £22 million for the council for 1996–97, Official Report, column 1007.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the budget for the Countryside Council for Wales for(a) 1994 –95, (b) 1995–96, (c) 1996–97 and (d) 1997–98. [7204]

  Mr. Jones
  The final budget figures are as follows:

  1994–95: £21,135,000 (outturn)

  1995–96: £18,390,000 (expected outturn)

  1996–97: £22,000,000 (plans).

  The level of funding for 1997–98 and beyond will depend on future spending decisions.

  Anti-smoking Campaign
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated cost of the 1995–96 campaign by the Health Promotion Authority for Wales to encourage people to stop smoking; if he will break down the figure to show expenditure on each element of the campaign; and how much was spent on television advertising. [7202]

  Mr. Richards
  Forecast expenditure on smoking related projects for 1995–96 is shown in the following table. Health Promotion Wales does not propose to fund any television advertising campaigns for smoking cessation in 1995–96.

  1995–96

  £ thousand1

  Co-ordination of a national initiative for No Smoking Day 1996

  12.0

  Joint Initiative with community pharmacists for No Smoking Day 1996

  16.0

  Smokers Helpline

  10.0

  Research on impact of No Smoking Day

  10.0

  Pilot project on prevention of smoking during pregnancy

  16.1

  Evaluation of 1995 Quit and Win competition for 15–19 year olds

  10.1

  Smokebusters Cymru

  92.0

  Advice and information support service

  2.1

  Publication and launch of 1994–95 review of teenage smoking

  5.9

  1995–96 Total forecast outturn for smoking related projects

  174.2

  1 Includes operational and manpower costs.

  Health Purchasing Authority Allocations
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total allocations to each health purchasing authority in Wales for(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [7201]

  Mr. Richards
  District health authority allocations for 1995–96 are as follows:

  £ million

  Clwyd

  199.8

  Dyfed

  175.6

  Gwent

  213.4

  Gwynedd

  124.5

  Mid Glamorgan

  276.7

  1161

  £million

  Powys

  67.8

  South Glamorgan

  231.3

  West Glamorgan

  179.0

  An announcement about the 1996–97 revenue allocations will be made in due course.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what credit approvals he proposes to issue in 1996–97 for the transitional costs of local government reorganisation.[7666]

  Mr. Hague
  I have allocated £39,954,000 of supplementary credit approvals for the transitional costs of reorganisation in 1996–97. These are additional resources, so that the costs do not have to be met by council tax payers or from councils' own resources.

  Some £23,358,000 is earmarked for mandatory and discretionary compensation costs. SCAs will be issued to councils after they have incurred expenditure, on the basis of claims certified by chief finance officers. National park authorities will be eligible for support under these arrangements.

  Some £11,764,250 of SCAs will be issued for information technology changes. I will announce the allocation for each county and county borough council shortly.

  Finally, £4,831,750 is being added to the strategic development scheme in 1996–97 to support councils in acquiring, refurbishing or building office accommodation. I plan to announce my final decisions early in January. Any further funding for such projects in 1996–97, and all funding in later years, will be provided from within the strategic development scheme or, directly or indirectly, from receipts generated by the residuary body for Wales.

  Under-fives
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate when the report of the Office of Her

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Expenditure on base programme

  151.9

  146.2

  1119.4

  2120.0

  Financed by:

  Current receipts

  28.8

  23.4

  19.0

  10.0

  Capital receipts

  53.4

  72.5

  75.0

  70.0

  Central government provision

  69.7

  50.3

  25.4

  40.0

  ERDF support for projects additional to the WDA's base programme

  —

  11.0

  11.0

  10.0

  1 Estimated outturn.

  2 Plans.

  1162
  Majesty's chief inspector survey of provision in schools and in playgroups for the under-fives will be published. [7691]

  Mr. Richards
  I welcome the report by OHMCI which is being published today. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House, as soon as possible.

  The report provides useful information on current educational standards and practice in schools and in playgroups and will help inform our deliberations on the introduction of a voucher scheme for four-year-olds. It highlights several areas where there is good provision, but I am concerned that there are too many instances of unsatisfactory standards in both schools and playgroups.

  OHMCI has inspected both sectors according to its framework for inspecting early years provision in schools. In terms of education provision, it is not surprising that the playgroup sector lags behind the maintained sector since, traditionally, playgroups have had different aims and objectives.

  To participate in the voucher scheme, playgroups will need to work to achieve the desirable outcomes to he drawn up for four-year-olds in all settings.

  Officials of the Welsh Office will be having discussions with both the Wales Pre-Schools Playgroup Association and Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin to discuss issues arising from the report and how they might be addressed.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the total estimated expenditure of the Welsh Development Agency for the financial year 1995–96 and 1996–97; and what are the origins of the Welsh Development Agency's estimated income for those years; [6994]

  (2) what was the total expenditure of the Welsh Development Agency in the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95; and if he will give a breakdown of the origin of the Welsh Development Agency's income for those years. [6995]

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The information requested is as follows:

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.
Lord Gerard—Lord Gerard— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

Messages from the Queen
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships two messages from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The first message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament".
The second message is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that I be pleased to allow that my prerogative may not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament during the present Session of any measure providing for the parliamentary approval of treaties.
"I will comply with your request".

Common Fisheries Policy and UK Fishing
2.39 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the United Kingdom can withdraw from the common fisheries policy and, if so, whether they intend to do so.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the United Kingdom or any other member of the European Union could withdraw from the common fisheries policy, while remaining in the European Union, only if it secured the unanimous agreement of all other member states to the necessary complex range of treaty changes. The Government do not believe that it would serve the best interests of our fishing industry if the United Kingdom sought to go down this route.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply which I find disappointing but not altogether unexpected. Would my noble friend agree that one of the most insidious aspects of this pernicious policy is that this country gives more money to the Spanish fishing industry, which comes here to take large quantities of our fish, than we do to decommission our own British fishing boats?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, no.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not absurd that the common fisheries policy is producing a
1506
situation whereby British fishermen are burning their boats in Newlyn at the same time as the British Government have consented to an additional 40 Spanish trawlers fishing in the Irish fishing box? Is not that taking the Government's Euro-fanaticism too far?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, no, I do not agree with that at all. The two matters are completely separate. The Spanish right to fish in western waters is merely an enactment of the fishing that they always did. The destruction of British boats is to bring the numbers in our fishing fleet down to the level to which we have agreed to bring them. We are a long way behind the Spanish in complying with European policy.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the difficulties in European seas arise mainly from too many boats pursuing too few fish, some of which migrate from sea to sea, and does he agree that what is most needed is an agreed reduction of national fishing fleets, which is more likely to be achieved by arrangements within the EU than by a free-for-all?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my noble friend puts our point of view excellently.
Lord Moran: My Lords, since the common fisheries policy is based on national quotas and what is known as relative stability between those quotas, does the Minister agree that the 1991 Factortame judgment by the European Court, which legalised quota-hopping, has knocked the bottom out of that agreement, has made life extremely difficult for many British fishermen and has made the common fisheries policy unsustainable in its present form? Can the Minister say how many foreign vessels are, as a consequence, now fishing the British quota, and what proportion of the British fleet they represent?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps I may start with the last question. I believe that there are about 150 foreign vessels out of 3,000. I agree very much with the noble Lord about the Factortame judgment, which is in pursuance of a policy with which we agree in terms of commerce as a whole. We have benefited greatly from the ability of British firms to set up freely in the Common Market and to acquire businesses there. However, in its application to the common fisheries policy, it threatens the basis on which quotas were agreed. At a certain level it is probably sustainable; but if it goes too far, it will cause serious problems.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind that one can understand the difficulties that would face the Government were we to make a complete withdrawal, is it not possible to examine the conditions involved to see whether they could be made fairer and whether the administration could be improved with regard to Britain's contribution?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I hope that we will always look to the British interest first when we negotiate in Europe on this and indeed other matters. So far as concerns the CFP, those noble Lords who argue, quite rightly, that fishermen are having a hard time now should not attribute that too easily to the CFP. The

1507
fishermen had a very good time immediately after the introduction of the CFP. Indeed, it was agreed that we had done a good deal. They had a good time through most of the 1980s. We are now suffering a crisis caused principally by general over-fishing. That is the source of the problems, not the CFP.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that about 40 per cent. of the total catch under the CFP is thrown back into the sea? Does he agree, or disagree, that that is an unsustainable conservation policy for fisheries?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, but it is unavoidable at present. I hope that we shall find ourselves working towards a position where we can follow the Norwegian system and have no throw backs, but that is not under a system of quotas as operated at present, and as needed at present to conserve some hard-pressed fish stocks. We have to accept that one of the problems that arise from that system is throw backs. It is a problem with which we have to live in the hope of getting through to better times in the future.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the situation which faces our fishermen is just one of the results of the Government adopting a policy of splendid isolation as a negotiating stance in Europe? Does the Minister agree that fundamental reform of the CFP is required and that such reform should be based on greater management autonomy for member states; protection of the six-mile and 12-mile limits, with an intention to give greater protection to local fleets on a regional basis; and allowing member states to have greater autonomy on a non-discriminatory basis in applying their own management of their own fisheries?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I disagree fundamentally with the noble Lord in two respects. First, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, there is exclusivity within the six-mile limit at present. Within the 12-mile limit we have exclusivity except for those who have always fished within our 12-mile limit. On the noble Lord's other points, the best we can achieve on fish will surely be a deal which involves us all. Fish are no respecters of national boundaries. Most of the stocks we fish commute between one nation's sector and another. Unless we have agreements among nations to manage a single stock, we will have competitive fishing, with one side determined to beggar the other. That will not be any good for fish stocks.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that even with the large-scale international agreements, which most of us recognise as being needed, it is essential that something be done to protect the livelihoods of those who man the small open boats which set forth from our beaches for no more than four or five hours a day, boats which can only go out in good weather? I am thinking in particular of the fishermen of East Anglia, and even more particularly of those who go out from beaches such as Aldeburgh. Those who for hundreds of years have carried out that sort of fishing now feel that their livelihoods are threatened by the big
1508
trawlers and the big international carve-ups. Something must be done to protect their livelihoods, which are part of the British way of life.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I hope that is something that we are doing. Like my noble friend, when I go to Aldeburgh I always try to buy a large quantity of its fish to take home for my freezer, and as much as it is possible to eat fresh. I greatly appreciate that kind of fishing and those fishermen as part of our national life. I am sure that the Government share that view. Over the past two or three years we have done a great deal to ensure that the quota arrangements for such fishermen are such as to enable them to continue with their livelihoods despite the greater technical efficiency of the big boats. That is a policy we shall continue.

Council Tax: Banding Decisions
2.50 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the valuation officers responsible for banding decisions for local government tax purposes take into account the age and condition of the properties concerned.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, council tax bandings are fixed by listing officers of the Valuation Office Agency. For council tax purposes it is assumed that a property is in a state of reasonable repair for its age and type. Extreme disrepair may justify a lower banding in some cases.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that most valuation officers do not go into the houses which they value? How then can they claim to be taking the age and condition into account?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the position on valuation is of long standing. The listing officer looks at the houses and the area and makes his judgment on that basis. If the owner of the house does not agree he can appeal and have his appeal heard by the tribunal.

EU Advertising
2.53 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990 concerning advertising by organisations whose aim is wholly or mainly political, the European Union should advertise itself on commercial radio stations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, the Broadcasting Act 1990 establishes the

1509
Radio Authority as the body responsible for securing compliance with the rules concerning advertisements on commercial radio stations. Decisions on these matters are for the authority to take.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I find that Answer most interesting? Will he confirm that the European Union is perhaps the most highly politicised body and certainly very divisive not only of the people in the country but also of political parties? Does he agree that if the EU is allowed to advertise its wares on radio, or on television for that matter, it will be in order for the Campaign for an Independent Britain, of which I am chairman, and others to advertise the disbenefits? Will it be in order for us to point out to the people of this country that because of the EU they pay£18 a week more in food costs; that every family pays an extra£180 a year in taxation; that we have had a£97 billion trade deficit with the EU and the consequent loss of jobs; and that EU policies, as we heard in the first Question, are destroying our fishing industry and many other industries because of stupid regulations?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord asks an extremely drawn-out question. The proper person to whom it should be addressed is not me but a representative of the Broadcast Advertising Clearing Centre, which is the central copy clearance body responsible for preventing certain categories of television and radio advertisements.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Her Majesty's Government, individually as a government, or through the Council of Ministers, or through the European Council, have abandoned all efforts to limit the amount spent by the Commission through the European Community budget on propaganda? Is he further aware that at the meeting in Madrid the matter was not even raised by the British Prime Minister, as he admitted in his Statement in another place yesterday? Is it to be the case that£50 million a year is to be spent by the Commission on its own propaganda without any authorisation and as of right in spite of the fact that it is broadcasting propaganda of a highly tendentious nature to promote only its own interests and policies unique to the Commission?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord draws to my attention an aspect of government policy which, if it be, is not known to me. The European Commission's information budget is agreed in detail with the Council and the European Parliament. That budget subsequently must be discharged by the European Parliament and will he scrutinised by the European Court of Auditors. The new Financial Commissioner, Mr. Liikanen from Finland, is strengthening budgetary controls in the Commission and has strong support from the United Kingdom Government in that respect. I am not in a position to answer the detailed points in the noble Lord's question, which are somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I shall write to the noble Lord when I am able to do so constructively.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, in view of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the single
1510
European currency, does my noble friend think it right that the European Union should spend British taxpayers' money on advertising the single currency?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the position of the United Kingdom Government in respect of any possible single European currency is well known; they are reserving their position to examine the merits. Any information which may be disseminated by the European Community or the Commission about the details of that is a matter to be dealt with by the Council of Ministers.
Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to one of the Minister's earlier answers. Did he say that there is no obligation on broadcasters to maintain a political balance as regards advertisements as opposed to the programmes?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the position as regards advertising on commercial radio and possible political activity is spelt out in detail in Section 92 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. In particular, two criteria must be met for a broadcast to be carried. First, the person placing the broadcast must not be political, although it can be placed by an administrative or governmental body. Secondly, the advertisement itself must not be political.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the information office of the Commission. Would he agree that much of the information that it puts out is inaccurate? Would he further agree that when a country puts out inaccurate information officially it amounts to propaganda? Finally, would he agree that propaganda is one of the hallmarks of a fascist state?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I have no evidence of inaccurate information emanating from the office of the European Commission. If the noble Lord has, I would be grateful if he would draw it to my attention.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, since the House appears to be almost traumatised by the prospect of the dire impact of the Brussels spin doctors on the simple minds of the Anglo-Saxons, will the Minister enlighten us by giving an example of one of these acts of propaganda?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the advertisements to which reference has been made are three that were recently broadcast on commercial radio. It may be of interest to the House if I read the typescript of one of them. It is called The Connoisseur and reads:
"At the airport. An argument between a woman passenger and the check-in steward. Steward: 'I'm sorry, madam, but the flight you are booked on is full. Next please.'. Passenger: "Just a moment. If a scheduled flight is overbooked, there are laws which entitle me to a seat on the next flight and cash compensation of at least£130.'. Steward: "True, Madam. You are even entitled to have your hotel and meals reimbursed.'. Passenger: "You see? When you make the effort you can really be quite charming.'. Voice off (over "Ode to Joy'): 'Throughout Europe, to help you defend your interests, the

1511
European Community and Britain within it give you rights. Make sure you use them. Send for a free fact sheet to PO Box 9432, London NW1 4WA.'".
Lord Marsh: My Lords, would the Minister like to explain why that particular advertisement is not political?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I explained in my first Answer, whether or not matters are political is a matter for the Radio Authority.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the fact that the European Commission finds it necessary to spend any money at all on praising its policies suggests how deeply unpopular it is, not only in this country but throughout Europe?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, if I have understood the advertisement properly I believe that its purpose is to draw to the attention of citizens the rights that they have to seek redress where they have suffered damage.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there was great amusement when he read out the text of the advertisement? Is he further aware that many people are offended not only by the advertisement but also by the hijacking of the greatest piece of music ever written for the political purposes of the European Union?
I refer to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. Is the Minister really happy that the European Union will be spending many millions of pounds on advertising the European single currency and EMU in this country and that the Government will not use the same methods to put across their point of view which I believe is that of the majority of British people? Why will the Government not give an assurance that they will counteract the blatant propaganda put out on behalf of the EU?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I explained in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that I wish to look into this matter and reply in detail. But the noble Lord is looking ahead an extremely long way as to what the European Community may or may not do in that regard. As regards the use of music, I imagine that it is a matter of great distress to those who love the old German folk song "Tannenbaum" that it was hijacked by the Red Flag.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the answer he gave some moments ago he stated that the European Council had some control over the expenditure? Is he aware that in his statement in another place yesterday the Prime Minister said:
"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"—[Official Report, Commons, 18/12/95; col. 1228.]
1512
In other words, it is a law unto itself.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, as ever, makes his point in a vigorous and robust manner. The position is that the European Commission's information budget is agreed in detail with the Council and the European Parliament in accordance with the normal budgetary provisions. As regards the detail of the expenditure within the chapters in the budget as it relates to the European Commission, that is a matter for the Commission.

CrossRail
3.2 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the period of blight damage caused to properties by the CrossRail scheme, a decision on its future can now be announced.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, a decision on the future of CrossRail will be announced in due course following full consideration, of the recent review.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. In the spirit of Christmas, is he able to be rather more precise as to whether the announcement will be made in a matter of weeks or months in order to lessen uncertainty? Also, what does he expect to be the level of private funding in that important project if it proceeds?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government realise the disadvantages which come from any period of uncertainty or blight. That is why it is always our policy to take forward as quickly as possible those decisions. However, I regret that I cannot be more specific on the timing of that announcement. It is very clear that if the CrossRail scheme goes forward, it will require considerable private finance input.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as regards the question of blight, the Government eventually capitulated to the view of the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Select Committee in another place by agreeing to pay compensation in relation to the cross-Channel route. Why did that take so long and is there to be a repetition of that?
Secondly, do the Government still support in principle CrossRail, bearing in mind that they gave considerable support to the idea not so long ago? Do they still think that it is critical to the Heathrow Express and the Channel Tunnel link or not?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as regards government support for the project, we certainly recognise that the scheme has the potential to bring significant benefits to those who travel in and out of London and, indeed, through London. The question is what is the best way to produce those benefits.

1513
The Channel Tunnel rail link and the PCA Select Committee report are matters for another question and they have been discussed in some length in this House. On the general issue of blight, it is a regrettable consequence of major projects such as this that blight occurs, but we aim to minimise it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, arising out of the latter part of that answer, is it not a fact that the precedent created by the Government on that occasion was extremely unfortunate and created considerable difficulty and anxiety for some people? The House will be interested to know whether the Government will refrain from engaging again in such a policy which, as I say, caused a great deal of unnecessary anxiety to people in that instance?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the two situations are totally different. Many of the difficulties which arose in connection with the CTRL issue concerned the fact that a number of different routes were put forward and considered. That is not the case with CrossRail. That is a scheme which has much less variation in it. The parallels which the noble Lord seeks to draw between the CTRL blight issue and that concerning CrossRail exist.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House the terms of reference of the Montagu Report? Is that report to he published and, if so, when?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the report to which my noble friend referred looked at the structure and ownership of CrossRail in the light of the rail privatisation arrangements; at possible private sector financial contributions; at London travel patterns and employment forecasts; and at the possibility of small-scale alternatives providing some cross-rail benefits at less cost. The review looked at that. The issue of publication is still being considered.

Business of the House: Consolidated Fund Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In moving this Motion perhaps I may remind your Lordships that on Wednesday of last week the House debated and agreed to a report from the Procedure Committee which once again endorsed the guidance that proceedings on Consolidated Fund Bills are taken formally. This Motion will allow the House to take all remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill today and I hope that that will be without debate.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Consolidated Fund Bill to be taken through its remaining stages this day—(Viscount Cranborne.).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff)My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. Without wishing to destroy the neutrality of my position, perhaps I may express a certain pleasure in being, I think, the first member of the Liberal or the Liberal Democrat party for 50 years to move a Motion at the Dispatch Box.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 15).—(The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:.
SCOTTISH SELECT COMMITTEES
The Committee has considered a proposal by the Leader of the House that Select Committees meeting in Scotland ("Scottish Select Committees") should be empowered to take evidence on certain Government Bills relating to Scotland. Thereafter the Bills would be considered at Westminster either by a Committee of the whole House in the ordinary way or in the Moses room by a Committee with unlimited membership, where no Divisions may take place. This further experiment in considering Bills in Committee off the floor of the House would be an alternative to the Special Public Bill Committee procedure (the "Jellicoe procedure") where the Committee has power both to take evidence and to consider the Bill clause by clause. The Special Public Bill Committee procedure would remain an option for appropriate Government Bills relating to Scotland and for other Bills.
We recommend that one or more experiments should be conducted in the Scottish Select Committee procedure and make the following detailed recommendations:

i)The Committee of Selection will nominate Members for each Scottish Select Committee whenever a Bill is to be considered by this procedure.

ii)A Scottish Select Committee should not have power to amend a Bill.

iii)The Committee should have 28 days (excluding recesses) from the date of its appointment to complete the taking of evidence.

iv)In accordance with Standing Order 63, any Lord who is not a Member of the Committee may attend and speak at the Committee's evidence sessions in Scotland. It is desirable that any such Lord should give notice of his wish to attend to the clerk of the Committee.

v)The written and oral evidence received by the Committee should be printed and available to the House for the Committee (on re-commitment) stage.

We understand that in the first instance it is proposed that the Scottish Select Committee procedure will be used for consideration of the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill (HL).
The Committee will in due course review this further experiment in the consideration of legislation off the floor of the House.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees on the admirably brief way in which he introduced this report of the Procedure Committee.
The whole House will appreciate that one of the strengths of this House is the ability, because we take virtually all our business on the Floor of the House, of every Member, not only on the Front Benches but also on the Back-Benches all around the House, to take part in whatever business is before the House.

1515
The House will be aware also of the recent practice of the Scottish Grand Committee of another place to meet in Scotland. The practice, which has evolved over recent months, is that that Scottish Grand Committee meets on a Monday morning which enables the members of that committee to return to Parliament and take part in parliamentary business.
Can the noble Lord the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees say whether consideration has been given to the meeting time of the proposed Scottish Select Committee and whether the Procedure Committee has come to a view that such a committee meeting in Scotland should meet at a time when this House is not sitting? That would imply that the Scottish Select Committee would meet on a Monday morning, on a Friday or when your Lordships' House is in Recess. I should point out that that would enable not only members of that Select Committee to be present in your Lordships' House for the normal deliberation of business; it would also enable noble Lords who are not members of that committee to attend its meetings and benefit at first hand from the evidence presented to it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words about the report and what it is that we on these Benches have agreed to. I should tell my noble friend Lord Monkswell that, as I understand it, it is not the intention to create a permanent Select Committee on Scottish Bills which would tend to sit either in London or in Scotland. Indeed, any Select Committee within the terms of the report will be tied to a specific Bill.
As I understand it, the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill—which, I am bound to say, seems to me to be an appropriate one with which to try such an experiment—will be introduced and a committee on the Bill will be established. If that committee considers it necessary (and I gather that it does), it will then go to Inverness for a day to take evidence on the deer and from anyone else who may be able to assist. Thereafter, all proceedings on the Bill will be brought back to this House. At that stage, it will then be for the House to decide whether the Committee stage of the Bill will proceed in what has become known, in shorthand form, as "a Moses Room type procedure"; in other words, the special Public Bill Committee procedure or the Jellicoe procedure which, as I understand it, means pretty well the same thing. Alternatively, the Committee stage may be held on the Floor of the House. The only part of the consideration of the Bill which will be taken in situ will be the deer bit.
Perhaps I should also make it clear to the House that we on this side of the House regard the matter as an experiment. We have not given our agreement to this becoming the normal procedure for all Bills which may relate to Scottish affairs. On the contrary, we shall want to look at each Bill as it comes forward and then decide whether it is appropriate for the committee on that Bill to take evidence in Scotland. Indeed, I have no doubt
1516
that if there were a Welsh Bill, evidence could be taken in Cardiff, Machynlleth or wherever else seemed particularly appropriate. Moreover, if there were a London Bill, no doubt we could reopen County Hall for the purpose of taking evidence.
Therefore, as I understand it, what we are being asked to agree to in a sense is that, where it seems geographically sensible in relation to a Bill—and Scotland seems the obvious place to start because of the red deer amendment Bill—the relevant committee should go away, take evidence and then return to this place, whereupon the House will decide what to do with it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has just said. It is indeed an experiment. The Procedure Committee considered the matter on that basis and agreed to it. As regards future Bills, obviously we shall have to look at each one of them and judge each on its merit. I believe that it is a worthwhile experiment which I very much hope proves to be a success.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and my noble friend. I only dissent in one respect with what the noble Lord said; namely, on the question of referring the Bill to a Jellicoe Committee as the next stage. Indeed, if the Bill were to go into the Moses Room, it would be as a Committee of the Whole House off the Floor of the House, which is not quite the same thing.
The only other point that I should like to make is that I do not believe that I am in a position to say whether the committee would meet in Inverness or in any other place north of the Border. The location has not yet been determined. Certainly, it is not a matter for the Procedure Committee to decide.
I turn now to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. Yes, the intention is that the committee should be open to other Members of this House. It is hoped that, if the experiment is to be successful and repeated, not all 450 or 800 Members of your Lordships' House will travel up to Scotland and claim their rail fares both there and back; otherwise, the experiment will prove to be somewhat expensive.
As regards the days on which the committee will meet, that is a matter for the committee itself and for the usual channels to decide. However, I suspect that the committee will want to meet on consecutive days—that is, on more than one day—if it is to get value for money. Therefore, it would be most difficult to have a meeting on a Monday morning or on a Friday. Moreover, I believe that the idea of the sittings of such a committee moving into the Recess is unlikely to find favour, at least at this stage. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill
3.16 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Amendment Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Consolidated Fund Bill
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I should like to express my sympathy for my noble friend in being involved in such a nonsense as summarily moving the Bill, knowing perfectly well that the Procedure Committee in its wisdom— or rather lack of it— decided that we should be inhibited from debating the measure.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said earlier, I had not intended to say anything. However. following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about the Procedure Committee, of which I am a member, I must ask him whether he has seen a copy of the Bill. I have a copy with me. It consists of two clauses.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Three!
Lord Strabolgi: Well, my Lords; only two clauses are really applicable. The first applies to certain sums— indeed, very large sums— for the year ended 31st March 1996. Clause 2 refers to a slightly larger sum for the year ended 31st March 1997, while the third clause merely cites the fact that it is the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill. I do not know how the noble Lord would attempt to have a Second Reading debate, and subsequent stages, on a Bill of this kind. If he can do so, then he is a more ingenious politician than even I thought him to be.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree to try an experiment to see whether he is right or I am right? Is it not a fact that what this Bill does is to authorise enormous payments of public funds without this House having any opportunity whatever of debating whether this is right or wrong?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, may I point out this is Second Reading and my noble friend is out of order?
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
1518
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to resolution), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITILES in the Chair.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 63:
Before Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
CODE OF PRACTICE
(". In this Part references to a code of practice are to the code set out in Schedule (Code of Practice).").
The noble Lord said: In rising to move Amendment No. 63 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 97, 99, 100 and 162. Amendment No. 63 is a paving amendment in the right place to introduce a new schedule which consists of the text of the code of practice. We had a certain amount of debate on the Motion of Commitment yesterday afternoon as regards the code of practice and there was a considerable amount of debate on the code of practice at Second Reading during which, I remind the Committee, a large number of noble Lords from all parts of the Chamber complained that Part II is almost entirely an enabling provision for a code of practice which had not yet been produced. There was a widespread feeling on Second Reading and yesterday that there was something wrong with having a code of practice of this kind not available at the time of Second Reading and available, as we learnt, only a few days before the Committee stage.
I remind the Committee that we received the code of practice only at midday on Wednesday 13th December; in other words, only two working days before the Committee was due to sit. I also remind the Committee that the draft we received on 13th December was dated 11th December. Whether that means that it had been prepared and had been sitting around for two days, or someone had forgotten to change the date, I have no way of knowing. However, the fact of the matter is that we had little time between Wednesday midday and the time the Chamber rose at 4.30 p.m. on Thursday to put down amendments which could have been accessible to the Chamber for full debate. In practice, we had to table our amendments by four o'clock on Friday, which meant that they were starred in yesterday's Marshalled List.
When I heard the Minister complain, in response to the first debate yesterday, that she only had access to our amendments on Sunday afternoon I thought that was a little rich. We slogged hard to treat the code of practice seriously and to produce amendments to it in a short period of time. For the Minister then to complain that we were not reticent—I believe that was the word she used—in coming forward with amendments and that she had to consider them at the last minute does not reflect badly on the Opposition but extremely badly on government business management in that we were forced to behave in that way and to produce amendments at such short notice. However, we have done so.
The first thing we thought to be necessary was that the Committee should have direct access to the wording of the code of practice. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, complained yesterday that he could not get hold of a copy of the document when he went to the Printed Paper Office, although I know that it was placed in the Library. From Friday morning it was available in a list of amendments and has been available all this week in the Marshalled List of amendments because I put it there. I took the view that the Committee had the right to know the substance of this matter; Part II of the Bill is only the shell. I make no apology for taking up the time of the parliamentary printers in producing and reproducing this code of practice because I believe that this afternoon's debates will make it clear that the wording of the code of practice is essential to the understanding and interpretation of Part II of the Bill. As Part II of the Bill, which is concerned with criminal investigations, precedes in chronological order in the criminal justice system Part I, the code of practice is essential for understanding the great bulk of the important part of this rather disparate Bill.
I go further and remind the Committee of the conclusions of this Chamber's Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers. That committee remarked that noble Lords had said at Second Reading that the Bill was nothing without the code. It cites six different references at Second Reading in relation to that phrase. The committee made a comment which deserves this Committee's full attention. Paragraph 16 of the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers Committee's report of 5th December states:
"The majority of codes authorised by statute are not subject to Parliamentary control; and the Department's Memorandum argues that there is no need for such control in the case of this new code because it 'does not affect the liberty of the individual and is purely procedural'. However, correct procedure in the criminal law is indispensable to the process of a fair trial, and there is an obvious comparison here with the codes issued under sections 60 and 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That Act requires the Secretary of State to publish codes in draft, to consider representations about their content, and to lay the final draft before Parliament for affirmative resolution. Another comparison is with the scheme provided for in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995, which requires a draft of the scheme to be laid before Parliament for approval by both Houses".
The Chamber has only recently debated the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995. The committee concluded that,
1520
"two additional procedural safeguards are needed—provision in the bill for consultation about the content of the code; provision for subjecting the code, when it is laid before Parliament, to affirmative resolution procedure".
Amendments in this group provide for both of those recommendations. Amendment No. 97 provides for the affirmative resolution procedure. Amendment No. 99 prohibits casual revision of the code. I can assure Members of the Committee that they will see from the Bill that casual revision is indeed possible. Amendment No. 100 provides for consultation in the terms asked for by the scrutiny committee.
The minimum requirement for this Chamber to do its job properly as a revising Chamber is that it has access in good time to the material which is necessary for an understanding of the Bills which come before it. The minimum requirement for a Bill which provides genuine legislative support for political or other initiatives is that the Bill itself should be explicit about the most important aspects of its provisions. Part I of the Bill is extremely explicit about the disclosure procedures immediately before and leading up to a trial in a criminal case. Some would even argue that it is too explicit. Part II is not at all explicit because it depends entirely on a code of practice which is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, as was confirmed by the Minister in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, yesterday.
We have devised a series of amendments, running up to and including Amendment No. 96, which seek to bring out the important aspects of the code and subject them to parliamentary debate. If that takes a number of hours this afternoon I do not apologise, because that is what we are here for. In the first instance it is important that the code of practice should be available for inspection.
I certainly do not propose to seek the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 162 which contains the text of the code of practice. However, it is important that we should recognise the principle that the code is available for parliamentary scrutiny, subject to consultation—in the words of the scrutiny committee—and that its enactment and changes to it are subject to parliamentary scrutiny by means of the affirmative resolution procedure. It is on that basis that I beg to move Amendment No. 63.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: At Second Reading I raised the status of the code of practice in terms of legal efficacy. I have been interested in the subject for some time, and introduced a debate in this House many years ago.
I thought that under Clause 18 as it stood the code of practice would have had such legal efficacy as is conferred by statutory instrument. However, I was mistaken, as it appears that the intention was merely to lay it before Parliament. As my noble friend the Minister indicated yesterday when I sought clarification, the code will not have parliamentary approval, as is proposed in Amendment No. 97. I believe that it should. I am bound to support Amendment No. 97. The scrutiny committee

1521
appears to consider that that is the appropriate way in which the status of the code should be cast. I have always deferred to that committee, although I expressed a personal opinion in that direction before its report was issued.
However, I do not believe that the code should be entrenched in the Bill in the form of a schedule having the quality of primary legislation as proposed in Amendments Nos. 63 and 162. I shall therefore oppose those amendments in due course.
There is a reasonable sanction in Clause 93, which Amendment No. 99 proposes to omit. I support Amendments Nos. 93 and 97 but oppose Amendments Nos. 63 and 162.
I support Amendment No. 100 relating to consultation before the code is laid before Parliament. Again I follow the recommendations of the scrutiny committee, but that was my own approach in any event.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that Part II is in a sense an enabling provision for the code of practice. It should have parliamentary approval. I agree that it is essential to an understanding of Part II of the Bill. I know that my noble friend the Minister will be disappointed at my qualified opposition to the position of the Government, but there it is.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the discussion seems to me to illustrate an unsatisfactory element in our procedures. We have before us the draft code of practice, and I shall refer to its timetable shortly. We are in the difficult position of wishing to discuss it and consider whether it is adequately drafted but are unable to do so except by following the procedure adopted by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and attempting to write its provisions on to the face of the Bill.
As the noble Lord said, it is wholly unsatisfactory that the code was not available until Wednesday of last week. Indeed, at Second Reading a number of us made clear that if it had not been available by yesterday the Committee stage should hot have proceeded.
I am concerned that the code is still a draft. In a letter the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that although the code had been the result of consultation with the police, the CPS and other investigators and prosecutors the Government were still considering its detailed provisions, and it might need further refinement before a final draft was ready for publication. Therefore, in so far as we seek to discuss the code today, we are discussing a draft which may be at a relatively early stage. If we sought, for example, to query whether the design of the code, with definitions which are not complete on the first page and many separate questions to be asked about wording on subsequent pages, not only would it delay our proceedings but we might find ourselves working on a draft which in any event the Minister sought later to amend.
One of the principal claims of this House, which is generally accepted even by those who would seek to change the House, is its record of scrutiny. We go through Bills in great detail, and legislation benefits from the role that we perform. However, not only are
1522
we faced with the Bill itself, which, as we said yesterday, was available for the Committee stage much too soon, but we are faced with this code of practice. I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said about the unsatisfactory position we face.
Baroness Blatch: Taking Amendments Nos. 63 and 162 first, I believe that it would be better if the code remained a code of practice rather than being enshrined in primary legislation. I say that for the following reasons.
First, this is a code of practice for police officers which resembles more than anything else the codes of practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Like those codes it goes into detail about everyday police practice. Therefore, I do not see in principle why this code of practice should be on the face of a statute whereas those codes are not.
The second reason is that the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice recommended that the detail of the supporting arrangements on disclosure should be in subordinate legislation or a code of practice. On that point we agree with the Royal Commission. I seem to recall the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, saying earlier in the debate on the Address that in so far as the Bill followed the recommendations of the Royal Commission it would have his support. Therefore, I am a little disappointed that this is yet another point on which the noble Lord does not support the Royal Commission.
Thirdly, I think it very likely that as a result of debates in Parliament and further consultations we shall need to refine the code of practice before placing it before Parliament.
Fourthly, once a provision is on the face of an Act it is no small matter to change it. We would need to introduce primary legislation to effect any necessary changes on points of detail, however minor, and there may well be such changes. Clause 18 foresees the need for such changes by enabling the Secretary of State to revise the code of practice previously brought into operation under Part II. The code may need to be changed in the light of developing case law, developments in police practice or procedures, or other legislative changes.
Perhaps I may cite the PACE codes of practice again. We brought into operation revised codes earlier this year to replace those brought into operation in 1991. There were many changes to that code, partly because of the legislative changes in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and partly in the light of experience with the code since 1991. When consulting on draft revised codes, we received of the order of 600 suggestions for amendment. It would have been much harder to revise the codes if they had been enshrined in primary legislation. However, that is what will happen to this code of practice if it goes into the Bill. I do not believe that anyone concerned with managing the business of this House would welcome that.
Accordingly, we prefer to keep the code of practice as a code of practice. We have published it in draft form at an early stage in the parliamentary proceedings, and

1523
we shall of course try to take into account the comments we receive from this House, from another place and from outside this House.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 97,99 and 100. Perhaps I may explain why the provisions of Clause 18 are as they are. We do not believe that this code of practice needs to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as is the case with the PACE codes of practice, because in our view this code of practice is a purely procedural code which does not affect the liberty of the subject in the way that the PACE codes do. But nor did we believe that it was necessary in the Bill to require a consultation process, primarily because it is obvious that this code cannot be prepared without consulting others with an interest. Indeed, we have already started that process of consultation on the present draft code.
However, having said that, I should like to take away Amendments Nos. 97, 99 and 100 and reflect on them in the light of the comments of the scrutiny committee. I have to say that I only had sight of the scrutiny committee report as the noble Lord opposite spoke to the amendment. Through my office I have tried in vain to obtain a copy. I do not know why I do not have a copy. I think that I heard the noble Lord refer yesterday to having seen a copy of the scrutiny committee report.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee report was published on 5th December. It has been available since then in the Printed Paper Office. There seems to be an extraordinary lack of co-ordination in the Minister's office.
Baroness Blatch: That is a matter for me to follow up. However, until coming into the Chamber today I have been asking for a sight of the scrutiny committee report. I have been asking what it says; I have been told that it is not available. I had it passed to me as the noble Lord opposite was on his feet. It is for me to find out why that should be so.
In summary, I believe that the code of practice should remain a code of practice and should remain outside the Bill. In the light of the report, and of what has been said in the debate by noble Lords opposite and by my noble friend, I should like to take the other amendments away and come back at Report stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is good to know that a Minister is willing to take away other amendments in the group. I have to say that someone should be sacked because the scrutiny committee report was published. It covers a number of Bills as well as this Bill. It was ordered to be printed on 5th December. I do not have my copy because I have passed it to Hansard so that it can correctly reproduce my quotations from it. But something is very seriously wrong if the Minister cannot and could not obtain the report despite asking for it. I should be looking for a few heads to roll.
The Minister said something very strange. I wrote the words down as best I could. She said that she would be taking the opportunity to refine the code before placing it before Parliament. However, as she rightly recognised, Clause 18(1) only provides for it to be laid
1524
before Parliament, not to be scrutinised. I appreciate that she then said she would consider the nature of parliamentary consideration. For that also I am grateful. But the issue as to whether we should have this code available for discussion for this Committee stage, and the fact that it was available at such a late stage is important. Although I would not wish to press Amendment No. 162, nevertheless Amendment No. 63 will serve to show the displeasure that we feel at the way in which this place has been treated. I propose to take the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 63.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord sits down—and this is in no way to detract from his intentions—perhaps I may say this for the purposes of the record. Whether the code of practice is laid before the House as a matter of information prior to my right honourable friend using his order-making powers to bring it into effect, or whether the suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, or those contained in Amendments Nos. 97, 99 and 100, are brought into effect, it is absolutely right that the code of practice—it will be the operational manual for implementing these procedures—should be subject to the comments in debate in this House and in another place, and of those people outside who will have to operate under it. All those comments should be taken into account. When it comes before the House for approval, the code should be in a definitive form and should benefit from all that consultation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I entirely accept that. Our amendments to Part II of the Bill reflect our willingness to consider the text of the code and the important matters raised in it, and to subject them to parliamentary scrutiny in the hope that by those means the provisions can be improved.
I do not expect to win a Division on this amendment. If I do not win a Division, I can assure the noble Baroness that, in the light of her assurances on Amendment Nos. 97, 99 and 100, I shall not press them to a vote. However, I wish to express my displeasure, and the displeasure of my noble friends. I want to take the opinion of the Committee.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Inevitably I shall oppose Amendment No. 63. I have every sympathy with my noble friend the Minister. I think that she has been let down very badly. I am sure that Members of the Committee have the same sympathy. But is it really right to express displeasure at the way in which she has been let down by supporting the amendment? Is that the right approach to a serious amendment? For that reason I would ask Members of the Committee to think twice before supporting the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know whether the question is addressed to me. My displeasure is much greater than as regards the way in which the Minister has been let down on one specific point. It is the way in which the whole matter has been dealt with before noble Lords. I fully recognise the right of the noble Lord not to vote with us, but I shall still take the opinion of the Committee.
3.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 63) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 133.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Judd, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Avebury, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Barnett, L.

McNair, L.

Blease, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carter, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Donoughue, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ezra, L.

Rea, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Fitt, L.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Geraint, L.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Grey, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stallard, L.

Haskel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Caldecote, V.

Addison, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ailsa, M.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cavendish of Fumess, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Chesham, L [Teller.]

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Chorley, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Clanvvilliam, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Barber, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Courtown, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Beloff, L.

Cross, V.

Bethell, L.

Cuckney, L.

Blaker, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blatch, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Blyth, L.

Davidson, V.

Boardman, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Borthwick, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Elton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Faithfull, B.

Burnham, L.

Gainford, L.

Butterworth, L.

Geddes, L.

Cadman, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

1526

Goschen, V.

Nelson, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Newall, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Norrie, L.

Greenway, L.

Northesk, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Orkney, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Harlech, L.

Palmer, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Pender, L.

Henley, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Hertford, M.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Holderness, L.

Pym, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Quinton, L.

Howe, E.

Radnor, E.

Inglewood, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Killearn, L.

Reay, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Renwick, L.

Knollys, V.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Romney, E.

Lucas, L. [Teller.]

Rosslyn, E.

Lyell, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

St Davids, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Seccombe, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Marlesford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Merrivale, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Mersey, V.

Sudeley, L.

Middleton, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Milverton, L.

Terrington, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Teviot, L.

Mountevans, L.

Teynham, L.

Moyne, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Munster, E.

Vivian, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wynford, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.57 p.m.
Clause 15 [Introduction]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved. Amendment No. 64:
Page 10, line 32, after ("officers") insert ("or officers of another investigating agency").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we start a series of amendments to Clauses 16 and 17. I have not apologised for the amendments and I shall not do so. They seek to bring out into the open the areas of the code of practice which are not satisfactory and which will need amendment in whatever form the proposals are produced, whether they are laid before Parliament or, in the light of the Minister's recent statement, possibly subject to the approval of Parliament. In any case, the wording will have to be changed because the code of practice is simply not good enough.
An immediate example of the way in which the code is not good enough is that it appears to apply only to police investigations. The definition in paragraph 2 of the code is that,
"the investigator is any police officer involved in the conduct of a criminal investigation".
That does not reflect the real world. The real world is that all kinds of other people are quite properly involved in criminal investigations. The most obvious example is

1527
Customs & Excise, but there are many others. It is entirely proper that the code of practice should be drafted in such a way as to enable it to recognise the involvement of other agencies than the police in the criminal investigations process.
Amendment No. 64 proposes that Clause 15 should state that:
"a criminal investigation is an investigation conducted by police officers or officers of another investigating agency".
It is important that we are clear about this. The investigator is a very important person in the process—not because he is himself important in the process, but because of the responsibilities and powers that befall him when he is, in particular, producing a schedule of evidence to go to the prosecution.
In later amendments we shall point out the unsatisfactory fact that an investigator for this purpose can be any police officer. It could be the most junior police officer on the investigation team. It could, of course, be the only police officer on the investigation team in very simple cases. That would be perfectly acceptable. But there is insufficient provision to make sure either that the definition of the investigating team is wide enough, or that the person responsible ultimately to the court and to the criminal justice process for the preparation of material leading up to the criminal justice process is of sufficient seniority and responsibility. Many of our amendments will touch on those points.
I venture to think that this amendment is relatively simple. We are looking for the code to be redrafted to cover investigating agencies other than the police. We are perhaps looking forward to a Bill that will further involve the security services in the investigation of crime although we do not know whether or when such legislation will come. In either event we believe that this is a helpful and constructive amendment in relation to the provisions for the code of practice. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I hope completely to allay the noble Lord's concerns on this matter. The amendment widens the definition of a criminal investigation in Clause 15 to include investigations conducted by officers of another investigating agency as well as by police officers. Because Clause 16 refers to criminal investigations, the amendment ensures that the code of practice prepared under Clause 16 is a code for all investigators as well as for the police. That means officers of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, Serious Fraud Office inspectors, local authority trading standards officers and many others.
There are two difficulties with the amendment. First, the Secretary of State who will prepare the code is my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. He will do so because under the Bill at present it is a code for police officers. It will be binding on police officers, and my right honourable friend is accountable to Parliament for their actions. If the code is for all investigators, then it is binding on them as well. It would require them to record information, to retain records of information and other material and to disclose it to the prosecutor. But
1528
my right honourable friend is not accountable for the actions of other investigators such as those I mentioned. It would not be proper for him to prepare a code of practice which imposed responsibilities on investigators for whom he was not accountable. This amendment would accordingly require all Secretaries of State who were accountable for the actions of the officers of any investigating agency to prepare separate codes of practice, all of which would have to conform to the requirement set out in Clause 16. I am not sure that that is what the noble Lord has in mind.
Secondly, there is an important distinction between the police and other investigating agencies. The police do not prosecute criminal offences; that is the responsibility of the Crown Prosecution Service. But other agencies both investigate and prosecute. In some cases investigative and prosecutorial functions will fall to different persons in the same agency. In others, the same person may both investigate and prosecute. If the code of practice applied generally, an investigating officer would find himself certifying to his colleague next door that he had complied with the requirements of the code. He might even end up giving himself such a certificate.
To avoid those difficulties, we have chosen a different approach. The code is for police officers. But other investigators are to have regard under Clause 19 to any relevant provisions. That will enable them to adapt its requirements to their own particular circumstances.
Also, Clause 19 describes the persons who are to have regard to the code as persons other than police officers who are charged with the duty of conducting an investigation with a view to it being ascertained whether a person should be charged with an offence, or whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it. That is the same investigation as the criminal investigation which police officers are charged with the duty of conducting.
The noble Lord will see in Clause 19(1) that,
"A person other than a police officer who is charged with the duty of conducting an investigation with a view to it being ascertained… whether a person should be charged with an offence, or… whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it, shall in discharging that duty have regard to any relevant provision of a code which would apply if the investigation were conducted by police officers".
The clause goes on to describe failure to comply with the code. Clause 19 therefore meets the particular concerns that the noble Lord has; other investigators will not escape having to have regard to the code.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am about to make some disobliging remarks. Before I do so, I acknowledge that the Minister is right in drawing attention to Clause 19(1) and the fact that that brings other investigating officers under the scope of the code of practice. To that extent, and it is very considerable, my amendment is misconceived and I shall not pursue it.
I see from Clause 19(1), which I should have examined more closely, that the obligation on persons other than police officers is only to "have regard to" any relevant provision of the code. I have been involved in too many debates across this Table on the significance of the phrase "have regard to" not to know that there is

1529
a difference between having regard to something and conforming to something, complying with something, or other phrases to the same effect. When we argued that people should "comply" with a code or with a direction from a department, we, were told very firmly, no, it should be "have regard to" rather than "comply". I am therefore prompted to think that at the next stage of the Bill we shall have to return with an amendment to Clause 19(1) to strengthen the obligation on persons other than police officers.
I want to say a word about the Minister's argument about the Secretary of State not being responsible for other than police officers. My understanding is that in legislation there is only one Secretary of State and the Secretary of State is responsible for all aspects of any legislation that comes before Parliament whichever particular department may be promoting the Bill. The expression of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, confirms me in that view.
Therefore, it is not good enough for the Minister to say, "My Secretary of State is the Home Secretary and he does not have responsibility for other departments of state". In legislation the Secretary of State has responsibility for all departments of state. If he then wishes to issue subordinate legislation, it will of course be proper for him to do so, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for the Environment, for trading standards officers or whomsoever it may be, and therefore for other investigating officers. But the whole basis of the executive responsibility to Parliament is that the Government as a whole are representative of Parliament. If Parliament wants something to be done, departmental boundaries will not inhibit its being done. I ask the Minister to look again at the brief with which she was provided. I ask her to consider whether it represents the way in which she or any other government Minister wants to introduce legislation before Parliament because in my view it is not only mistaken but damaging to the power of government to seek commitments from Parliament to legislative change.
Having made those disobliging comments, I return to my obliging comments. The Minister is right about Clause 19, and I was wrong. There is work still to be clone, but in recognition of the correctness of her response on that matter, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 64.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.66:
Page 10, line 39, at end insert ("including samples").
The noble Lord said: This is simply a probing amendment. A definition of "material" in paragraph 2(e) of the code states:
"material of any kind, including information and objects, which is obtained in the course of the criminal investigation".
I believe that there has been legal debate about whether that in fact includes samples. I know that the code refers to "material of any description", but I should
1530
be grateful for confirmation that it includes samples of material as well as the original material itself. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that I am able wholly to satisfy the noble Lord on this point. Since "material" includes "objects of all descriptions", it includes objects which may be described specifically as samples. There would have to be some particular reason for singling out samples rather than any other object and I am not sure that I understand what that would mean anyway. The noble Lord will be aware that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 already makes specific provision for the retention of samples in accordance with its provisions and for their destruction in certain circumstances. If the noble Lord takes the view that objects do not include samples unless expressly defined to include them, the amendment will not ensure that samples are disclosed to the accused. That is because it does not affect the definition of "material" for the purposes of the disclosure provisions in Part I. I can say that samples are subsumed in the definition.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am indeed wholly satisfied with that answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Code of practice]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 11, line 2, leave out ("designed").
The noble Lord said: Clause 16 introduces a code of practice for the first time. It does so in rather curious words. Subsection (I) states:
The Secretary of State"—
not the Home Secretary—
"shall prepare a code of practice containing provisions designed to secure … (a)",
and so on. The code is "designed to secure".
Does that mean that the provisions are allowed to fail to secure and the code is not to be held to account if they fail to secure? I cannot see what the word "designed" adds to the meaning of that clause, unless it is to imply a weakening of the intention to secure the objectives of the code of practice. I cannot see why we should support what, in effect, are weasel words—words which do not help the definition or the efficacy of the code of practice. I do not believe that anything would be lost and feel that a considerable amount would be gained if this amendment were agreed to. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the noble Lord. The only effect of that word is to qualify the efficacy of the intendment of this section. There is no justification at all for it.
Baroness Blatch: I am not so sure that the amendment has any practical effect. It seems more natural to me to say that a code of practice contains provisions which are designed to secure certain things rather than that the provisions secure them themselves.

1531
The code secures nothing. It is designed to make sure that the processes that follow secure what is designed by the code.
Since Clause 16(1) requires the Secretary of State to prepare a code of practice which at that time has no effect in law and since the things to which the provisions relate are all in the future, I cannot see how its provisions can properly be said to secure anything, although the code may be designed to secure it. That is the reason for designing. The code itself does not secure it. It is the practice that follows according to the code which secures the proper practices.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: But, with respect, it has an effect in law under Clause 19(3). Any breach of that code has to be taken into account in such a manner—I paraphrase—as the judge considers appropriate to the question in issue. It has a legal effect. I hope that it will have parliamentary approval. With the greatest respect, I believe that my noble friend's brief is again adrift on this point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I feel that there ought to have been a reply from the Minister to that point. I still feel that there should be a reply.
Baroness Blatch: I can only rest my case by saying that the code is designed to secure a proper process. People must have regard to it. Of course, the code will be designed and come before the Chamber for approval. Its primary aim is to secure a proper process.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, rightly referred to Clause 19(3) which states that:
"In all criminal and civil proceedings a code in operation at any time by virtue of an order under section 18 shall be admissible in evidence".
That means that it has legal status. It is no good saying that the code is not designed to do anything but its provisions are designed to do something, which was the Minister's first argument, because the code consists of its provisions, nothing more and nothing less. Nor is it enough to say, as the Minister said in her second argument, that because the phrase is in the future—the Secretary of State "shall prepare"—it does not secure anything until it has been passed in whatever form it is approved.
Legislation is designed—I nearly said "designed to secure" and that would have been very dangerous—to put something on the statute book; to create laws. It is not there at the time of enacting the legislation, but when the legislation is enacted all parts of that legislation have effect, whether they are on the face of the Act or in codes of practice which follow on the Act. Since the Bill specifically states in Clause 19(3) that the code of practice is admissible in evidence we need to have the strongest possible words for the intention of the Government in drawing up that code of practice. To my mind, that involves removing the word "designed" which, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway,
1532
recognised and agreed, weakens and serves only to weaken the intention of the Government in drawing up the code of practice.
I do not want to divide the Committee on this matter and had not intended to do so but I should like to have a better answer from the Minister than we have heard so far.
Baroness Blatch: It is not my intention—nor is it my nature—to be pedantic about a particular word. Of course I shall take the matter away and look to see whether there is anything of substance in what the noble Lord said. If there is, the word will be left out.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am most grateful to the Minister‥I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 11, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert—
("(a) that when information is obtained or inspected in the course of a criminal investigation it is recorded at the time it is obtained or inspected or as soon as practicable after that time;").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 91. These issues are of considerable importance in the code because the code rightly goes into a great deal of detail about the way in which a schedule of material yet to be revealed to the prosecution—I believe that I can use the word "yet", although we have not considered the amendment on the wording—should be carried out. We are concerned that there does not appear to be adequate provision in the code for the material to be collected, gathered and put into a schedule contemporaneously; in other words, in the words of the amendment, "as soon as practicable" after the time that it has been obtained or inspected. Amendment No. 68 seeks to insert:
"when information is obtained or inspected… it is recorded at the time it is obtained or inspected or as soon as practicable after that time".
Amendment No. 91 states that:
"The code shall provide that a document shall be prepared under subsection (3) in every case except where the accused has indicated an intention to plead guilty".
The point about Amendment No. 91—I did not read the whole of it—is that we do not seek a proto-schedule to be prepared in every single case even when it is obvious that it will not be necessary because the accused has either pleaded guilty already, admitted the fact or, when caught in the act, not denied it. So we do not ask for an intolerable burden. We feel that when it is obvious that a schedule is going to be necessary, it should be as immediate, actual and therefore as accurate as possible. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: This is the first of a series of amendments which provide for Clauses 16 and 17 to specify a number of additional matters to be included in the code of practice prepared under Clause 16. Some of these incorporate provisions of the draft code of practice issued recently, without any changes. Others incorporate amended provisions of the draft code, or include new provisions.

1533
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I make some general comments in this debate, which apply to all the related amendments on this subject tabled by noble Lords opposite.
As I explained in the debate on the new clause before Clause 15, I do not in principle believe that it would be desirable to place the provisions of the draft code of practice, amended or not, on the face of the Bill. It takes up time in this Chamber and another place if the provisions need to be amended in the light of reflection, as they probably will. It requires the introduction of new primary legislation if the provisions need to be amended after they are enacted. Nor do I understand why some parts of the draft code are deemed sufficiently important to be included in primary legislation, whereas others are to be left to secondary legislation. The criteria are not obvious when reading through the amendments.
In so far as these amendments incorporate provisions of the draft code into the Bill, their effect is to place the same or similar provisions in both primary legislation and secondary legislation. In my view, the proper course is to leave all of the provisions of the draft code as they are, and to put in the Bill those enabling powers which are needed to ensure that what the code provides is not ultra vires.
I do not propose to comment in detail on these or other related amendments. Where they incorporate the provisions of the draft code without changes, there is nothing I can add to the general remarks I have just made. Where they do amend the provisions of the draft code, or make new provision, we shall take that into account in considering the next version. For those reasons I invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank my noble friend for her constructive attitude to the related amendments, particularly because—as I have already said—in my view the criteria as to what should or should not be in primary legislation is of cardinal importance. That is why I could not support the provision for bringing the matters in the code into a schedule of the Bill.
The sensible way must be the way advanced by my noble friend the Minister; that is, to deal with all related matters on the basis that they will be included in a revised code. The drafting of these two amendments is far more useful and efficacious than the way in which the clause is worded. However, we can spend hours tinkering around. It is surely better that these matters are discussed by all those interested, who can then find some accommodation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We will be happy to do that. However, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, will recognise that we have hardly had an opportunity for discussion between the time the code was published and the time that we had to meet to consider the matter in Committee.
The Minister said, and the noble Lord echoed, that these are issues as between primary and secondary legislation. As the Bill is drafted, they are not; they are issues between primary and tertiary legislation. Tertiary legislation, if I am defining it for the first time, is legislation which may be laid before Parliament but is
1534
not subject to either the negative or the affirmative procedure. There may even be quaternary legislation, which is not even laid before Parliament.
The events of the past hour have secured that, by proposing to put the matter on the face of the Bill—to which the Committee decided not to agree—we succeeded, with the help of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in obtaining an undertaking from the Minister to consider whether something more than tertiary legislation is appropriate status for the code of practice. The Minister said that now she has seen the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee she will go away and think about it. We can then perhaps debate it and come back at a later stage. So we have achieved something by opening this debate in relation to the issue of primary, secondary or tertiary legislation. I am not apologetic for starting that process.
We come to the detailed consideration of the code of practice. The only way in which we can consider the code of practice as a revising Chamber is by drawing attention to the provisions in the code of practice which we consider to be important—it may he that we are wrong in our judgment about what is important, but we have made our judgment on that point. If we agree with the provisions and think that they are important, then we bring them before the Committee to have them elevated in status. If we do not feel that they are satisfactory, we bring them forward with amendments. That is what we have done in several subsequent amendments.
Again, I do not apologise for that procedure. That is the right way to do it. At one stage I had to write an entire code of practice in as an amendment and amend it myself as a way of bringing the issues before the Chamber. I did not apologise for that, though many people misunderstood it. We are doing the right thing. We are drawing attention to important issues.
The Minister gave a general reply and indicated her support for the wording in Amendments Nos. 68 and 91, which are drawn directly, without amendment, from the code of practice. The difference between us is not whether the wording is right, but what should be the status of the wording. In view of the undertaking to consider further the issue of secondary status of affirmative or negative resolutions, I shall not press the difference between us because it is so narrow. On that basis, and on that basis alone, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment
No. 69:
Page 11, line 6, at end insert ("both in a durable form and so far as practicable in its original form").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 69 suggests a change in the wording of the code of practice, which says that material shall be preserved in a written or other durable form.
The point we are making may be a minor one, but there may be a distinction between "durable form"—for example, the transcript of a telephone conversation—and the original material. The transcription into a

1535
durable form, which is necessary, may involve some distortion. The amendment suggests that where possible, and as far as practicable, it should be in its original form.
For example, a 999 call to the police or to the ambulance service may be critical evidence in identifying somebody who drew attention to a crime or was involved in the crime in some way, perhaps as a perpetrator or as the victim. No transcription can do justice to the tone of voice, the background noises and all the surrounding circumstances of a 999 call, which may be critical. Of course the call must be transcribed into a durable form. Of course that transcription must be maintained, and the code of practice allows for that, but surely the original should be kept as well. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his constructive attitude. Again, he may agree that we are discussing whether this provision should be dealt with in the code of practice and whether that is the appropriate way of dealing with the substance of the amendment. Primary legislation may be left as it stands and what is proposed in Amendment No. 69 could be dealt with by way of amplification in the code of practice. But in bringing this matter to our attention in this way he has served an invaluable purpose.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I have made clear that I believe the code of practice to be the best place for such amendments. I have also made clear that where new amendments or modifications are suggested they will be taken into account in refining the code. To that end, it is useful. I hope that the noble Lord and his team will continue to make suggestions if they feel that the code can be improved. That is the process of consultation, and we value it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I ask the Minister what she thinks about this suggestion.
Baroness Blatch: As a non-professional, it would be quite inappropriate for me to discuss the refinement of the code of practice. What is absolutely essential is that all suggestions that are made to modify, refine or improve the code of practice must at least be the subject of professional advice as to the effect and impact they will have and how they will interact with other parts of the code. Therefore, I will not personally discuss the details other than to say that they will be taken into account in refining the code.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not believe that we have yet reached agreement about what we are trying to do here. Of course, the Minister does not respond personally but responds for the Government. The Government are introducing a code of practice which, we are reminded, is admissible in evidence under paragraph 8. If it is to be admissible in evidence it has to be as good as possible. The only way in which this House can be consulted about the code of practice, which has legal status and which will, under the Bill as
1536
drafted, be laid before Parliament, is to raise the issues here and seek the reaction of the Government. I ask the Minister to tell the Committee whether the Government believe that there is anything in my argument. Unless I am outraged by her answer, I do not propose to push the matter to a Division and seek to have the agreement of the Committee that it be put on the face of the Bill. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, recognised, moving amendments is the right way to secure debate. It is no good having a dialogue des sourds. The Minister has to reply. What do the Government think about my suggestion? They have had an opportunity to consider it.
Baroness Blatch: I came to the Dispatch Box prepared to accept these amendments for what they were. This amendment seeks to put a certain matter on the face of the Bill. I have responded to it saying that that is not the appropriate place for it. I have responded both to this amendment and to the previous one by saying that it is a matter for the code of practice. Almost daily we receive from all the key interested parties ideas about the code of practice. It is still out for a consultation. The debate here and in another place will continue to inform those who will compile the code of practice. They will be in receipt of professional advice. I have responded in the best way possible. The ideas that will emerge from this series of amendments, whether they simply repeat the code of practice, modify it or suggest new ideas for it, will be considered seriously, and I shall respond to the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister says that she will respond but she is not doing so. She does not tell me what she thinks about this amendment which proposes a new idea for the code of practice. I am sorry to repeat that all of us are in agreement that it is not the intention of this debate to write details of the code of practice onto the face of the Bill because we have already achieved an undertaking to discuss making it more effective secondary legislation. I have no intention of pressing any of these amendments to a Division, but I am entitled to ask for a response to a particular point which the Minister has had time to consider. She may have had a short time but that is not my fault. Amendment No. 70 incorporates a lengthy quotation from paragraph 5(3) of the code of practice. I have made amendments to it. When I come to move the amendment, I shall draw attention to those matters. I shall expect the Minister to say whether she thinks the amendments are helpful or that they are at least worth considering. I will not be put off by being told that the Committee is not entitled to a response from government to a code they have drawn up and which has legal effect.
Baroness Blatch: First, the amendment before the Committee is a proposal to be placed on the face of the Bill. I have responded to that. I have said that I believe the code of practice should be a code and that it should sit outside the Bill. Secondly, it is not only courteous but proper form that professionals and others, who have to have regard to, and be subject to, the code of practice should have an opportunity to comment on any suggested changes to the code. Not only have I said that all these ideas are worth considering; I have also said

1537
that we will consider them very seriously and take the views of those who will have to operate the code. That is the proper way to arrive at a definitive code of practice which will then be put before the House for approval.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: To save time on this and all related amendments, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, he asks the Minister, quite rightly, not for her answer but the answer of the Government. She obviously cannot give it at the moment. All she can say is what she has said. The Minister could give the noble Lord her personal reactions. If he wishes to have mine, which are totally worthless, I believe the proposal to be a perfectly reasonable one, but that is of no use to anybody. I speak for no one. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, could lay off a little and give the Minister some accommodation on the issue.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am very anxious to lay off. I am not anxious to be tedious. I hope that I am not often tedious. However, I entirely recognise that the Minister says that in the end the code of practice has to be workable. Part of the issue as to whether or not it is workable will be the judgment of the practitioners. Anything that the Government say in Committee is subject to further consultation on any changes that may be made.
I do not resile from what I said. The only way in which we can bring these matters to the attention of the House is by amendments which put them on to the face of the Bill, because there is nowhere else to put them. Both we and the Government know that it is a device, but the Government must not hide behind the fact that it is a device to avoid debating a substantive issue. If all that I am to get is a statement from the Minister that she will take it away and consider it, I suppose that I will have to put up with it, but I do not believe that as a general principle the Minister should say in all debates of this kind that because the amendment is in the form of an amendment to primary legislation she will not give an opinion on it. In previous amendments she has given opinions on matters which she thinks ought not to be in primary legislation. There is no contradiction there. It would be helpful and sensible if this debate were two-sided, not one-sided. That is all I ask for. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 11, line 6, at end insert ("including—

(i) crime reports (including report forms, relevant parts of incident report books or police officers' notebooks);

(ii) both draft and final versions of witness statements, including any exhibits mentioned (unless these have been returned to their owner on the understanding that they will be produced in court if required);

(iii) interview records (written records, or audio or video tapes, of interviews with actual or potential witnesses or suspects);

(iv) reports of work carried out by experts such as forensic scientists, and schedules of scientific material prepared by such an expert for the purposes of criminal
1538
proceedings, including samples, materials on which the report was based, analytical data, working notes and calculations;

(v) any material casting doubt on the reliability of a confession; and

(vi) any material casting doubt on the reliability of a witness.").

The noble Lord said: We now come to a precise case. In paragraph 5(3) and (4) of the code of practice there are detailed and, to my mind, very helpful specifications of the kind of material which may be included in a schedule. We believe that two particular improvements can be made. We put this to the Committee in order that anybody else who has a view on the matter can express that view. If the Government have a view on the matter they can express it. In that way, we will have a sensible debate on issues which are of relevance to the legislation, even though none of us wants to put them on the face of the Bill.
The first change that we propose is in sub-paragraph (ii) of the amendment. As drafted, the code of practice refers simply to "witness statements, including any exhibits mentioned". We are suggesting that it should refer to both draft and final versions of witness statements.
Anyone who has been involved with these things—most people have been involved with them more than I have—knows that witness statements are often inadequate, unclear or incomplete when they are first made and that the investigating officer has to say at the end of the interview, "In order to make this clear, shall we go through it again, write it down and try to make it more logical and more complete?". That is the version which, under the code as drafted, is the only version which would be included in the schedule. We are suggesting that changes may take place between the first draft, or first drafts, and the final version which may be relevant and may be helpful to the prosecutor and, or course, in certain circumstances, helpful to the defence. We are suggesting that that should be allowed for.
Sub-paragraph (iv) states,
"reports of work carried out by experts such as forensic scientists",
and so on. Those are in the code of practice. We are suggesting that that should be amplified by the wording of the last two lines, which state,
"including samples, materials on which the report was based, analytical data, working notes and calculations".
We think that these are constructive and helpful suggestions of the kind that may be made by anyone, whether or not expert in the law or police work. Without wishing to press the amendment to a Division, we invite the opinion of Members of your Lordships' Committee and of the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: As a practitioner, my opinion about sub-paragraph (ii) is that there are problems about the draft. So often in practice, where there is an illiterate accused, the draft is prepared by the police officer and the accused then says "No". I do not think that that is a very good idea. However, sub-paragraph (iii) is an excellent idea. All these matters require consideration.
Baroness Blatch: That is probably the best example I can think of for saying that there is already a division

1539
of opinion in the Committee. It is important to take these ideas away and have proper reflection and discussion with those who have to operate the code to see what the effect would be in practice. It is important to achieve a workable code and one which will receive accommodation by the Committee. Therefore, I stand by what I said earlier. I do not wish to see this provision on the face of the Bill. I rest my case.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I hesitated to intervene in the earlier exchanges between the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the Minister when he was seeking to persuade her to be a good deal more forthcoming than she had been up to that point. However, I think I must now do so because, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, this amendment includes specific proposals which go beyond, or in some respects are different from, paragraph 5(3) of the draft code of practice.
I fully understand what the Minister said and I am sure it will be the wish of the Committee that she should consult further on the draft document, although, as I said earlier in today's proceedings, it is quite wrong that a draft should be brought before the Committee which is so short of what we believed to be its final form and with consultation still to take place. However, that having been said, I would believe it to be improper for the Minister to have brought before the Committee a draft code of practice which did not represent her department's present view of what the final draft should contain. I mean by that—as I have already said, as the noble Baroness said earlier and as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has fully acknowledged—that the draft code may be modified in a number of important respects before it finally comes before the House. But when it finally comes before the House we will not be capable of amending it, so this is the only occasion on which we can express a meaningful view about the details of the code itself.
Speaking as someone with some experience of these procedural matters within a department, I do not understand—I want to emphasise that—why the Minister cannot give a substantive reply to the questions which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has asked and which are expressed in this and other amendments. I see no reason why she should not say that she believes either that the proposal is an interesting and attractive one which in the circumstances she is prepared to write into a further draft or, having considered the draft before the Committee, that she and her department have considered the matter fully and they do not believe that such a change should be made. This is a very straightforward matter. With the greatest respect to the Minister, if she is not more forthcoming it will open up to ridicule the whole difficult procedure which we are following. As long as this House has no other way of considering the code of practice—perhaps we should find one—except by putting down amendments, we are in a position in which all Members might feel highly frustrated.
It is arguable—I put this as a proposition but I shall explain in a moment why I think it is impractical—that what the Minister should do is accept an amendment to
1540
contain within the Bill the whole of the code of practice, then allow the Committee to amend it, but, having amended it, withdraw it at the final stage of the Bill. The draft would then have on it the amendments which the House had felt desirable and yet at the same time the Minister would then have the opportunity to introduce the order separately. That would be a totally cumbersome procedure and it would be hazardous as well. But if we are not to have any procedure other than the one which the Committee is now following, I ask the Minister—if my suggestion is not accepted I think there is a case for not following further these proceedings today—to be a great deal more forthcoming on the substance of the amendment and the matters raised from this side and, perhaps, from the other side of the Committee.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: We saw the amendments on Friday, or at least they were tabled on Friday. As noble Lords know, I did not see them until Sunday. Even if the issues had not been as vexed as noble Lord opposite have claimed, in the normal course of taking a Bill through the House I would have seen them only on Thursday. As I have already said, it is not only courteous but proper form not to take a definitive view about a code and to make sure that there is proper consultation about the suggested changes with those who have to operate under the code, for whom it will be an operational necessity and a requirement. That is what we intend to do. They will be considered and we shall respond in the normal way. I shall write to noble Lords, as I have done in the past. But it is right that we should seek advice from those who have to operate the code.
It is also a great discourtesy, if I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, to dismiss all the work that has been done on the code. It has twice been out for consultation among all the key people who will have to operate under the code and who have lent their own professional advice. That has already been incorporated. The code is substantially the result of a great deal of work that has been done so far and a great deal of advice that has been gained from the judiciary, the police, the Crown Prosecution service and others. We would want them to see these.
Whether the noble Lord puts his ideas in the form of an amendment or whether the noble Lord writes to us with suggestions about the code, whatever form he chooses, those ideas will be considered. That is proper consultation. But what is before me today, as the Minister responding at the Dispatch Box, is a set of amendments to incorporate on the face of the Bill some proposals which simply copy what is in the code of practice and others which modify parts of the code of practice. There are also some wholly new suggestions to add to the code of practice. They will be considered and they will be consulted upon. We shall reflect on those ideas but it is not the purpose of this stage to consider in detail the code of practice. It would be no more than academic if across the Dispatch Box I discussed these proposals in detail at this time.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: With respect to the Minister—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I make—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If noble Lords will forgive me, perhaps I may ask the Minister a direct question. How does she think that we can consider the code of practice? It was said by the scrutiny committee and by many noble Lords on Second Reading to be the core of the Bill, so how can we consider Part II of the Bill unless we consider the code of practice? How, procedurally, can we consider the code of practice in any other way than that which we have tried? How can we get answers from the Government to our observations?
Baroness Blatch: I have explained how the noble Lord can get answers to the suggestions that he has made. I shall respond in detail to the noble Lord's suggestions about improvements to the code of practice. I shall do that and I shall take counsel on it. Earlier today I said that I would take away the amendments which suggested that there should be a different procedure, the affirmative resolution procedure, whereby both Houses would approve the code of practice. I mean that. I shall take away the amendments, reflect seriously on them and report back on Report. Therefore, we are talking in a vacuum; first, in terms of the procedure that is laid down in the Bill at the moment; secondly, on the amendments that were tabled earlier today; and, thirdly, about my response to those amendments, which I shall consider. I shall notify the noble Lord of my response.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I make a constructive suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey? Obviously, my noble friend the Minister cannot answer today. Obviously, I take the point that this is the only way in which an answer can be sought from the Government and that noble Lords opposite—indeed, noble Lords anywhere—are entitled to a response from the Government. If that response cannot be given today—obviously it cannot—and as the personal opinion of my noble friend the Minister is not what is sought—and would not be any use anyway—if some undertaking could be given that the substance of the amendments could be dealt with on Report when there has been an opportunity for my noble friend to take advice and to come to the House to give the Government's response, would that be a constructive and acceptable way of dealing with this matter? I do not know whether it is acceptable to my noble friend. I do not know whether it is acceptable to any of your Lordships, but it seems to be the only way out of this difficulty.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: Perhaps I may say something about the Minister's earlier remarks in response to my own. By no stretch of the imagination can there be any possible discourtesy in referring to the draft in the way that I did. I entirely appreciate that it represents consultation with a number of important bodies and for that reason I take it seriously.
1542
However, there are two important points here. First, although the Minister did not use the word "improper", she said that it would be wrong in the circumstances to incorporate the amendments on the face of the Bill. However, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is not proposing that they should be incorporated on the face of the Bill because he said clearly that he was not going to move those amendments. All that he is doing is asking for a view from the Minister of the present draft of his amendments—
Baroness Blatch: But—
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: Perhaps I may finish because this may help the Minister.
The second point, which follows from the first, is the question of the status of the document. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has courteously—indeed, courtesy is proper in these circumstances—exonerated the Minister from responsibility for the inability to give answers to questions today, but there still remains the question of the status of the draft. In my view, although further consultation must follow, what we have at the moment is the Minister's department's best view of what the draft should be. If it is not that department's best view of what the draft code of practice should be, it should not be before the Committee at all. It has been brought before the Committee only because at the moment it represents the provisional view of Her Majesty's Government; otherwise, we would have had it much earlier. If I am wrong on that, I hope that the Minister will tell us, because I believe that should not have come forward. However, if the draft is the provisional view of Her Majesty's Government, Her Majesty's Government must have a view on the amendments which have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. They cannot have it both ways.
Baroness Blatch: The status of the code of practice is that it is a draft code of practice. It is before the Committee because, quite properly, those people who take an interest in the Bill believed not only that it was desirable, but that it would be difficult to discuss the Bill without having a draft code of practice in their hands as we dealt with the Bill. That is why it is in this form. When it was presented to both the Library and the Printed Paper Office and when I referred to it on the first day, I made it clear that it was a draft code. I also made it clear that there has already been some consultation on the code of practice, which has been substantially refined in the light of that consultation. I also made it clear that the provisions would be influenced by the Bill's progress through both Houses. Indeed, one way of addressing the concerns held by noble Lords on all sides of the Committee may well be to refine or modify the code as a result of some of the amendments that have been discussed by your Lordships but which may not have been accepted by the Government. When the code is modified—if the code is modified—it is important that there is proper reflection. It is also important that the draft should have the value of the opinion of those who have to operate under the code. That will continue to be the case. As each draft is brought forward, it will go out for consultation.

1543
I have already said that the ideas in the amendments are interesting. I have also said that they will be given serious consideration. Furthermore, I have said that I shall respond to them in detail and that I shall make sure that any response to any noble Lord will also be made available in the Library to all noble Lords.
I came to the Dispatch Box today to discuss the Bill. That is what I had prepared to do today. Before me are a set of amendments to place on the face of the Bill copied, amended and new ideas to the code of practice. I have responded in detail to that. I have said how we shall deal with that.
As to how the code itself is dealt with, I have already said that we are speaking in something of a vacuum. The Bill proposes a particular procedure. That has been queried by Amendments Nos. 97, 99 and 100. I have responded by saying that I shall take those amendments away and reflect on them between now and Report stage. I shall then return either with a modified procedure or not. That is as far as I can take the matter.
I do not believe that I have done anything improper. Asking me to respond now in detail to some detailed points about the code is not a proper use of our time. That would be creating a new procedure whereby we would discuss a code of practice in detail at the Dispatch Box when we should be discussing the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister has said that we are discussing this matter to some extent in a vacuum. She is entirely right. The truth of the matter is that because this is a draft code and because, quite properly, it needs further consideration by those who will have to operate it and by those outside who have an interest in it, the only people in this country who cannot make suggestions to the Government and receive a response are Members of your Lordships' Committee—
Baroness Blatch: Nonsense!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is the case. I have asked the Minister whether she accepts that the code of practice is an important element in our consideration of the Bill. That is what the scrutiny committee said and I am sure that it is right, as were noble Lords on Second Reading. To that extent, it is our duty to seek to debate the content of the code of practice without which Part II of the Bill is meaningless. The Bill includes matters which the Government have decided are of such importance that they should be included on the face of the Bill. There are various constraints on the code of practice, including in Part II. That is the Government's view of the constraints on the code of practice. It may not be the view of Parliament. Where we disagree, it is our duty to seek to draw the attention of Parliament to those issues.
We are as much at liberty to put up matters for discussion as are the Government when they propose their legislation. We are doing no more than the Government themselves have done. We are being denied the opportunity to do so, not because our amendments are not being accepted for debate but
1544
because the Government are consistently, as a matter of principle, saying that they will not debate with us the substance of our amendments.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: What the noble Lord has just said is absolute nonsense. What I have said—I do not know how many times I have said it during the course of the debate, but I shall say it again—is that every Member of this place is at liberty to make suggestions about changes to the code. I, as the Minister in the department, will ensure that there is a response by government to ideas about modifying or changing the code. So the noble Lord can have his say, and he will be responded to. It is not the purpose of this stage of the Bill at this moment to modify the code. I have said also that I will take away and consider the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, and supported by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I shall consider the affirmative resolution procedure for approving the code.
No noble Lord is denied the opportunity to make suggestions in any kind of detail. I give an absolute guarantee that I shall respond on behalf of the Government to noble Lords, but not on the hoof at the Dispatch Box.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I say with respect to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that that must be reasonable. It is not a question of the noble Lord not being able to obtain an answer from the Government; it is not a question of the matter not being debated in this place. The position merely is that my noble friend the Minister cannot today answer for the Government in the way that she is asked to do. She can only give her own personal impression.
My noble friend the Minister has given a firm undertaking that she will give the Government's answer to every one of these related matters and amendments on or before Report stage. She will give full information of the Government's reaction. It is—I hate to use the word "unfair"—unrealistic of the noble Lord to pursue this matter further when, as I understand it—I may be mistaken—on Report he will receive full answers from the Government on every one of these amendments. Ought not we to continue with our debate and accept in amity the basis of my noble friend's offer?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has fully appreciated how serious is the situation. It is acceptable on occasion for the Minister to say,"I think that is an interesting idea. I have not been briefed on it. I shall take it away, and we will consider it". Of course it is acceptable that there should be opportunities for Members of this place, as there are for any inhabitants of this country, to make representations to the Government about any issue of public policy. We hope that they will receive the courtesy of a reply, and knowing the Minister I am sure that she will do her best to do so. That is not the issue.

1545
The issue is whether the code of practice which has been widely acknowledged, including by the scrutiny committee, as being essential to the consideration of the legislation can be debated on the Floor of this place in a meaningful way. By being debated on the Floor of this place in a meaningful way, I mean that we can use whatever means are available to us to table amendments which should be responded to by government.
The Minister has not just said on one or two occasions that she is unable to answer and will respond later. That of course would have been acceptable. What she is saying is that because the only device available to us is to debate the code in the context of the Bill, she is never going to make any response to the amendments we table to the code of practice.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry, I am not going to give way. I have given way to the noble Lord several times.
That procedure is not acceptable. Under those circumstances, the only thing I can do is to move now that the House resume. Then I shall propose to a resumed House that there should be an adjournment of 30 minutes for the usual channels and the Leader of the House to consider this matter. I do not believe that the Committee is being properly treated. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.— (Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose that suggestion. With respect the noble Lord is being unfair and unrealistic. My noble friend the Minister never said that she would not debate this matter. She is fully prepared to give the Government's answers and debate this matter on or before Report. It is unrealistic to suggest that there will be no parliamentary opportunity for a full debate. It is unnecessary to adjourn these proceedings at this moment.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: There is every reason for doing so. I do not want to pursue further the substance of the matter. Members on all sides appreciate the problem that the Minister has. On the other hand, the sense of frustration that noble Lords must feel at finding the Minister obliged to be agnostic on, if not all, virtually all the important issues in relation to the code of practice, is acknowledged.
The advantage of a short adjournment would be not merely, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, to find some way out of the dilemma, but perhaps to allow us all to cool a little and to see how we can continue with the Bill; otherwise I see little advantage in pursuing the Bill. Although it is entirely a matter for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, were I in his position I should be loath to move any amendment to the Bill which refers to the code of practice, if at
1546
every stage we have to go through the procedure—highly unsatisfactory as it has been—that we are going through on this amendment.
Baroness Blatch: First, the amendments are to incorporate onto the face of the Bill parts of the code of practice. I have made the Government's position on that clear. Secondly, given that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has used this mechanism to put these matters before the House, I have said that they are interesting points. I have said that they must be reflected upon. I have said that people who will have to work under the code of practice must be given an opportunity to consider the points. We must consider them ourselves. Consultation on the code of practice will continue in that way.
Not only that, I have given an absolute undertaking that any suggestion contained within the amendments will be considered, and I will respond in detail. If I write to any noble Lord, I shall ensure that copies of the correspondence are placed in the Library and will be available to all Members of this place. I have also said that I will take away Amendments Nos. 97, 99 and 100 which suggest a new procedure for dealing with the code of practice. I shall respond as soon as possible on that.
What I believe the noble Lord is suggesting is a wholly new procedure for considering codes of practice. That is not a matter for a half-hour adjournment. It is certainly not a matter to be considered across the Dispatch Box. It may be a matter—I look to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, opposite—for the usual channels to consider, because I know it is not the first time that this matter has been a point of contention.
I am here to discuss the Committee stage of the Bill. I have responded to the aspects that apply to the Bill. I believe that the Committee should get on with considering the Bill. I hope that Members will follow me into the Lobby against the Motion that the House should adjourn to consider this matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister is briefed to speak on the Committee stage of the Bill as it has been presented by the Government. Parliament has the responsibility and the duty to put into the Bill whatever it thinks proper and to debate whatever it thinks proper on the Bill. What we are proposing are entirely reasonable amendments. We are perfectly willing to be told by the Minister, with her usual courtesy, that she is willing to take away some amendments and discuss them. What we are not willing to be told is that the Minister will not on principle answer the points made in these amendments and in debate. That is what is not acceptable.
It may be that the Minister is right in saying that a 30 minute adjournment is not suitable. It may be that after an adjournment the usual channels will decide that the proper thing to do is to recommit Part II of the Bill. I do not know what the outcome would be because I am not part of the usual channels. However, I do know that the House authorities have to think about this matter because we are being denied the opportunity to have a constructive debate. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
5.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the House do now resume?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 133

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Judd, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kennet, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bruce of Dorthigton, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Marsh, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Donoughue, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dubs, L.

Monkswell, L.

Ezra, L.

Monson, L.

Falkland, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Fitt, L.

Palmer, L.

Geraint, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Glenamara, L.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Healey, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Tordoff, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Addison, V.

Courtown, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cox, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Astor, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Barber, L.

Cromer, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cross, V.

Beloff, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Biddulph, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Blaker, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Blatch, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Blyth, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Boardman, L.

Derwent, L.

Borthwick, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dormer, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Elles, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Ferrers, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Geddes, L.

Burnham, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gisborough, L.

Cadman, L.

Goschen, V.

Caldecote, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Harmar-Nichollis, L.

Camock, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Henley, L.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Holderness, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Howe, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Huntly, M.

1548

Inglewood, L.

Pender, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Kingsland, L.

Prior, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Pym, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Quinton, L.

Liverpool, E.

Radnor, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Reay, L.

Lyell, L.

Rees, L.

McConnell, L.

Renwick, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Romney, E.

Mackay of Clashfem, L [Lord Chancellor.]

Saint Albans,D.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Seccombe, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Marlesford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Skidelsky, L.

Merrivale, L.

Slim, V.

Mersey, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Middleton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Milverton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Swansea, L.

Moyne, L.

Swinfen, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Teynhame, L.

Nelson, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Newall, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Northesk, E.

Vivian, L.

Orkney, E.

Wakeham, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wynford, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
5.20 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is my understanding that we have not yet disposed of Amendment No. 70. Before I withdraw that amendment, as it is my intention to do, I wish to make a few remarks about the procedure.
First, I made it clear in moving the Motion that the House be resumed that it is not my intention to damage or disrupt the work of the Committee but rather to secure that it is done more effectively. If that Motion had been agreed to, it was my intention to move that the House be adjourned for a period of about 30 minutes in order for the Leaders and the usual channels to consider the best way forward. That may have included a decision to re-commit Part II, with discussions to enable the Government to suggest to us how we could discuss effectively not just the code of practice but Part II as a whole because that is the shell of which the code of practice is the oyster.
I failed to achieve that. Under those circumstances, I have no alternative but to say that I shall not continue with a debate on Part II in which I make points, my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, make points and from time to time the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, makes helpful points, on which we receive no answer from the Government. I am not prepared to continue with that and I shall not move the remaining amendments to Part II which stand in my name.
I shall consult my noble friends at the appropriate time when the Committee has concluded its work. I may move for a re-commitment of Part II or first seek further

1549
informal discussions. But in any event, I shall seek to find a constructive way in which to achieve what we are failing to achieve at the moment; namely, a proper debate on the essence of Part II of the Bill. That is my intention. I hope that the Committee will feel that I am not trying to be disruptive but am trying to achieve the most effective debate possible.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I find deeply depressing what the noble Lord has just said. There is nothing either in the form of the amendments or what is left to discuss about the Bill today which should prevent the completion of the Committee stage. I do not find at all acceptable the noble Lord's justification for withdrawing from this stage of the Bill.
I also wish to repeat on record that I shall continue to consider seriously ideas as regards changes to the code. If the noble Lord wishes to—and I have not yet refused this—I shall meet him either to discuss procedure or the individual amendments. We have done that previously many times on many Bills. I shall continue to ensure that my door is open to meetings of that kind.
I said also that we shall respond to all the amendments as they relate to possible modifications to the code. But this day has been set aside for Committee stage of this Bill and with or without the co-operation of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and other noble Lords who wish to join him, I invite the Committee to continue with this stage of the Bill this evening.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have made myself clear. It is my intention that we shall continue with and conclude the Committee stage of this Bill. We shall take part in all debates other than those on Part II. But on that part, we simply cannot discuss amendments when they are not responded to by the Government. That is the core of the matter.
The Minister has always been personally courteous and, as she rightly says, her door has always been open. I shall certainly take advantage of any offer that she makes to discuss matters. But we must discuss how this Chamber and this Committee can debate the subject matter of Part II which we are not able to do under present procedures. I do not do that out of any spirit of personal antagonism towards the Minister. She well knows that I am obliged to take this stand.
Baroness Blatch: It is important to make clear that there is nothing which precludes us from discussing the substance of Part II. That can be done in the course of discussing amendments to the Bill. It will not be my recommendation to my noble friends or the usual channels that there should be re-committal of this stage. If we complete the Committee stage today, that will be completion of this stage of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is a point of view. It is a political point of view. The Minister takes one view and I take another. That is life; that is politics. There is nothing that we can do about that. The fact is that Part II involves the code of practice and that is essential to Part II. That has been said by the scrutiny committee and by many noble Lords on all sides.
1550
I should not repeat this if the opposing point of view were not continually repeated. In a spirit of utter friendliness to the Minister personally, I have given notice of my intention as regards the rest of this part of the Bill. We shall take a full part in the debate on subsequent parts of the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 11, line 8, leave out ("disclosed") and insert ("revealed").
The noble Baroness said: These are minor amendments designed to remove a potential source of confusion in the Bill about whether material is to be given to the prosecutor or to the accused. At present, the Bill uses the word "disclose" to describe both the giving of material by the prosecutor to the accused under Part I of the Bill, and also the giving of material by a police officer to the prosecutor under Part II. The clauses are drafted so as to achieve the correct disclosure in each case. But the use of the same word to describe two different actions is potentially confusing. It would be clearer if the two actions were described by two different words. These amendments achieve this by replacing "disclose" with "reveal" in Clauses 16, 17 and 20 to describe the giving of material by the police to the prosecutor, reserving "disclose" for the giving of material by the prosecutor to the accused. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is an issue in Part II which is not affected by the code of practice. I believe that the suggestion made by this amendment is entirely sensible. It will reduce confusion. Nothing can eliminate confusion but it will be reduced. We support the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 11, line 11, leave out ("disclosed") and insert ("revealed")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 11, line 13, at end insert—
("(dd) that where the accused is allowed to inspect material as mentioned in paragraph (d) and he requests a copy, he is given one unless the person allowing the inspection is of opinion that it is not practicable or not desirable to give him one;").
The noble Baroness said: This is a minor amendment designed to ensure that it is possible to give the accused copies of prosecution material he has inspected. As Clause 16 is currently drafted, the code of practice may provide for the accused to inspect material held by the police at the request of the prosecutor. But there is no provision for the accused to be given copies of such material. Subsection 16(1)(dd) inserted by this amendment remedies that.
The amendment also provides that a police officer need not copy to the accused material which the accused has inspected, if he believes that it is not practicable or not desirable to do so. It may not be practicable if, for example, the material is an object which cannot be copied. It may not be desirable if, for example, the material is a statement by a child witness in relation to

1551
a sexual offence, and the police officer believes that the accused may give the statement to persons unconnected with the proceedings.
I should stress that this in no way affects the obligation to disclose material which meets the test for disclosure. What is at issue is the method of disclosure. The accused will be able to inspect such material and will know what it says, so he will not be disadvantaged in preparing his defence. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: Perhaps the Minister will help us a little about the way in which the amendment will make changes. At present there are difficulties which I am conscious arise where counsel or solicitors go to a police station to inspect material and where the officer dealing with the appointment sometimes says, "I am not prepared to have that document copied". In those circumstances, sometimes the frankly ludicrous position is reached where subsequently, from the best of his recollection, counsel must try to make a note of the document which he has seen without having advantage of the original.
I appreciate the reasons behind the amendment but I am anxious that the legislation as amended will not provide for any right of appeal. If the police officer in charge of the disclosure at the police station takes the view, perhaps with good reason and perhaps not, that a document may not be copied, what is the right of appeal for someone who is refused a copy of a document by a police officer at the station?
It may not necessarily be a senior officer; indeed, it may be a junior officer who is dealing with the appointment. But whoever it is, he may make a mistake or he may be denying the defence a copy of a document which is needed. Does the defence then have a right to go to the court and ask a judge to make an order? If not, perhaps that is a provision which the Minister will consider adding at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am not in a position or sufficiently knowledgeable to give a definitive answer on that question. However, I should have thought that the burden of proof would apply as regards whether it was impractical to do it or undesirable. Of course, proper reasons would need to be given in order for the court to take a view on the matter. I shall certainly check out the position and write to the noble Baroness.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Cranborne: I believe that all Members of the Committee will have appreciated the courtesy with which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made his points during the difference of opinion with my noble friend. It may be for the advantage of the management of business and for the continuance of constructive discussion during this stage of the Bill if Members of the Committee felt able to agree to suspend the present Committee stage for 15 minutes during pleasure. I therefore beg to move that the Committee stage of the Bill be adjourned for 15 minutes during pleasure.
1552
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 5.31 to 5.46 p.m.]
Lord Strathclyde: In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and indeed the Minister as well as various other Members of your Lordships' House who are at this moment completing their discussions on how to continue the Committee stage of the Bill, I shall say a few words while I wait for them to appear.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I hope that the noble Lord will permit me to say a few words about this particular topic. I am not discussing the coming World Cup or anything of that kind but something which is germane to our earlier discussions without in any way entering into that controversy. I wonder whether the time has not come to consider more fully how we deal with those pieces of legislation which do not greatly divide the parties but cannot be said to be strictly non-controversial. I understand that a formula has been found for discussing some Bills of that nature although one cannot be certain that they are non-controversial. However, a Bill of the kind which is before the House has many detailed provisions which deserve to be properly scrutinised without the inevitable and, in my personal view, highly undesirable adversarial mood which sometimes takes this House and which puts Ministers in a difficult position. Irrespective of the resolution of today's affairs, I hope that the noble Lord can help the House—and in particular me—by explaining how this matter could be properly considered so that the House will be able more fully to fulfil its role of scrutiny which is our pride and joy and firmly respected outside.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord sits down, it would be immensely helpful to the House if he were to explain where the present Bill falls in the spectrum of controversiality he referred to. It is arguable that on the one hand it is so controversial that it would be excluded from the process and on the other that it is so uncontroversial that it need not be considered.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss the Richter scale which is what I think the noble Lord refers to. I hope the House will allow me to think aloud because that is the only thing I can do in the circumstances. It is not a Bill of high controversy. Were it a custom of your Lordships' House to vote for or against Second Reading, I find it difficult to believe that it would have been opposed on Second Reading. That puts it at the lower end of the Richter scale.
This goes deep into the political system of this country. For example, the absence of proportional representation encourages an adversarial view in this Chamber as does the fact that the Chamber is designed as it is. My own view is that if we were not obliged to be adversarial, this Bill would come somewhere at the lower end of the Richter scale. It is not devoid of controversy and the views of political parties. It may be that on questions of defence and prosecution disclosure there are as many views in this House as there are in

1553
the other. Our adversarial system means that differences are exaggerated in one way and narrowed in another. That is one area in which our parliamentary democracy could be greatly improved.
In the meantime, on the Richter scale, if we assume that 10 is a major earthquake, equivalent to a Bill of great controversy such as that which introduced the disastrous poll tax when even Members on the other side of the Chamber know that what is proposed is a nonsense but are obliged to follow their leader, I would put this Bill somewhere near the bottom of the scale, at perhaps 2 or 3.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may intervene. He raised the question of the shape of the Chamber. He should consider also the size of the Chamber. Noble Lords may recall that during the war Adolf Hitler dropped a bomb on the other place. The occupants of the other place came en masse and sat in this Chamber and the occupants of this Chamber, happily much fewer in number than now, went to occupy the Robing Room at the other end of the Royal Gallery. When it was diminished by a Content Lobby to the right by the Throne and a Not-Content Lobby to the left by the Bar—and rails in front of the Throne and a Bar behind which Members of another place could stand to hear proceedings—it was a very small Chamber. My father, who was a Member of the House in those days, said that it was a delight to debate there because you could not make a speech but only have a discussion, as we are now. When we came back to this Chamber we all launched back into speeches, oratory and antagonism.
Once you are in a big Chamber which invites oratory—I am not sure how long on this occasion it invites it for, but it would appear to invite it for a little longer—you have to consider the question of the shape of the Chamber. Norway and many other countries with advanced democratic systems have horseshoe or semi-circular-shaped chambers. That avoids blocs forming for or against the government and only rarely leads to blocs in between, voting sometimes one way and sometimes the other but always on the merits of the issue. It does, however, produce shadings of parties and coalitions. That goes very well with the system of proportional representation which I hope the noble Lord will take this opportunity to deny lies at the centre of his party's aspirations for the British constitution.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: The noble Lord raises some very interesting questions about the size of your Lordships' House. As he has exchanged memories with your Lordships perhaps I may also do so.
I remember as a young man coming for the first time to see the other place perform. That was indeed when the House of Commons was sitting in your Lordships' Chamber. I discovered that I had no ambitions to go to No. 10, but I did think that at some time I would like to take part in the debates.
When the noble Lord says that perhaps a smaller Chamber would be more suitable he raises the whole question of the reform of your Lordships' House and whether we should have a smaller number of Peers present in the course of our debates. I would not like to eliminate the hereditary element as such, as I believe
1554
some noble Lords on this side of the House would. I want very much to retain the Cross-Bench Peers, as, I am sure, do all noble Lords.
There is a simple scheme by which your Lordships could sit in this House, occupying seats to be distributed in direct proportion to votes cast in a general election. For the sake of symmetry, we could have the Cross-Bench Peers representing those voters who had not voted at all. We would then have a balanced House. The opposition parties would be represented more fully than hitherto, and we would enable noble Lords to contribute. There are many hereditary Peers who contribute brilliantly to our debates and those of us who are fair minded would not want them to be eliminated.
There could be a House of, say, 450 Members sitting as an electoral commission because it should not be in the power of the Prime Minister to decide who sits in your Lordships' House. After every general election seats would be allocated in direct proportion to the votes cast. That would be a simple form of proportional representation to which I believe noble Lords on all sides of the House would readily give their assent. That is the germ of the change I would like to see.
In relation to the delay we face today—although I know that no noble Lord is wasting your Lordships' time—a Bill was before the House but appears to have disappeared for an indefinite period. Until that Bill reappears I am attempting to introduce the question of the reform of Parliament. Perhaps other noble Lords may be able to pick up the theme and develop it for the next two or three hours until it is time to go home.
Lord Monkswell: Has the noble Lord considered the risk to the body politic of Parliament of, effectively, setting up a second Chamber which would be in direct competition to the other place? One of the achievements of our British Parliament is to avoid too much fighting between the two Houses. We pass legislation from one to the other in sequence. There is a mechanism to enable us to make adjustments to the legislation that we have in front of us that accommodates extreme feelings. One of the means by which that system works is the recognition by this House that the other House has a greater legitimacy. There are rare occasions when we think that the other House is wrong and we take the matter to a fight.
However, if this House were to feel that it had almost equal legitimacy with the other House I suspect that there would be far more conflict between the two Houses of Parliament. I wonder whether the noble Lord who suggested that rather fantastic arrangement has considered that possibility. Another factor is how the membership would be chosen.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I beg to move that the noble Lord be no longer heard.
Moved, That the noble Lord be no longer heard.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
Lord Swinfen: That is a debatable question. I should be grateful if my noble friend would explain why he wishes the noble Lord to be no longer heard.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Much as one appreciates all the contributions that have been made, it

1555
is getting rather late and we have had an anxious day. It would be nice to go home. If the noble Lord is prepared to understand the position, I should like to withdraw my Motion.
Lord Monkswell: I perfectly understand the situation and will sit down forthwith.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may intervene. Unfortunately I started the debate, which I very much enjoyed. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, and my noble friend Lord Elton went down a route, which I found of some use, concerning the geography of the House and so on. However, we began this discussion because we were waiting for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to return from his discussions with the Minister and the usual channels to decide how to proceed with the Committee stage. Word has now reached me that they will not return just yet. In the light of that information I believe that it would be fairest to the Committee if I were to move to adjourn the Committee stage for another 10 minutes. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Committee stage be adjourned for 10 minutes.— (Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I wonder how realistic that is. Most of us are keen to go home if the never-ending debate outside is likely to be protracted. I wonder whether it is sensible to make it a 10-minute adjournment. If some agreement cannot be reached between those involved in the discussions within the relatively near future, the Government Chief Whip will have to move the adjournment of the House.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I support that intervention. As I understand it, the situation has been going on for some time; it has to be terminable. I should have thought that 10 minutes was not realistic in the circumstances. If there is an indication that those involved will return in 15 minutes or so, why not make the adjournment half an hour and the position can then be rendered quite certain? The House will then be in a position to say, "We'll call it a day for today". That seems sensible. There is no certainty that 10 minutes will be enough.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I respectfully oppose the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and declare an interest. I have an amendment, Amendment No. 105, on which I am determined to divide against the Government. Need I say more? When we reach 12.30 at night, only the steadfast infantry on standby, and those at their ease in the guardroom, will be left. I cannot divide the House; if I do, I am bound to lose. I would prefer that we call it a day if it is possible and come back on another occasion.
Lord Strathclyde: I am conscious that it is only 6 o'clock. I have no idea for how long these great discussions will continue. I should like to stick to my Motion that we return in 10 minutes. We have had another two or three minutes of conversation since I moved the Motion. If the situation is no clearer within that 10 minutes, then I shall move another Motion.
1556
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 6.2 to 6.10 p.m.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 74:
Page 11, line 17, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: I shall not move Amendment No. 74. I wish to make it clear that in not doing so I shall not move any other amendments relating to the code of practice in Part II of the Bill. I do so on the basis of the discussion which has just been concluded. It is known to the Government that I shall move the amendments again at Report stage rather than seeking a re-commitment of this part of the Bill. I know that, with her usual courtesy and consideration, the Minister will enable discussion to take place on the amendments before the Report stage. As a result, there may be a full debate on them at that time.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I believe that we should have an opportunity of giving consideration to the position we have now reached. I can well understand why the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made the decision which he has, in my view sensibly. However, the Minister will realise—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is no Motion before the Committee on that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I shall say all this on the first amendment that is debatable. The Committee having been adjourned, we should have had some form of statement from the Minister as to what is going on.
[Amendments Nos. 75 to 82 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 11, line 35, leave out ("disclosed") and insert ("revealed to the person mentioned in subsection (1)(c)").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: This is an opportunity for the noble Baroness to tell the rest of us exactly what is going on. We have had the Committee adjourned twice. We have had the good fortune of listening to my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank discussing the reform of the House of Lords and the introduction of proportional representation, which all of us found extremely valuable. However, having adjourned twice and having had discussions taking place, it might be nice if the rest of us could be told precisely where we are now.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has decided not to move his amendments for reasons which we all understand, but the noble Baroness will be aware that, if it is likely that a large slice of the amendments, or variations on them, will be reintroduced at Report stage, that has implications for the amount of time we shall have available for discussions at the Report stage. I hope that we shall not find the House sitting late at night on Report, discussing some of these issues for the first time. I should indicate that that would be quite

1557
unacceptable. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be anxious to assist us and give us an indication of exactly what has been going on.
Baroness Blatch: I have enormous sympathy with the last point which the noble Lord made. There was an adjournment and discussion about the amendments before the Committee. I have given an assurance that I shall respond to the amendments in detail after this stage of the Bill. My understanding is that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will re-table the amendments in their present form for Report stage and it will be for the House to consider them.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having said that. I am glad that she indicated that she had sympathy with the point that I made about the amount of time that will have to be devoted to the question. Substantial issues of public policy are involved and, as she has been good enough to agree, it would be wholly wrong if we found ourselves sitting late at night discussing these matters simply because we had to have a truncated Committee stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 17 [Examples of disclosure provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 12, line 3, leave out ("disclose") and insert ("reveal material").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 12, line 8, leave out ("disclose") and insert ("reveal material").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 91 to 94 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 12, line 43, after ("disclosure") insert ("under Part I").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 96 not moved.]
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Operation and revision of code]:
[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 12, line 46, leave out ("made by statutory instrument").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 not moved.]
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Effect of code]:
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Common law rules as to criminal investigations]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 13, line 34, leave out ("disclosure") and insert ("revealing").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [Introduction]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 14, line 4, leave out from ("Part") to ("only") in line 8 and insert ("applies in relation to offences proceedings for which are transferred on or after the appointed day, and —

(a) the reference here to transfer is to transfer to the Crown Court for trial;

(b) the reference here to the appointed day is to such day as is appointed for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State by order;

(c) if such an order so provides, this Part applies").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment to Clause 21 is a technical amendment concerned with the application of Part III. As drafted, Clause 21(1)(a) provides for Part III to be applied to offences alleged to be committed on or after such day as is appointed by the Secretary of State. This would create difficulties if an indictment contained several counts, some relating to offences committed prior to the appointed day and others relating to later offences.
The amendment addresses that by providing for Part III to be applied to proceedings for the trial of a person on indictment which are transferred to the Crown Court on or after the day appointed for the purposes of Clause 21.
As a consequence of the amendment to Clause 21(1), an amendment is needed to Clause 46. As drafted, Clause 46 makes provision about the time when an alleged offence has been committed, for the purpose of certain provisions in the Bill, including Clause 21(1). As a consequence of the amendment to the commencement provision in Clause 21(1), the reference to Section "21(1)" should be removed from Clause 46(1). I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: I support this amendment. It is one of 16 which include two new clauses. I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I received notice on Friday last week, when she kindly sent me a copy of the letter dated last Thursday which she had sent to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
These provisions dealing with preparatory hearings, in relation to which this is the first of a group of amendments, command, I believe, universal support throughout the House. It is crucial to practitioners that these provisions should be clear, that they should not be complex, and that they should be flexible. It is very much our intention to scrutinise, with those who are concerned, not just this part of the Bill but also the amendments that arrived so recently. The fact that at present there are no amendments tabled on this side of the House does not necessarily reflect the position when we have had an opportunity to do that. So far as this amendment is concerned, it seems to be a very considerable improvement on the original drafting, and it has our support.

1559
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 14, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Power to order preparatory hearing]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 14, line 31, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment to Clause 22 is a minor amendment designed to improve the drafting of the Bill.
Clause 22(3) currently refers to a case of such seriousness and complexity as is mentioned in Section 7(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987. However, Section 7(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 was amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (Schedule 9, paragraph 30) so as to substitute "seriousness or complexity" for "seriousness and complexity". Accordingly, this amendment replaces "and" with "or" in Clause 22(3). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [The preparatory hearing]:
Lord Bridge of Harwich Lord Bridge of Harwich moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 15, line 6, at end insert ("which shall include the question whether proceedings on the indictment should be stayed as an abuse of process").
The noble and learned Lord said: I had intended to say in opening at a much later hour, that I intended to be very brief because of the great volume of business that still confronted the Committee. Although it is not so late, I shall still try to be brief. This amendment is very simple. Parts III and IV of the Bill provide two new distinct procedures each of which would enable a trial judge to determine in advance of the trial certain issues even before the jury was empanelled. As I understand it, Part IV provides the appropriate procedure for the ordinary run-of-the-mill case where the judge's preliminary rulings on issues of law and questions of admissibility of evidence will not be subject to any interlocutory appeal.
Part III is quite different. It introduces generally a procedure at the moment only available in cases of complex fraud under the Criminal Justice Act 1987. It enables in a preparatory hearing preliminary rulings on issues of law and issues relating to the admissibility of evidence to be determined in advance of the trial (that is, before the jury is empanelled) and provides that those rulings shall be subject to appeal, and that the appeal will be finally disposed of before the trial commences.
The good sense of that procedure seems obvious. If a long and complicated trial is anticipated (it is primarily for long and complicated trials that the special Part III procedure is to operate) there are obviously great advantages in having a final and authoritative decision
1560
on issues of law—issues relating to admissibility—on which the whole trial may depend. If they are decided in advance, then everybody knows where they are. If they are decided after the trial by way of an appeal, the whole work of the long and complicated trial may have been wasted.
Some Members of the Committee may remember that during the last Session of Parliament at the Report stage of the Criminal Appeal Bill, I moved unsuccessfully an amendment that would have provided for an interlocutory appeal against decisions of a trial judge one way or the other as to whether or not proceedings on indictment should be stayed on the ground that they involved an abuse of the court's process. That amendment was defeated by 128 votes to 118.
The purpose of this amendment is very much more modest. It is simply to ensure that the interlocutory appeal which the Government themselves introduce in this Bill, applicable only in the special Part III procedure, shall extend from questions relating to admissibility of evidence and other questions of law to questions relating to whether an appeal should or should not be stayed as an abuse of the process of the court.
The advantages of having such an interlocutory appeal seem to me to be self-evident. If a judge wrongly determines that proceedings should not be stayed when in truth they should, an interlocutory appeal before the trial goes ahead will avoid the unnecessary expenditure of a lot of public money and the trauma that should be avoided to the defendant himself of having to stand trial in respect of some stale prosecution which ought never to have been brought so late. If, on the other hand, the judge wrongly grants the stay when no stay ought to be granted, in case of a stale prosecution—which is the principal case attracting a stay of proceedings on the ground of abuse of process—then that is a decision which certainly ought to be reversible; otherwise, the prosecution has no remedy. It is bad enough that we should have to see guilty men escaping conviction as a result of the perverse verdicts of juries. But it is quite wrong that we should tolerate in the current ethos in relation to these matters men escaping conviction on the basis of an erroneous judicial decision when a perfectly good remedy to that can be provided.
As I recall, the only substantive ground on which my earlier amendment to the Criminal Appeal Bill was resisted by the Government was that it would cause unnecessary delays and provide for an abuse by defendants who sought to delay proceedings by applying for leave to appeal when they had no prospect of obtaining it. Under the Part III procedure there is the safeguard of a requirement that leave should be obtained either from the trial judge or from the Court of Appeal before an appeal can be brought, so that the delay involved will be very small in any event.
Now that the Government themselves have introduced an interlocutory appeal in cases where the judge, under the special Part III procedure, has given

1561
a ruling on issues of law or issues of admissibility, I simply do not understand on what ground it can be said that a similar interlocutory appeal applicable to decisions relating to a stay on the ground of abuse of process should not be available. If it makes good sense to have such an interlocutory appeal so that the issues of law or admissibility can be finally disposed of before the trial proper begins in those cases, as the Government must suppose, then it makes equally good, if not better, sense that such an interlocutory appeal should be available in a case where the judge has either granted or refused a stay of proceedings on the ground that they are an abuse of process. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The object of the amendment, as explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, is simple, sensible and self-evident. It is to allow the Court of Appeal, on appeal by the Crown or the defence, with leave of the judge of the Court of Appeal, to reverse the decision of the judge on an application to stay proceedings to avoid an unfair trial. Indeed, it is to introduce in England and Wales nothing other than a procedure akin to that which operates in Scotland, where the system works well and has not given rise to any unacceptable delay or abuse, to which the noble and learned Lord has just referred. At present, if the application in England and Wales is refused by the judge, there has to be a mistrial and a wrongful conviction before the Court of Appeal can reverse the erroneous decision of the judge. Hence, the justification—apart from the expense and trauma involved—for introducing this amendment.
It is appreciated that the amendment may well be doomed to founder on the rocks of mistaken ministerial preconception. The Government's settled objection has to be held against all corners and against all odds. On a Division, the steadfast, standby infantry, some at their ease in their guardroom, will be mustered to guard this citadel under the banner "Ours is not to reason why". Well, there it is. But will the amendment founder? A similar amendment, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, in the Criminal Appeal Bill, was only just lost by a small margin. Many strange things happen in this Chamber when noble Lords are able to attend and listen to the argument.
Four objections were raised in a letter dated 14th December which I received from the Home Office. The first was:
"You may recall that we resisted similar amendments during the passage of the Criminal Appeal Bill. The Government is extremely keen to prevent unnecessary delays in criminal trials".
If delay is considered to some degree necessary in Scotland, why should it be unnecessary in England if it avoids a mistrial and a wrongful conviction?
The second objection in the letter was:
"The defence could use such appeals as a delaying tactic".
1562
There has been no abuse by exploitation in Scotland. Why should there be such abuse in England and Wales?
The third objection raised in the letter, in Home Office language, was:
"The implications of an appeal could be particularly significant because it would cast doubt upon whether or not the trial would go ahead"—
that is rather obvious, anyway—
"and so all work relating to the trial would be likely to be suspended pending the outcome".
As any practitioner knows, such an application cannot be made by the submissions of counsel unless all the preparatory work of the trial has been conducted by both the Crown and the defence. One cannot make submissions unless the cases are known and prepared.
The last objection was:
"We believe the correct way for the defence to challenge a refusal to grant an application to stay proceedings is on an appeal against conviction".
That belief ignores the expense and the injustice of a mistrial in which there has been a wrongful conviction.
The substance of the amendment of general application has already been accepted by the Chamber as applicable to proceedings under the War Crimes Act. It is common ground in another place and between the two Houses that those trials under the War Crimes Act must be fair trials. So it may not be assumed in any event that, if this amendment were carried into the Bill, it would be rejected by another place.
I commend the amendment, to which I have put my name, to the Committee and thank my noble and learned friend for having introduced it so elegantly.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that there is significant virtue in the amendment, provided that one has safeguards which could be easily introduced. A safeguard that I have in mind is that a prosecution appeal against a preliminary ruling ought only to be with the consent of the Attorney-General, in the same way as appeals against over-lenient sentences are dependent on such consent.
I believe that there is significant public concern about what is felt to be unduly pusillanimous rulings by judges at first instance, staying criminal proceedings on the basis of abuse of process, sometimes relating to adverse publicity in well known cases of which the Committee is aware. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, was sitting as a puisne, such applications would rarely succeed. By and large, judges rightly trusted juries to decide the case on the evidence. I myself would not anticipate that that right of appeal—or right of direction originally, with a consequent right of appeal as spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—would regularly be used. It might be used in a certain number of appropriate cases. At the moment, if the judge stays the proceedings on the basis of abuse of process, there is no remedy available.
I believe that the amendment makes the law workable, efficient and likely to have more public confidence and support.
Baroness Blatch: The Committee will recall that this is a matter that we debated earlier this year during the

1563
passage of the Criminal Appeal Bill. Until 1993, it was thought possible for both parties to seek judicial review of decisions to grant or refuse such applications. However, in the case of Ashton, the House of Lords ruled that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to review those decisions as they were matters "relating to a trial on indictment". The present position, therefore, is that there is no such right of appeal, although it is open to the defendant, if he is convicted, to argue on an appeal against conviction that the prosecution was an abuse of process and the conviction unsafe as a result.
It is essential that we take whatever steps we can to minimise the scope for delays in criminal trials and avoid measures which might unnecessarily add to such delays. The effect of the amendment would be to add another stage into the process and so further delay the proceedings. This would be particularly unfortunate in cases such as those where preparatory hearings are likely to be held which may already have taken a considerable length of time to reach court. A provision of this kind might be open to exploitation by the defence who could use such appeals as a delaying tactic. The appeal would cast further doubt upon whether or not the trial would go ahead and all work relating to the trial would be likely to be suspended pending the outcome.
A further disadvantage of this amendment is that it would result in rights of appeal against such decisions being available only in those cases where there happened to be a preparatory hearing. That would be anomalous, and would create pressure for the right of interlocutory appeal to be extended to all cases. Such an extension would require further consideration in view of the potential implications for the handling of court business and the timely conduct of trials.
Although I can see the arguments for providing a right of appeal on decisions on applications to stay proceedings, I do not believe that it can be justified in terms of the delays which would result. Nor is it necessary in the interests of justice. The defendant is able to appeal in the normal way at the end of the trial if he is convicted. In our view, that is the correct way to proceed.
We still believe that the safeguard for the defendant is appeal after conviction. Any appeal for the right to apply to stay proceedings could lead to widespread abuse. Though the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that it would be rarely used, there is no guarantee. Once it exists, it exists as a right and it would be for anybody who enjoys that right to exercise it. The notion may be that everybody is entirely sensible; nevertheless, used and abused as a right, it could be used as a delaying tactic. It is not beyond the wit of man to use it as such rather than as a right to seek justice.
Williams of Mostyn: First, I have never proceeded on the basis that anyone I encounter is likely to behave in a sensible way. Indeed, Clause 26(1) approaches life on that same suspicious basis. Leave will only lie with the trial judge or the Court of Appeal Criminal Division.
1564
Secondly, the Minister says that this adds another stage. It does nothing of the sort. It brings forward the time of application to stay the proceedings—the preparatory hearing as opposed to the first day of the trial.
Thirdly, to suggest that a device as efficient as this will lead to more delay than, as suggested by the Minister, waiting until the end of trial, seems to stand common sense upon its head.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: As this is Committee stage, in view of the reasoned argument of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, perhaps my noble friend the Minister will take this matter back rather than simply resisting it, as is her command on her brief, which is sheer mistaken ministerial preconception in which there is no objective examination of this subject. I ask my noble friend to take the matter away and to think again.
Baroness Blatch: I repeat, this is Committee stage. Everything that is discussed at Committee stage I shall take back, reflect upon and consider. I shall come to these points again, if pressed, at Report.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for his support of the amendment. I entirely accept his proposition that if it were accepted, additional safeguards may be required, in particular a requirement that an appeal by the Crown should only lie with the consent of the Attorney General. That is an eminently sensible proposal.
I listened with care to the noble Baroness. I hope it is not arrogant to say that I felt some sympathy for her in having to present such a difficult brief. It was suggested that the issue we are debating is the same as that we debated earlier in the year on the Criminal Appeal Bill. That is not right. If that amendment had been carried, it would have introduced an interlocutory appeal against the grant or refusal of a stay in all cases. I have only determined to return to the charge because I observe in Part III of this Bill that the Government themselves deliberately introduce an interlocutory appeal relating to the judge's decision in the course of a preparatory hearing on questions of law and admissibility of evidence.
The one issue which the noble Baroness did not address is how any distinction can be drawn between the opportunity for delaying tactics—vexatious applications for leave to appeal by defendants in relation to interlocutory appeals on issues of law or admissibility of evidence—and delaying tactics which will be available in the case of an application for leave to appeal against the refusal of a stay of execution. If the Minister intends to take the matter back for consideration, I hope that she will direct her mind and the minds of others to that issue.
Is there a distinction to be drawn? If not, is it not apparent that an interlocutory appeal on this issue has just as much to be said for it as an interlocutory appeal on the other issues which the Government themselves introduce? On that basis, I shall not divide the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.107:
Page 16, line 2, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 107, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 108 and 111.
For the purpose of speaking to these amendments, it may assist if I deal first with the amendment introducing the second new clause after Clause 24, which is the substantive amendment from which the amendments to Clause 24(8) and 24(11) arise. The purpose of these three amendments is to improve the drafting of the Bill. Their effect is otherwise neutral.
The second new clause after Clause 24 makes provision for Crown Court Rules. Under subsection (1) of the new clause Crown Court Rules may provide that,
"except to the extent that disclosure is required by rules under section 81 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (expert evidence), or by section 5(5) of this Act" —
(disclosure of the details of an alibi and evidence in support of it) —the defendant need not disclose the identity of defence witnesses nor whether the accused will give evidence. Subsection (1) in effect replaces Clause 24(8). The only difference between the two provisions is that the new subsection substitutes the words, "by section 5(5) of this Act", for "by any provision of Part I of this Act".
Subsection (2) of the second new clause after Clause 24 provides that Crown Court Rules may make provision as to the minimum or maximum time that may be specified under Section 24(11) for compliance with a specific requirement contained in an order made under Clause 24. As a consequence of this amendment, the reference to Crown Court Rules in Clause 24(11) is not needed. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: I support the amendment. I am grateful that the Government listened to anxieties expressed in many quarters following the consultation document which required the defence, in relation to the earlier part of this legislation, to disclose the names and addresses of witnesses. I am glad that the spirit in which that earlier part is now drafted is to be reflected in Part III.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 16, line 16, leave out from ("with") to end of line 18.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 16, line 19, leave out ("at a preparatory hearing") and insert ("under this section").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 109, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 110, 112, 113 and 114.
The amendment inserting a new clause after Clause 24 provides that where a judge has ordered a preparatory hearing he may exercise any of the powers contained in Clause 24(4) to (7) before the preparatory hearing has started. The amendment, which has been prompted by a similar provision in Section 7(3) to (5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987, would enable the judge to order the
1566
prosecution and the defence to prepare and serve those documents whose service could otherwise be ordered at the hearing itself. This will allow key documents to be prepared and exchanged before the start of the hearing, which may then be dealt with more expeditiously. Where a judge makes an order before the preparatory hearing, Section 24(4) to (12) will apply accordingly. The effect of this is that orders made before the hearing will be subject to the same provisions in Clause 24 as those made at the hearing. The judge would, for example, in making an order under Clause 24(6) or (7) warn the accused of the possible consequences under Clause 25 of not complying with it.
I turn to the amendment to Clause 24(12). As drafted, Clause 24(12) provides that any order or ruling made by a judge at the preparatory hearing has effect through the trial, unless it appears to the judge on application made to him that the interests of justice require him to vary or discharge it. The amendment to Clause 24(12) provides that orders made under Clause 24 rather than at the preparatory hearing shall have effect through the trial. This is consequential to the amendment enabling the judge to make certain orders before the hearing. The effect is that an order made before the preparatory hearing will have the same status at the trial as an order made at the preparatory hearing.
Clause 25 governs the consequences of a failure by either party to comply with a requirement imposed at the preparatory hearing or for departing from the case disclosed at the hearing. The amendments to Clause 25 remove the references to "preparatory hearing" and replace them with references to "in pursuance of a requirement imposed under Section 24". They are consequential to the amendment inserting the first new clause after Clause 24, which provides for the judge to make orders under Section 24(4) to (7) before the preparatory hearing. The effect is that the judge may comment, and the jury may draw inferences, from any failure by either party to comply with the requirement of an order made before, as well as at, the preparatory hearing. Similarly, the judge may comment and the jury draw inferences from any departure from the case disclosed before, as well as at, the preparatory hearing. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: These amendments seem to give greater flexibility to the procedure, and accordingly they have our support.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 110 and 111:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
ORDERS BEFORE PREPARATORY HEARING
(".—(1) This section applies where—

(a) a judge orders a preparatory hearing, and

(b) he decides that any order which could be made under section 24(4) to (7) at the hearing should be made before the hearing.

(2) In such a case—

1567

(a) he may make any such order before the hearing (or at the hearing), and

(b) section 24(4) to (12) shall apply accordingly."). After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—

CROWN COURT RULES
(".—(1) Crown Court Rules may provide that except to the extent that disclosure is required—

(a) by rules under section 81 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (expert evidence), or

(b) by section 5(5) of this Act,

anything required to be given by an accused in pursuance of a requirement imposed under section 24 need not disclose who will give evidence.
(2) Crown Court Rules may make provision as to the minimum or maximum time that may be specified under section 24(11).")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 25 [Later stages of trial]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 112 to 114:
Page 16, line 22, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) Any party may depart from the case he disclosed in pursuance of a requirement imposed under section 24.")
Page 16, leave out lines 24 to 26 and insert—
("Where—

(a) a party departs from the case he disclosed in pursuance of a requirement imposed under section 24, or

(b) a party fails to comply with such a requirement,").

Page 16, line 36, leave out ("at a preparatory hearing") and insert ("in pursuance of a requirement imposed under section 24").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 112 to 114 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 16, line 39, leave out ("person who gave it") and insert ("accused concerned").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 25(4) precludes the disclosure of the accused's written statement provided under Clause 24(6)(a), or any other information relating to the case for the accused which is given in pursuance of a requirement imposed under Clause 24, after the jury has been sworn without the consent of the person who gave it. It is intended that it is only the consent of the accused concerned which is to be obtained under Clause 25(4). The effect of the amendment is to put this beyond doubt.
Baroness Mallalieu: I wonder whether the Minister can help me further as to this part of Clause 25. I do not understand when it is intended to operate. As I understand it, Clause 25 provides for a judge to comment upon, or to allow inferences to be drawn from, or direct the jury in relation to inferences drawn from, a departure from the case disclosed at the preparatory hearing. I appreciate that the amendment introduced by the Minister requires the consent of the accused before the jury hears of the contents of a statement that has been provided at the preparatory hearing. For the moment, I cannot envisage the circumstances in which such a situation will arise. If there has been a departure from the case that the accused has indicated during the preparatory hearing, I am not at all clear why it is that his consent will be required before
1568
the case that he has indicated is referred to in this way. There may be a very good reason for it; but I shall be grateful for a further explanation.
Baroness Blatch: As I understand it, Clause 25(4) precludes the disclosure of the accused's written statement provided under Clause 24(6)(a), or any other information relating to the case for the accused, given in pursuance of a requirement, as I said when addressing the amendment in the first place. It is my understanding that it is only the accused's consent that is to be obtained under Clause 25(4). The amendment is designed simply to put that issue beyond doubt.
Baroness Mallalieu: I understand that; but I have not understood in what circumstances this issue is likely to arise. It may be that it is not the intention that the jury should, except in particularly specialised circumstances where the accused requires it, ever see the document that is produced by the accused in relation to the preparatory hearing. If that is the intention, I understand what the amendment is intended to get at.
Baroness Blatch: One instance would be where the accused had made a statement and in the course of the trial a request was made for the statement to be used. The accused may, for one reason or another that is entirely personal to him, not wish to use part of that statement in his defence. It is only with the consent of the accused that that information can be used. It would be for the accused to determine whether or not it was made available.
Lord Ackner: I believe that this situation may arise in the situation to which the Royal Commission has referred; namely, the statement may put forward a substantive defence, such as, "I was not there" or, "It was provocation". But, at the end of the prosecution case, the accused may desire to submit that there is no case to answer. That would debar the prosecution from submitting, "You say that there is no case to answer, but you have provided a statement which accepted that there was a case to answer and have put forward a substantive defence". I believe that the Royal Commission, in a part of their report which I am trying to recall, pointed out that that might be somewhat unfair to the accused who ought always to be in a position to submit that there was no case to answer. Therefore, it has been put within the discretion of the judge to decide whether or not the statement of the accused, which the accused does not want put in, should go in. It is a rather strange situation, but I believe it very much follows what the Royal Commission has in mind.
Baroness Mallalieu: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Restrictions on reporting]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 17, line 33, after ("apply") insert (", or shall not apply to a specified extent,").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 28 sets out the proceedings which are subject to reporting restrictions, the matters which may be reported and the

1569
circumstances in which reporting restrictions may be lifted. Your Lordships will appreciate that preparatory hearings may give rise to substantive rulings on points of law and procedure which are of general importance, have substantial precedent value and which, subject to the overriding interests of justice, ought to be reported. But, as drafted, Clause 28 only provides for the judge to make an order to lift reporting restrictions in their totality. In many cases judges would be unlikely to make such an order as to do so could lead to the reporting of matters which might be prejudicial to the trial. The amendment to Clause 28 would address this difficulty by enabling the judge to make an order to lift reporting restrictions to a specified extent. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: These amendments seem to give greater flexibility and to be entirely desirable. They have our support.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 117 and 118:
Page 17, line 37, after ("apply") insert (", or shall not apply to a specified extent,").
Page 18, line 4, after ("apply") insert (", or shall not apply to a specified extent,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 28, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Viscount Colville of Culross: This may be a very silly question to ask the noble Baroness. Why are we referring to Great Britain if the Act will not apply to Scotland?
Baroness Blatch: I shall take that question away and answer in detail at the end of this session. The answer is that I do not know.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Offences in connection with reporting]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 19, line 26, at end insert ("in England and Wales").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to the amendments to Clause 29, it may assist the Committee if I deal first with the amendment to Clause 47(1), which is the substantive amendment which gives rise to the amendment to Clause 29. As drafted, Clause 47 provides that no part of the Bill will extend to Scotland. The amendment to Clause 47(1) would provide for the Bill to be extended to Scotland only in respect of the reporting restrictions under Clause 28 and the corresponding offence provision in Clause 29. This would provide a safeguard against a reporting in Scotland of proceedings in respect of a preparatory hearing or an application for leave to appeal or an appeal in relation to such a hearing, which may be seen by potential English jurors. It would also be consistent with the reporting restrictions which apply by virtue of Section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 in respect of preparatory hearings in cases of serious or complex fraud.
Clause 29 creates an offence of contravening the reporting restrictions in Clause 28. Clause 29(3) provides that proceedings for an offence under Clause 29 shall not be instituted otherwise than by or with the consent of the Attorney-General. Given that the amendment to Clause 47(1) extends Clauses 28 and 29 to Scotland, Clause 29(3) should be amended so that it specifies that the Attorney-General's consent to institute proceedings under Clause 29 only extends to England and Wales. This takes account of the position in Scotland, where it is the Lord Advocate who must consent before proceedings for an offence may be instituted. This latter requirement is at large and does not therefore need express provision in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.120:
Before Clause 30, insert the following new clause—
MEANING OF PRE-TRIAL HEARING
(",—(1) For the purposes of this Part a pre-trial hearing is a hearing which relates to a trial on indictment and which takes place—

(a) after the proceedings for the trial have been transferred to the Crown Court, and

(b) before the start of the trial.

(2) For the purposes of this section the start of a trial on indictment occurs when a jury is sworn to consider the issue of guilt or fitness to plead or, if the court accepts a plea of guilty before a jury is sworn, when that plea is accepted; but this is subject to section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 and section 23 of this Act (preparatory hearings).").
The noble Baroness said: The new clause before Clause 30 defines a pre-trial hearing and the start of a trial on indictment for the purposes of Part IV. Your Lordships will notice that the amendment draws directly on the wording in Clause 30(3) and (4) which as a consequence are no longer needed. The amendments improve the drafting of the Bill by applying the definition to the whole of Part IV. Their effect is otherwise neutral. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Power to make rulings]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.121:
Page 19, line 37, at end insert—
(" (2A) Subject to subsection (2B), a ruling made under this section has binding effect from the time it is made until the case against the accused or, if there is more than one, against each of them is disposed of; and the case against an accused is disposed of if—

(a) he is acquitted or convicted, or

(b) the prosecutor decides not to proceed with the case against him.

(2B) A judge may discharge or vary (or further vary) a ruling made under this section if it appears to him that it is in the interests of justice to do so; and a judge may act under this subsection—

(a) on an application by a party to the case, or

(b) of the judge's own motion.

(2C) No application may be made under subsection (2B)(a) unless there has been a material change of circumstances since the ruling was made or, if a previous application has been made, since the application (or last application) was made.
(2D) The judge referred to in subsection (2B) need not be the judge who made the ruling or, if it has been varied, the judge (or any of the judges) who varied it.
(2E) For the purposes of this section the prosecutor is any person acting as prosecutor, whether an individual or a body.").
The noble Baroness said: In order to explain the purpose of this amendment to Clause 30, I should first draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 31. Clause 31(1) provides that a ruling made by the judge under Clause 30 is not binding on the parties during the trial unless the judge orders that it is. This leaves open the possibility that a judge may make a ruling under Clause 30 which is not binding. It is difficult to foresee why a judge would want to make a ruling on law or evidence which the parties were free to disregard or why any of the parties would want to apply for such a non-binding ruling. The amendment to Clause 30 will rectify this irregularity. A ruling made under Clause 30 would automatically be binding from the time it is made until the case against the accused is disposed of, unless, of course, it is discharged or varied in accordance with the new subsection (2B) in Clause 30.
In addition, subsections (3), (4), (5) and (7) of Clause 31 have been incorporated into an expanded Clause 30. This improves the drafting of the Bill. Subsection (6) of Clause 31 is no longer needed in the light of the new clause before Clause 30 which, for the purposes of Part IV, sets out the meaning of a pre-trial hearing. As a consequence of these changes, Clause 31 is redundant and I have therefore given notice of my intention to oppose the Motion that it stand part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I suppose we do not object to the suggestion that any rulings of the judge in a pre-trial hearing should be non-binding. It seems to make sense, although I am bound to say that for 2000 years Popes have found it useful to distinguish between statements in which they are fallible and statements in which they are infallible. I should have thought that one ought to pay attention to 2000 years of history. As the amendment reads, it sounds all right.
However, I have to say that these amendments to Clause 30 and the abandonment of Clause 31 in favour of a new clause make great difficulties for those of us who would wish seriously to consider and amend the Bill. I know that the Minister did her best to get amendments to us as soon as she could. However, of the four major group of amendments that she has put down, three of them came to me in three successive letters on 14th December. That makes our life very difficult. In this sense I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, when he said that we shall have to treat the Report stage of this part of the Bill as a Committee stage and that we shall have to have time to do it. There will have to be negotiations between the usual channels about how we find the time to do it. I honestly do not know whether these complicated and far-ranging amendments are right. I have to express my sense of dissatisfaction with my own knowledge in my reception of the amendments.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: One does not want to continue this discussion at any length because we
1572
discussed some aspects of the matter a little time ago. To complete the point I made earlier, and with regard to the point which has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, we now expect additional time for the Report stage of the Bill. Indeed, for the reasons I indicated earlier, we would be failing in our duty if we were not to have additional time.
Following what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has just said, if substantial and other amendments are to be put down at the Report stage, I hope that those amendments will be put down a significant period before the beginning of the Report stage; otherwise we shall have a repeat of the problems we face at the moment. The noble Baroness does her best to assist the Committee, but it is most important that one should register this point now so that she is aware of our serious dissatisfaction about the way in which this whole matter has been dealt with.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 19, line 38, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 123:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause—
RESTRICTIONS ON REPORTING(".—
(1) Except as provided by this section—

(a) no written report of matters falling within subsection (2) shall be published in Great Britain;

(b) no report of matters falling within subsection (2) shall be included in a relevant programme for reception in Great Britain.

(2) The following matters fall within this subsection—

(a) a ruling made under section 30;

(b) proceedings on an application for a ruling to be made under section 30;

(c) an order that a ruling made under section 30 be discharged or varied or further varied;

(d) proceedings on an application for a ruling made under section 30 to be discharged or varied or further varied.

(3) The judge dealing with any matter falling within subsection (2) may order that subsection (1) shall not apply, or shall not apply to a specified extent, to a report of the matter.
(4) Where there is only one accused and he objects to the making of an order under subsection (3) the judge shall make the order if (and only if) satisfied after hearing the representations of the accused that it is in the interests of justice to do so; and if the order is made it shall not apply to the extent that a report deals with any such objection or representations.
(5) Where there are two or more accused and one or more of them objects to the making of an order under subsection (3) the judge shall make the order if (and only if) satisfied after hearing the representations of each of the accused that it is in the interests of justice to do so; and if the order is made it shall not apply to the extent that a report deals with any such objection or representations.
(6) Subsection (1) does not apply to—

(a) the publication of a report of matters, or

(b) the inclusion in a relevant programme of a report of matters,

at the conclusion of the trial of the accused or of the last of the accused to be tried.
(7) Nothing in this section affects any prohibition or restriction imposed by virtue of any other enactment on a publication or on matter included in a programme.
(8) In this section—

(a) "publish", in relation to a report, means publish the report, either by itself or as part of a newspaper or periodical, for distribution to the public;

(b) expressions cognate with "publish" shall be construed accordingly;

(c) "relevant programme" means a programme included in a programme service, within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990.").

The noble Baroness said: It is envisaged that pre-trial hearings at which rulings under Clause 30 may be made will normally be held in open court. This gives rise to the need for reporting restrictions to ensure that matters which might be prejudicial to the trial are not reported. The proposed new clauses after Clause 30 provide for this. They set out the proceedings which are subject to reporting restrictions, the circumstances in which restrictions may be lifted, and create an offence of contravening the restrictions.
The proceedings under Clause 30 which would be subject to reporting restrictions include a ruling made by the judge, proceedings on an application for a ruling, an order that a ruling be discharged or varied, and proceedings on an application for a ruling to be discharged or varied or further varied.
The judge dealing with any of the above matters would be able to make an order to lift reporting restrictions in their entirety or to a specified extent. In exercising his discretion to make an order to lift reporting restrictions, the judge must have regard to the representations of the accused, or each of the accused, and be satisfied that to make such an order would be in the interests of justice.
The amendment contains provision for the restrictions on reporting to cease at the conclusion of the trial of the accused or, where there is more than one accused, the last of the accused to be tried.
The second new clause after Clause 30 creates an offence of contravening the reporting restrictions and lists those whose contravention of the restrictions would constitute an offence. It provides that the offence is to be triable summarily only, with a maximum fine of level 5 on the standard scale. The consent of the Attorney-General will be required before proceedings can be brought in England and Wales for an offence under the new clause. The aim is to have consistency and to have the same test applied right across the board. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I wonder whether the Minister can answer one point. As I understand it, the judge can say, under subsection (3), that matters may be reported or that they may be reported to a specified extent. Is the specification to be that of the judge? What I have not followed—it is difficult to follow in the Bill because it has been widely changed—is the subordinate legislation aspect. When I see something which says "specified", I tend to think that it is subordinate legislation. I think that this may not be, but it may be wiser not to use the word "specified" because that word normally inclines one to think that there is some statutory instrument which one must consider. If the Minister is simply saying that
1574
thejudge may say to what extent restrictions may be lifted or removed, that is fine, but I do not think that "specified" is a very good word to use.
Baroness Blatch: It is at the discretion of the judge. "Specified" means that we have moved from a blanket ban on reporting to allowing the judge to determine reporting restrictions on part of the proceedings and to lift the restrictions on other parts, as specified by him.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I wonder whether the Minister can assist us on one matter of detail. I appreciate that I have not given the noble Baroness notice. That is because the point arose as I pondered her explanation. I know that this is a cause of concern for some newspapers. Is it envisaged that when applications of any sort in respect of publicity for preparatory hearings are made, members of the press should have a right of audience, a locus standi, to address the judge so that their views may be taken into account?
Baroness Blatch: I can only imagine—I shall have to come back to the noble Lord with more detail—that in practice when a judge is taking a view on whether restrictions should be lifted or pressed, it would be for somebody to give reasons why that should not be the case and for the judge to make a judgment about it. I can only imagine that that would happen in court. If I am wrong, I shall come back to the noble Lord on that point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 124:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause—
OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH REPORTING
(".—(1) If a report is published or included in a relevant programme in contravention of section (Restrictions on reporting) each of the following persons is guilty of an offence—

(a) in the case of a publication of a written report as part of a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, editor or publisher of the newspaper or periodical;

(b) in the case of a publication of a written report otherwise than as part of a newspaper or periodical, the person who publishes it;

(c) in the case of the inclusion of a report in a relevant programme, any body corporate which is engaged in providing the service in which the programme is included and any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(3) Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not be instituted in England and Wales otherwise than by or with the consent of the Attorney General.
(4) Subsection (8) of section (Restrictions on reporting) applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 negatived.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 32 [Application of this Part]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 20, line 31, leave out ("offences alleged to be committed") and insert ("pre-trial hearings beginning").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment to Clause 32 is a technical amendment concerned with the application of Part IV. As drafted, Clause 32(1) provides for Part IV to be applied to offences alleged to be committed on or after such day as is appointed by the Secretary of State. This would create difficulties if an indictment contained several counts, some relating to offences committed prior to the appointed day and others relating to later offences. The amendment addresses this by providing for Part IV to be applied to pre-trial hearings beginning on or after the day appointed for the purposes of Clause 32.
As a consequence of the amendment to Clause 32(1), an amendment is needed to Clause 46. As drafted, Clause 46(1) makes provision about the time when an alleged offence has been committed for the purpose of certain provisions in the Bill, including Clause 32(1). As a consequence of the amendment to the commencement provision in Clause 32(1), the reference to Section "32(1)" should be removed from Clause 46(1).
In moving Amendment No. 125, I have spoken also to Amendment No. 158. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 20, line 35, leave out ("made by statutory instrument").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 127:
Before Clause 33, insert the following new clause—
TRANSFER FOR TRIAL
(".Schedule (Transfer for trial) to this Act (which contains provisions about transfer to the Crown Court for trial) shall have effect.")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 127, I shall speak to all the government amendments in this group. I anticipate that noble Lords opposite will speak to the opposition amendment which is, I believe, Amendment No. 135, so I shall speak to Amendment Nos. 127, 161 and 172.
The first new clause before Clause 33 brings into effect the new provisions contained in the schedule (Transfer for trial) to the Bill which amend the transfer for trial provisions which will be inserted in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
The amendments contained in paragraphs 1 to 9 of the schedule are designed to improve the operational effectiveness of the transfer procedure and to deal with a number of points which were raised on the transfer provisions during the consultation process on the associated draft rules of court. The majority of these are of a straightforward technical nature: their effect will be to make the procedure more workable and efficient.
Interim solutions to these problems were identified when the draft rules of court were prepared. The Government have, however, decided that the more sensible course would be to defer implementation until
1576
it has been possible to amend the primary legislation. Once implemented, the transfer for trial procedure will replace committal hearings in magistrates' courts. It will remove the requirement for lengthy committal proceedings, ensuring that valuable witnesses are not required to give evidence twice and improving the efficiency of pre-trial case management in the magistrates' courts.
The amendment to Schedule 2 makes two minor repeals as a consequence of the new schedule. I commend them to the House.
The new clause after Clause 37, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Williams of Mostyn, would repeal the transfer provisions in. favour of reforming the present committal system. I wonder whether I should stop at this
point —
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No.
Baroness Blatch: In that case, I shall continue to speak to that amendment. The amendment envisages retaining the present system in its current hearing-based form, but limiting the evidence which may be considered at a full committal hearing to written evidence only, thereby sparing witnesses the potential ordeal of being cross-examined. In uncontested cases, it would also give magistrates the ability to commit an accused for Crown Court trial in his absence, at the request of his legal representative.
As the Committee will be aware, there has been widespread agreement that changes should be made to the present committal proceedings which act as a filter to stop weak cases from clogging up the system in the Crown Court. Reform was recommended in several reports, most recently the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. Over 90 per cent. of committals are a "paper" exercise, taking up valuable court time and with no consideration of the evidence. The rest are very often little more than a dry-run for the Crown Court trial, used to test the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
Prior to the introduction of the transfer provisions in last year's Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, considerable thought was given as to how reform of the committal system might best be achieved. As the Committee may recall, the arguments were exposed during the passage of that Act. I do not propose to set them out again in detail, but will confine my remarks to the specific points raised by the amendment.
Although the amendment achieves one of the main objectives of transfer for trial—the removal of the requirement on witnesses to give evidence twice, once at committal and again at Crown Court trial—it fails to offer the other benefits of the transfer system. Transfer will greatly improve the efficiency of the courts by removing the need for court-based hearings, and by introducing the discipline of time limits thereby giving the court greater control of the pre-trial process.
The amendment proposes that, where the defence does not agree that there is a case to answer, a hearing should be held for the purposes of considering written evidence only. That is similar to what is proposed under the transfer procedure save that, under that procedure,

1577
it is envisaged that hearings involving prosecution and defence representatives will be the exception—most cases will be dealt with entirely on paper. Under the amendment there would be a hearing in every such case attended by both the parties. The noble Lords' proposal would not therefore deliver the savings which we expect to flow from the transfer procedure. Nor would the process benefit from the discipline of time limits which comes with the transfer procedure.
In addition to improving the efficiency of pre-trial procedure, it is also anticipated that transfer will lead to considerable efficiency savings in court costs and legal aid, as well as in prosecution costs, prisoner escort services and probation service costs. Under the proposed amendment, any savings are likely to be marginal.
Although the noble Lords' amendment may seem inviting to some in that it appears on the face of it not to involve wide changes to existing legislation and practice, it does not tackle the inherent problems which lie at the heart of the existing committal system. It also leaves unanswered many detailed questions about the procedure which should apply for the submission and consideration of written evidence under their proposal. The more fundamental changes to the system envisaged by the transfer procedure have been developed after much debate and much consultation with practitioners and following the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice.
The Bill provides the opportunity to refine that procedure further. The Government's proposed amendments to the transfer provisions contained in the schedule to the Bill will ensure that the new system provides a genuinely effective and efficient alternative to the committal system. For the reasons that I have given, I hope that on reconsideration the noble Lords will not move their amendment in favour of the Government's amendments. I leave the matter for their consideration. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In what she has just said, the Minister acknowledged that this is an extremely difficult problem, and one to which it is not easy to find an answer which will satisfy everyone. That is evidenced by the fact that the Government and the Home Office have been trying for a long time to find a formula which will deal with the problems of repetition, delay, and cost, and the imposition upon prosecution and defence which is involved in committal proceedings, and yet solve the problem of how to transfer trials from the magistrates' courts to the Crown Court without risking letting the guilty go free, which is one of our prime concerns in this matter.
I shall not press Amendment No. 135. I have listened carefully to what the Minister said about it. She acknowledged that it achieves some of the main purposes of the Government in seeking amendment to legislation. But it would not be surprising if there were differences between us since, after all, schemes to reform the transfer proceedings have been announced by the Government no fewer than three times, and delayed three times, because they could not be sure that they had it right. I suppose that we should be grateful that they now propose to put the provision into primary legislation.
1578
We all have the same objectives in this: we all want to ensure that there is no unnecessary possibility of guilty people escaping justice, and we are all looking to avoid unnecessary delays. We do not want to have people released without trial, not because they are not guilty but because of the inflexibility of the rules or because the time limits cannot be met. So we are agreed that the existing transfer system has to be abandoned and replaced by something better. However, I am not yet convinced that the Government's proposals achieve that. As I understand it, the prosecution will still have to serve notice on the defence within a statutory time limit. The reality is that the prosecution will have to do that or make up its minds to do that very much before the end of the time limit. That could lead to the CPS abandoning cases.
I am not going to use the opportunity, as I might, to expand upon the proportion of cases abandoned by the CPS. There are all sorts of very good reasons why the CPS should abandon cases—because of the probability of conviction and in the public interest. It should not be abandoning cases because of time limits or procedural difficulties. I expect that even with the amendments we will still have increased delays, an enforced wait, increased costs, and a degree of inflexibility which is unacceptable. We shall still have cases which are, to some extent, in limbo.
I do not say that our Amendment No. 135 solves all the problems, and I shall not be moving it when the time comes. The Minister will appreciate how difficult it is, when we have these amendments before Committee rather than in the original Bill, to consider as rationally as we would like the complicated issues which the Government have been considering for many months. So we shall have to hold our fire and, if necessary, come back on Report on the whole range of issues raised by the amendments.
Viscount Colville of Culross: A number of us have been waiting for some time for the transfer provisions in the 1994 Act to be brought in. It was going to be July; then it was going to be September; then it was going to be next January; now it will not happen at all.
To help those of us who are trying to run these affairs, perhaps the Minister could give some forecast as to when the provisions are likely to come in. A good deal of preparation will be needed by the magistrates and the Crown Courts to be ready for this procedure. A certain amount of training will be needed. The magistrates' courts will have to know how to transfer these cases and who has to be told. There is an automatic requirement to tell the defendant or his solicitor. The defendant will probably not be there when the pleas and directions hearing takes place. All those things have to be set up.
The other thing with which the Minister may be able to help me, although I would not altogether blame her if she cannot do so today, is that at some time—it would be useful to know when—the custody limits will start to run, because that is of the greatest possible importance in dealing with the transferred cases when they come to the Crown Court. Plainly one must give priority to people who are in custody and one needs to know when the time limits start. That was going to be put in

1579
regulations under the 1994 Act, but since that whole matter has been abandoned we are to have this in primary legislation. I have looked at the new schedule to see whether I could find the provision. I cannot, but I expect that it is there and that it is my own fault for being unable to spot it. I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness will at some time assuage my fears.
Baroness Blatch: The original transfer provisions will not happen at all. As regards the timing of the provisions now before the Committee, the hope is that they will come into force as soon as practicable after Royal Assent.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 128:
Before Clause 33, insert the following new clause—
PROVISIONS CONNECTED WITH TRANSFER FOR TRIAL
("—(1) Section 25 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (power to change from or to summary trial) shall be amended as mentioned in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In subsection (3) (power, on application for dismissal, to try summarily) in paragraph (b)(i) after the word "proceed" there shall be inserted "(subject to subsection (3A) below)".
(3) In subsection (3A) (Attorney General's consent required)—

(a) after "(3)" there shall be inserted "(a) or (b)(i)", and

(b) for the words "that power" there shall be substituted "the power concerned".

(4) Section 28 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (using evidence in summary trial) shall be omitted.
(5) This section does not apply in relation to proceedings in which a magistrates' court has begun to inquire into a case as examining justices before the day appointed under section 172 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 for the commencement of section 44 of that Act (transfer for trial).").
The noble Baroness said: This clause contains two minor amendments to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 connected with transfer for trial. First, the clause remedies a small inconsistency in subsection (3)(b) of Section 25 of the 1980 Act. As currently drafted, this provides that the consent of a law officer (where the prosecution is being carried on by him) is required where the court decides, on consideration of an application for dismissal, to proceed to summary trial in the presence of the accused but not in his absence. The purpose of this technical amendment is to provide that the law officer's consent should be required whether or not the accused is present.
Secondly, it repeals Section 28 of the 1980 Act, which would otherwise provide that any oral evidence given during the course of an application for dismissal may be used in a summary trial in cases where the court has changed from application for dismissal to summary trial. Under the transfer procedure no witnesses are called to give oral evidence. Oral representations have no place in summary trial. Section 28 cannot continue to have any meaningful application. The amendment to Schedule 2 makes the two repeals necessary as a consequence of the second of the two amendments in the clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Non-appearance of accused: issue of warrant]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 21, line 18, leave out ("made by statutory instrument")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [Either way offences: accused's intention as to plea]:
[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 23, line 44, leave out ("made by statutory instrument")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 [Enforcement of payment of fines]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 24, line 8, leave out ("made by statutory instrument")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Remand]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 24, line 21, leave out ("made by statutory instrument")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Attachment of earnings]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 25, line 5, leave out ("made by statutory instrument")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 135 not moved.]
Clause 38 [Acquittals tainted by intimidation etc.]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 25, line 11, after first ("or) insert ("perjury or")
The noble and learned Lord said: I apologise to the Committee for breaking the flow but I wish to raise a short matter that I mentioned on Second Reading. Members of the Committee will recall that Clause 38 is appropriately headed "Tainted acquittals". It deals with:
"a person [who] has been acquitted of an offence, and … a person [who] has been convicted of an administration of justice offence involving interference with or intimidation of a juror or a witness (or potential witness) in any proceedings which led to the acquittal".
It goes on to provide that a new trial can be ordered where that is established to the satisfaction of the court.
On Second Reading I suggested that just in the same way as provisions dealing with acquittals tainted by the accused's interference with jury or witnesses, by parity of reasoning there should be a similar provision for acquittals obtained by the accused's own perjury. That struck a sympathetic note with the noble Baroness who said that the Government would consider whether any other offences relating to interference with the administration of justice should be included in Clause 38 and that the matter would return to the Committee.
The Minister's Amendment No. 140, which is grouped with my amendment, provides that page 25, line 33, should have inserted at the end:
"(c) an offence of aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, suborning or Inciting another person to commit an offence under section 1 of the Perjury Act 1911).
I welcome that inclusion, but I am a little at a loss to understand why the person who himself commits the perjury should not have the consequence of that tainted acquittal being set aside. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The aim of Clause 38, reflecting the Royal Commission's recommendation, is to tackle the mischief of acquittals achieved as a result of interference with or intimidation of jurors or witnesses. As such, the clause's targets are criminals who use money, threats or violence to exert pressure on witnesses or jurors in order to evade justice. The Government recognise that the provisions are novel but we, like the Royal Commission, believe that the particular threat posed by interference and intimidation justifies retrials in these circumstances. As currently drafted, Clause 38 provides for acquittals to be quashed where there has been a conviction for an administration of justice offence in the proceedings leading to the acquittal. These offences are defined as perverting the course of justice and a new offence of witness intimidation contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
One other obvious means by which an acquittal might be obtained by means of interference or intimidation is by procuring or suborning another person to commit perjury.
The noble and learned Lord's amendment would extend the provisions to acquittals obtained as a result of perjury whether or not there had been interference or intimidation. As such, it would raise much wider questions about the application of the procedures. It would, for example, increase substantially the potential scope for acquittals to become the subject of further investigation. No doubt there are many cases in which it might be possible to secure a conviction for perjury because of some deliberate inaccuracy in the evidence given by a defendant or perhaps a witness. Such convictions might be sought more frequently if they could provide a trigger for a retrial.
When a person has been acquitted, there should be a retrial only when there are firm grounds for believing that justice has been perverted and where it is held to be in the interests of justice to pursue such a course of action. We need to be extremely cautious about extending more widely the effects of the provisions at this stage.
On the other hand, it is clearly right that the provisions should extend to a situation where a witness is intimidated or bullied into committing perjury. That is what the government amendment achieves. In the light of those objections, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment in favour of that tabled by the Government which focuses only on
1582
those cases where a witness is intimidated or bullied into committing perjury. I commend the government amendment to the Committee.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am ashamed to say that I have an open mind about this matter. But why should it be an offence to aid, abet, counsel, procure or incite another person to commit perjury and thereby achieve a tainted acquittal but not an offence to commit the perjury yourself and thereby achieve a tainted acquittal?
Baroness Blatch: The argument that I was trying to put was that that would provide an excuse for holding investigations and then a possible consideration of a retrial.
This is a matter of balance as regards the greater good and the rights of justice and the double jeopardy aspect of widening the scope of these provisions. If there is a breach as set out in the government amendment, it is right that that should form grounds for a retrial. The amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, widens the scope of that and we believe that it widens it too much. That keeps alive the possibility of a retrial and thereby gives rise to further investigation. That may then happen too frequently and even give rise to vexatious attempts to have a person retried when there is no good case for it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That does not deal with my question. If I have a brother, which I do, and I encourage him to perjure himself and obtain my tainted acquittal, the scheme comes into effect. But if I confine my efforts to perjuring myself, the scheme does not come into effect. I do not detect any rational basis for that distinction.
Baroness Blatch: We have said that if there is intimidation of witnesses and jurors and subsequently it is found that a person is guilty of having caused that, then there is a case for at least considering a retrial, especially if the conviction is seen to be material to the acquittal of a person who might otherwise have been found guilty.
The noble Lord is right in the point that he makes. But we are saying that that would give rise to the possibility of many, many more retrials. We believe that the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, extends the double jeopardy for someone who goes free. We believe that the provision should be kept narrower. In speaking to the amendment, I said that we should be extremely cautious about widening the scope of this provision. This is a very radical and new move. I believe that it is wise for us to take this a step at a time.
Viscount Colville of Culross: In Clause 38(1)(b), I assume that the person convicted of an administration of justice offence will include the defendant. Therefore, a double jeopardy is already built into the Bill in that respect. It is the degree to which we extend that which is the subject of this debate. Is that correct?
Baroness Blatch: That is the point that I am making. The government amendment introduces double jeopardy

1583
in any event. We are simply saying that it is incautious to extend that at this stage. This is a radical move. For that reason, we believe that the scope is sufficiently narrow. The justification for not proceeding in simple cases of perjury is that it could be difficult—and this is another practical point—to draw the line between perjury and a well-argued but untruthful defence.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she confirm that in Clause 38(1)(b) "a person" includes the acquitted person in Clause 38(1)(a)?
Baroness Blatch: I believe that the answer is yes and I am being confirmed in that view. "A person" in Clause 38(1)(b) could be the acquitted person.
Lord Ackner: I ask that question because it emphasises the illogicality of the point that I was making in opening and which the noble Viscount also made when he addressed the Committee. If we include in Clause 38(1)(b) a person who has been acquitted, then by parity of reasoning, the person who has committed the perjury should equally be included.
If that is the answer, I am surprised—and one must not overdo the surprise because half a loaf is better than nothing—that Amendment No. 140 brings in perjury. I had expected to be told, "You are widening it too far if you are involving perjury". Once perjury is brought in, it seems to me to be astonishing that one leaves out, as a tainted acquittal, the acquittal that has been obtained by the acquitted person's perjury but that it is brought in where that person has sought to aid, abet, counsel or procure somebody else to achieve the tainted acquittal. I should have thought that it is worse for a person's own perjury to bring about the acquittal.
This seems to me to be a matter which needs further thought. I should like to read the discussion on this amendment in Hansard. In so doing, of course I accept the wisdom of the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 140. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 25, line 16, leave out ("there is a real possibility that").
The noble Lord said: These are rather more straightforward matters. With this amendment perhaps we may also consider Amendment No. 139.
Paragraph (a) which we are discussing begins:
"there is a real possibility".
What does "real" add to "possibility"? Can you have an unreal possibility? What would that mean? Would it mean anything at all? If the two amendments in my name were incorporated, subsection (2) would read:
"Where it appears to the court …that, but for the interference and intimidation, the accused person might not have been acquitted, the court shall so certify".
That puts the matter in exactly the same terms but in fewer words.
The Minister will remember that on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said 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 feel very sure that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would approve of my two amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: I should have thought that it was accepted that there is a distinction between a real possibility and a bare possibility. Surely that is the distinction which is being made in the drafting.
Lord Monson: Although my noble and learned friend may well be right, I am sorry to say that in my view we are indebted, once again, to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for his customary zeal for the purity and rhythm of the English language. Whenever his promptings are acted upon—as they quite often are—they result in Acts of Parliament which are somewhat more pleasurable to read as well as being—most importantly—more readily comprehensible to the layman. Therefore, one hopes that the amendments may prove acceptable to the Government.
Baroness Blatch: The aim of the provisions of the Bill is to tackle the mischief of acquittals brought about by interference with or intimidation of jurors or witnesses. The Government believe that the threat posed by such actions justifies being able to seek a retrial of someone who has been acquitted as a result of such interference or intimidation. However, it is clearly important that there should be a sound basis for seeking a retrial in such circumstances.
The clause at present specifies that where a conviction for an offence involving interference or intimidation has taken place, the court may certify that,
"there is a real possibility that, but for the interference or intimidation, the acquitted person would not have been acquitted".
If such a certificate is granted, an application may be made to the High Court for the tainted acquittal to be quashed. The High Court needs to be satisfied that it appears "likely" that, but for the interference or intimidation, the person would not have been acquitted.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, introduces a lower test for triggering applications to the High Court. If the court needs only to satisfy itself that an acquittal "might" not have arisen, there is likely to be a larger number of cases coming before the High Court. That will increase the burden on the criminal justice system which the application of a more rigorous test at the outset would help to avoid.
The present drafting of the clause seeks to ensure that the test which the lower court applies strikes the right balance between identifying as quickly as possible those cases where there is a real possibility of a retrial, and not interfering with those cases which are unlikely to justify invoking the new procedure. We remain of the view that the test for the lower court should remain that there is a real possibility that, but for the interference or intimidation, the acquitted person would not have been acquitted. In the light of those arguments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

1585
I should like to make one final point. There must be robust grounds for applying or subjecting a person to a retrial. Therefore, simply looking for reasons that might give rise to that process is just too low a test.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I suppose that, nowadays, I ought to declare an interest in the matter because there is every possibility that I would, in fact, be the lower court. I normally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, on his drafting of amendments and he has made a good point on this occasion. However, in such comparatively uncharted territory —which is what it is —I should like, as a lower court, all the signposts that I can get in order to come to the right conclusion arid certify accordingly. If the words remain as they are at present, I believe that they give me more signposts than those of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I therefore urge that the Bill be left as it is.
Lord Monson: Before the Minister sits down, can she say whether she is in a position to tell us whether the phrase "a real possibility" appears in any existing Act of Parliament?
Baroness Blatch: No, I am not able to say. However, when courts are making judgments and having to consider whether there is a real possibility that such action might have led to an acquittal, I believe that the present wording provides a more severe test than the one suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. For the reasons just outlined by the noble Viscount, I believe that the present words are more acceptable.
Lord Airedale: I wish that we heard more frequently from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. The Minister always produces a full answer; indeed, she does not believe in leaving stones unturned. I must read the Hansard report of her response. In any event, I would not want to divide the Committee on a drafting matter.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for what the noble Lord said. Of course we too will read the Hansard report of the proceedings. I should add that I have been prompted to say that the wording appears in the Criminal Appeal Bill 1995.
Lord Airedale: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 140 and 141:
Page 25, line 33, at end insert—
("(c) an offence of aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, suborning or inciting another person to commit an offence under section 1 of the Perjury Act 1911.")
Page 25, line 38, leave out ("made by statutory instrument")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 39 to 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Restriction on reporting of certain assertions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 27, line 19, leave out from ("where") to end of line 29 and insert ("a person has been convicted of an offence and a speech in mitigation is made by him or on his behalf before—

(a) a court determining what sentence should be passed on him in respect of the offence, or

(b)a magistrates' court determining whether he should be committed to the Crown Court for sentence.

(1A) This section also applies where a sentence has been passed on a person in respect of an offence and a submission relating to the sentence is made by him or on his behalf before—

(a) a court hearing an appeal against or reviewing the sentence, or

(b) a court determining whether to grant leave to appeal against the sentence.")

The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 143 to 150.
The first amendment extends the provisions of the clause to cover an application for leave to appeal because derogatory assertions may also be made at that stage. The next three amendments clarify the operation of the provisions for interim and full orders. When an assertion is first made, the court will not be in a position to judge whether a full restriction order would be justified. The amendments therefore provide that an interim order can be made if "there is a real possibility" that the assertion is derogatory and false or irrelevant. Having heard the rest of the mitigation, and perhaps having made inquiries, the court will need to decide whether a full order is justified. The Government agree with the Royal Commission's recommendation that the power should only be used as a last resort. The test for a full order is accordingly higher, requiring that there are substantial grounds for believing that the assertion is derogatory and false or irrelevant.
The fifth amendment is designed to limit the burden on the court of establishing whether an assertion, which might be subject to an order, has been made in earlier proceedings. The present draft might require extensive inquiries to be made. That is unnecessary. The amendment makes clear that the test should be that it "appears to the court" that the assertion has not previously been made.
The final four amendments define and limit the points at which orders can be made. Orders will be made just before or just after a determination with regard to sentencing. The amendments clarify what is meant by a determination with regard to sentencing in the various circumstances envisaged in the Bill. They also make clear that it will not be possible for such orders to be made a long time after such determinations. The amendments are all designed to improve the drafting of the Bill. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are, of course, grateful to the Minister for her explanation of this group of amendments. However, I think she will recognise that what she has done is to rewrite completely Clause 42. The procedure she has adopted in earlier cases when she has had completely to rewrite a clause—there have been quite a few of them—has been to take out the clause

1587
and propose an alternative. It really would have been much easier as regards our understanding of Clause 42 if she had adopted that procedure at this stage rather than give us nine amendments which take out huge chunks of the clause and propose new wording for much of the rest. I simply do not have the capacity to redraft Clause 42 in the light of these amendments in the time available. I feel that we have not been well treated as regards the way these amendments have been prepared. There has been concern about Clause 42. The guild of editors has written to me about the overbearing nature of the restrictions and I have no doubt that it has written also to the Minister. I have no doubt the Minister considered those representations. It may be—although the Minister has not said so—that the guild of editors' representations are reflected in these amendments but I have no way of knowing. I am sorry to say that we shall have to return to this matter on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 143 to 150:
Page 27, line 29, at end insert—
("(1B) Where it appears to the court that there is a real possibility that an order under subsection (6) will be made in relation to the assertion, the court may make an order under subsection (5) in relation to the assertion.")
Page 27, line 30, after ("are") insert ("substantial").
Page 27, line 36, leave out ("(5) or").
Page 27, line 39, leave out ("that assertion has previously been") and insert ("it appears to the court that the assertion was previously").
Page 28, line 4, leave out ("decision") and insert ("determination").
Page 28, line 8, leave out ("decision") and insert ("determination").
Page 28, line 10, leave out from first ("made") to end of line 11 and insert ("after the court has made a determination with regard to sentencing, but only if it is made as soon as is reasonably practicable after the making of the determination").
Page 28, line 29, at end insert—
("(9) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (6) the court makes a determination with regard to sentencing—

(a) when it determines what sentence should be passed (where this section applies by virtue of subsection (1)(a));

(b) when it determines whether the person should be committed to the Crown Court for sentence (where this section applies by virtue of subsection (1)(b));

(c) when it determines what the sentence should be (where this section applies by virtue of subsection (2)(a));

(d) when it determines whether to grant leave to appeal (where this section applies by virtue of subsection (2)(b)).")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Reporting of assertions: commencement and supplementary]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 29, line 24, leave out ("made by statutory instrument").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 152.
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause —
("Child witnesses
TELEVISION LINKS AND VIDEO RECORDINGS
.—(1) In section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (evidence through television links) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (3B)—
"(3C) Where—

(a) the court gives leave for a person to give evidence through a live television link, and

(b) the leave is given by virtue of subsection (1)(b) above,

then, subject to subsection (3D) below, the person concerned may not give evidence otherwise than through a live television link.
(3D) In a case falling within subsection (3C) above the court may give permission for the person to give evidence otherwise than through a live television link if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to give such permission.
(3E) Permission may be given under subsection (3D) above—

(a) on an application by a party to the case, or

(b) of the judge's own motion;

but no application may be made under paragraph (a) above unless there has been a material change of circumstances since the leave was given by virtue of subsection (1)(b) above."
(2) In section 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (video recordings of testimony from child witnesses) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (6)—
"(6A) Where the court gives leave under subsection (2) above the child witness shall not give relevant evidence (with the meaning given by subsection (6D) below) otherwise than by means of the video recording; but this is subject to subsection (6B) below.
(6B) In a case falling within subsection (6A) above the court may give permission for the child witness to give relevant evidence (within the meaning given by subsection (6D) below) otherwise than by means of the video recording if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to give such permission.
(6C) Permission may be given under subsection (6B) above—

(a) on an application by a party to the case, or

(b) of the judge's own motion;

but no application may be made under paragraph (a) above unless there has been a material change of circumstances since the leave was given under subsection (2) above.
(6D) For the purposes of subsections (6A) and (6B) above evidence is relevant evidence if—

(a) it is evidence in chief on behalf of the party who tendered the video recording, and

(b) it relates to matter which, in the opinion of the court, is dealt with in the recording and which the court has not directed to be excluded under subsection (3) above."

(3) This section applies where the leave concerned is given on or after the appointed day.
(4) The reference in subsection (3) to the appointed day is to such day as is appointed for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State by order.")
The noble Baroness said: I am sorry if there is some confusion over this amendment. That results from a discussion during the course of our debates on the Bill between my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who is not present in the Chamber at the moment. There was an attempt to arrange a meeting prior to this stage of the Bill but that

1589
did not succeed. Further, an associated amendment is a new amendment and was tabled late. I saw sight of it this morning. A request has been made by my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, to have a full discussion on these amendments. They asked whether I would agree to withdraw my amendment on the understanding they would withdraw theirs without prejudice to the outcome of any discussions. We would be free either to return with our amendments on Report or come to some accommodation in the meantime. I accepted the suggestion of my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Therefore, I shall not move the amendment.
Viscount Colville of Culross: We know what the procedure is but I am becoming increasingly concerned. I shall speak to whatever Motion the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman of Committees says we are discussing but I have become increasingly concerned, listening to the proceedings, about what will happen at Report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has complained about this and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would agree that the difficulty we shall find, if we have to return to the matter on Report, is that we shall not be able to make more than one speech without the leave of the House. The object of a Committee stage, particularly when one is dealing with extremely difficult matters of this sort—I can tell the noble Baroness, if she does not know already, that they are extremely difficult matters—is that one should be able to have a debate and respond to each other's arguments and points. If all this is simply going to be put back to the Report stage and we are not to have any parts of the Bill recommitted we shall be put into a position where we cannot have a proper discussion. Before simply abandoning her Amendment No. 152 and inviting everyone else to abandon all discussion about video recordings, child witnesses and everything that goes with that, the noble Baroness ought to be able to offer us some promise that, if necessary, either the rules will be substantially relaxed at Report stage or that some parts of the Bill will be recommitted.
Baroness Blatch: It would seem that I cannot win today. It has been a long day and I have done what I was asked to do. I was approached by two Members of this Chamber who asked whether I would be willing to have a full discussion without my pressing my amendment. I am in the hands of the Chamber. If the Chamber wishes me to press my amendment, I shall press my amendment. I am entirely willing either to discuss it or not discuss it. I thought I was responding helpfully to two Members of the Chamber who wish to discuss these amendments collectively. If it is the will of the Chamber that I discuss my amendment, or indeed if it is the will of the Chamber that my noble friend discusses the amendments and we do not press them tonight in order to have the debate, I am entirely willing to do that too.
Baroness Faithfull: These amendments, as the noble Viscount fully appreciates, are extraordinarily difficult and complicated. Unfortunately the Minister has been busy and I also have been busy doing work outside the Chamber. Therefore we have not had time to discuss
1590
these amendments. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, thought—and I agreed with him—that it would be in the interests of the Chamber and of the amendments for us to have a discussion with the noble Baroness and perhaps with some of the many people throughout the country who have said that they wish our amendments to be accepted. Therefore it was felt that it would save the Chamber time and work if we did not discuss the amendments today but returned to them on Report after discussions involving my noble friend, her officials, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and myself.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If we are speaking on the business of the Chamber rather than on any specific Motion, I have no desire whatever to intervene in the negotiations which have taken place between the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, her colleagues and the Minister. I accept the conclusion they have reached. However, this reinforces the point which has already been made; namely, that our Report stage will be much more substantial than we had originally thought. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, makes the point that debate at Report stage is more restricted because we can only speak once and we cannot speak after the Minister has spoken. In some circumstances that might be an argument for recommittal of some parts of the Bill. However, I leave that matter to the usual channels. I reinforce the point that we shall need a substantial Report stage if we are to take account of the degree of concern which has been expressed all around the Chamber at the hasty way in which this legislation has been introduced.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: From these Benches we wholly understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has chosen not to pursue these amendments this evening. However, if I might put it this way, if this matter were to be resolved mainly by private discussion—however desirable that may be—between the noble Baroness and the Minister, that would not be satisfactory from the point of view of the Chamber. Indeed I understood when the noble Baroness said that she had decided not to press the amendments this evening that that was partly because discussion would take place at a late hour or at an inconvenient time. I am not talking to the Minister but to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. The Minister is shaking her head. That disturbs me deeply. I hope she will forgive me if I finish my remarks. These are matters which concern the Chamber. They are difficult matters on which I would think there are divisions between Members within parties.
I understood that there was every reason to believe that if the amendment were taken on Report we would have a fuller and more fruitful discussion than was possible this evening. I thought that that was one reason why the amendments were not being moved. However, if I am now told that it is entirely to allow the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the Minister to reach an agreement which might exclude substantive discussion in the Chamber I should be very worried. My reading is one that was acceptable to all parties. I see that the noble

1591
Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is shaking her head in agreement with what I say, and hopes that there will be full discussion in this Chamber in due course.
Baroness Blatch: The reason I was shaking my head in the other direction was because I believed that the noble Lord underestimates my noble friend if he thinks that the only reason she asked me to consider not moving my amendment tonight was that she did not want to sit late in the Chamber. My noble friend has sat late in this place many times debating many issues. While that may not be what the noble Lord meant, it is what he said.
I understand the position to be that my noble friend has put down amendments which interact with my amendment. My noble friend wishes to discuss those amendments because had we debated the matter tonight it would have been my intention to press the government amendment. My noble friend wants more discussion with me informally in my office, perhaps with officials and with others present. I have agreed to that.
As I said to the noble Viscount, if it is the wish to have a debate at this stage I had already predicted that we would be here very late tonight anyway and, therefore, I would be more than ready to discuss the amendments. I have no doubt that my noble friend would also be willing to do so. The outcome would still be that we could withdraw the amendments and have our informal discussions between the two stages of the Bill.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: The noble Baroness is obviously tired, and therefore prickly. I was not being at all critical of her or unhelpful to the Committee. I simply made the point, which I believe is wholly reasonable bearing in mind what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said, that these are very important matters for Parliament. All I said was that, notwithstanding these discussions, which in no way would I frown upon nor intervene in or delay, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will look forward to a full and productive discussion in the Chamber in due course. That was the only point that I made. I am sorry that the Minister took it amiss. I tried to be helpful, as I often do. She must learn that there are Members of this House who seek to be helpful in parliamentary terms, and she must not so readily adopt a position of antagonism to them.
Baroness Blatch: I did not do that. I believe that the references to "late at night", not discussing the matter tonight and reasons for deferring discussion tonight do not relate to the reason put to me for taking this particular course of action. Indeed, I believe that that argues against the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. Had there been a debate tonight, followed by a debate at Report stage, I believe that that would have been even more valuable. For the reasons given by my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I have acceded to their request. However, I remain willing to consider the amendments if that is the wish of the Committee.
1592
[Amendment No. 152 not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 153:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
VIDEO RECORDINGS OF TESTIMONY FROM CHILD WITNESSES
(". —(1) Section 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3), paragraph (a) shall be omitted.
(3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) Where a video recording is to be tendered in evidence under this section the court may grant leave for a child witness to be cross examined at a pre-trial hearing in informal surroundings at which only—

(a) the judge;

(b) counsel for the parties;

(c) an appropriate adult to accompany the child as set out in the rules of court,

shall be present in the same room as the child.
(3B) At any pre-trial hearing the defendant shall be permitted to see and hear the proceedings and to communicate with his legal advisors by such means as shall be laid down by rules of court.
(3C) The pre-trial hearing of the cross-examination of the child witness shall be video recorded and the video recording shall, with leave of the court, be tendered in evidence before the jury."
(4) Subsection (5) shall be omitted.")
The noble Baroness said: I am in some difficulty here. Part of the difficulty has been that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and I had not fully understood Amendment No. 152 in the name of my noble friend Lady Blatch. Our Amendments Nos. 153 to 155 are at variance with the government amendment and we thought that it would be helpful if we discussed the matter first.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, that we should have had that discussion before the debate. However, the noble Baroness has been extremely busy and I have not been in the House, and this has all happened so quickly. I wanted to have the views of the Association of Directors of Social Services, the British Association of Social Workers, Barnados and research workers, but in the short time available that has not been possible. I have the views of some of those organisations, but I want to do them justice in the Chamber. It was for that reason that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and I do not wish to move the amendments on this occasion.
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 154 to 155A not moved.]
Clause 45 [Meaning of preliminary stage of criminal proceedings]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 30, line 46, leave out ("made by statutory instrument").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 [Time when alleged offence committed]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 31, line 2, leave out (" 21(1),")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 31, line 2, leave out (" 32(1),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 159:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—
ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
(". —(1) The power to make an order or regulations under this Act may be exercised differently in relation to different areas or in relation to other different cases or descriptions of case.
(2) The power to make an order under this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(3) The power to make regulations under this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Extent]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 31, line 9, at end insert (", with the exception of sections 28, 29, (Restrictions on reporting), (Offences in connection with reporting), this section and section 49.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 48 and 49 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 161:
Before Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE
TRANSFER FOR TRIAL
Magistrates' Courts Act 1980
1. In section 4 of the 1980 Act (transfer for trial: preliminary) in subsections (2) and (3) (sections of Act to apply where court proceeds with a view to transfer) for "5" there shall be substituted "4A".
2. The following sections shall be inserted after section 4 of the 1980 Act—
"Amendment or substitution of charge.
4A. —(1) Where a magistrates' court is proceeding with a view to transfer for trial the prosecutor may, before serving a notice of his case on the court under section 5 below, make an application in writing to the court for the amendment or substitution of the charge concerned or, if there is more than one charge, all or any of them.
(2) An application shall state—

(a) the nature of the proposed amendment or substitution, and

(b) the reasons for proposing it.

(3) The prosecutor shall serve a copy of the application on the accused if he can be found or, if there is more than one accused, on each of them who can be found.
(4) The court shall set a date for consideration of the application and shall serve on the accused if he can be found (or if there is more than one accused on each of them who can be found) a written notice—

(a) of that date,

(b) that he may appear before the court on that date,

(c) that if he does not so appear the court may proceed to consider the application in his absence, and

(d) that he may make representations to the court when the application is considered.

(5) The prosecutor shall appear before the court on the date set for consideration of the application and if requested to do so by the court shall explain—
1594

(a) the nature of the proposed amendment or substitution, and

(b) the reasons for proposing it.

(6) After considering the application the court shall grant the application if the court considers that to make the amendment or substitution would not constitute an abuse of the process of the court; and if the court grants the application section 4B below shall apply.
Charge amended or substituted under section 4A.
4B. —(1) This section applies if the court grants an application under section 4A above.
(2) Any statement given under section 6(1A) below before the application was granted shall not affect the amended or substituted charge or charges.
(3) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the amended or substituted charge or charges shall be treated as the charge or charges the proceedings on which are to be transferred for trial.
(4) If a charge for a summary offence is substituted for a charge for an indictable offence, as regards the first-mentioned charge the court shall proceed to summary trial and section 9 below and the other provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly.
(5) If a charge for an offence triable either way is substituted for—

(a) a charge for a different offence triable either way, or

(b) a charge for an offence triable only on indictment,

as regards the first-mentioned charge the court shall proceed to the initial procedure for offences triable either way and section 17A below and the other provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly."
3. In section 5 of the 1980 Act (prosecutor's notice of prosecution case) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (5)—
"(5A) Where this section applies to proceedings against an accused for an offence and the prosecutor fails to serve on the magistrates' court a notice of the prosecution case within the relevant period, the court shall discharge the accused; and the relevant period is—

(a) the period prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) above, or

(b) if the court allows a further period under that subsection, that period."

4. —(1) Section 6 of the 1980 Act (application for dismissal) shall be amended as follows.
(2) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) Where—

(a) a magistrates' court is proceeding with a view to transfer for trial,

(b) the accused or any of them gives a written statement to the court that he will not make an application for dismissal with regard to the charge or charges concerned, and

(c) as soon as reasonably practicable after he gives the statement he sends a copy to the prosecutor and to any co-accused,

he may not make an application for dismissal with regard to the charge or charges concerned."
(3) In subsection (10) the word "written" shall be omitted.
(4) In subsection (11) for the words from "; and it" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted "for the offence charged; and if the court does so section 6A below shall apply."
5. The following section shall be inserted after section 6—
"Charge amended or substituted under section 6.
6A. —(1) This section applies if the court amends a charge, or substitutes a different offence for the offence charged, under section 6(11) above.
(2) Any statement given under section 6(1A) above before the amendment or substitution was made shall not affect the amended or substituted charge.
(3) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the amended or substituted charge shall be treated as the charge the proceedings on which are to be transferred for trial.
(4) If a charge for a summary offence is substituted for a charge for an indictable offence, as regards the first-mentioned charge the court shall proceed to summary trial and section 9 below and the other provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly.
(5) If a charge for an offence triable either way is substituted for—

(a) a charge for a different offence triable either way, or

(b) a charge for an offence triable only on indictment,

as regards the first-mentioned charge the court shall proceed to the initial procedure for offences triable either way and section 17A below and the other provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly."
6. In section 7 of the 1980 Act (transfer for trial) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (1)—
"(1) This section applies where a notice of the prosecution case has been served on a magistrates' court with respect to any proceedings, and it applies whether the proceedings concern one accused or more and whether they concern one charge or more.
(1A) The court shall act under this section once it is established as regards each charge as it applies to each accused that one of the qualifying conditions is met; and different qualifying conditions may be met as regards different charges or different persons accused.
(1B) The qualifying conditions are—

(a) that an application for dismissal is precluded by section 6(1A) above;

(b) that the prescribed period for an application for dismissal has expired without any such application, or any application for an extension of that time, having been made;

(c) that an application for dismissal has been made and dismissed;

(d) that an application for dismissal has been made and has succeeded.

(1C) The court shall take each charge as it applies to each accused, and if as regards any charge or charges any of the conditions in subsection (1B)(a) to (c) above is or are met the court shall in accordance with subsection (1D) below transfer the proceedings for the trial of the accused concerned (whether one or more) on the charge or charges concerned to the Crown Court sitting at a place specified by the court.
(1D) The court shall—

(a) make one transfer of the proceedings, however many accused there may be and however many charges there may be;

(b) transfer the proceedings within the prescribed period and in the prescribed manner."

7. In section 8A of the 1980 Act (reporting restrictions) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (13)—
"(13A) For the purposes of this section proceedings on an application for dismissal to a magistrates' court under section 6 above shall be deemed to include any proceedings in the court before it proceeds with a view to transfer for trial as regards the charge or charges concerned; but this is subject to subsection (13B) below.
(13B) Where a magistrates' court—
1596
begins to try an information summarily, but

(a) begins to try an information summarily, but

(b)discontinues the summary trial in pursuance of section 25(2) or (6) below and proceeds with a view to transfer for trial as regards a charge or charges,

that circumstance shall not make it unlawful under this section for a report of any proceedings on the information which was published or included in a relevant programme before the court determined to proceed as mentioned in paragraph (b) above to have been so published or broadcast."
8. In section 128A of the 1980 Act (remand in custody for more than 8 days) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (2)—
"(2A) Where a magistrates' court is proceeding with a view to transfer for trial subsection (2) above shall have effect as if it read—
"(2) A magistrates' court may remand the accused in custody for a period exceeding 8 clear days if—

(a) the court has previously remanded him in custody for the same offence,

(b) he is before the court,

(c) the court has afforded the parties an opportunity to make representations,

(d) the court has stated the date by which the next stage in the proceedings (other than a hearing relating to a further remand in custody or on bail) is required to take place, and

(e) the remand is for a period ending not later than the date stated or for a period of 28 clear days (whichever is the less)."

(2B) The reference in subsection (2A) above to a magistrates' court proceeding with a view to transfer for trial has the same meaning as it has in Part I of this Act by virtue of section 4(5) above."
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976
9. In section 3 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 (application of restrictions on evidence at certain trials to committal proceedings etc.) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (1)—
"(1) Where a magistrates' court considers an application made under section 6 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 for dismissal of a charge for a rape offence, then, except with the consent of the court, no restricted matter shall be raised in the course of oral representations allowed by that section.
(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section a restricted matter is a matter as regards which evidence could not be adduced and a question could not be asked without leave in pursuance of section 2 of this Act if—

(a) proceedings on the application for dismissal were a trial at which a person is charged as mentioned in section 2(1) of this Act, and

(b) each of the accused in respect of whom the application for dismissal is made were charged at the trial with the offence or offences to which the application relates."

General
10. In this Schedule—

(a) "the 1980 Act" means the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980;

(b) "the 1994 Act" means the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994;

(c) "the appointed day" means the day appointed under section 172 of the 1994 Act for the commencement of section 44 of that Act (which introduces Schedule 4).

11. In paragraphs 1 to 7 references to provisions of the 1980 Act are to provisions of that Act as substituted by Schedule 4 to the 1994 Act.
12. The amendments made by paragraphs 1 to 9 do not apply in relation to proceedings in which a magistrates' court has begun to inquire into a case as examining justices before the appointed day.
13. The amendment made by paragraph 8 has effect in areas or proceedings in which section 128A of the 1980 Act has effect immediately before the appointed day (subject to any further order made under section 128A).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Modifications for Northern Ireland]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 32, leave out line 10.
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 163 it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 164 to 171. These are all technical amendments which relate to Northern Ireland.
These are amendments to Schedule 1 to the Bill and, with two exceptions, are purely consequential on amendments which the Committee has already agreed. The consequential amendments are two paragraphs of Schedule 1 which modify Parts I, IV and VI of the Bill in its application to Northern Ireland and are intended to modify those parts as amended by the Committee.
The two amendments which are not merely consequential are Amendments Nos. 166 and 168, which introduce references to transfer for trial under the schedule to the War Crimes Act 1991. That schedule, which will apply only to Northern Ireland once the general transfer provisions (which Members of the Committee discussed earlier this evening) have been introduced in England and Wales, sets out a special transfer for trial procedure for cases brought under the 1991 Act. These amendments ensure that such cases are subject to the disclosure requirements of Part I of the Bill in the same way as other cases transferred for trial. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Of course I agreed to the suggestion that the Northern Ireland amendments should be grouped together. As the Minister rightly said, most of them are consequential on provisions that the Committee has agreed to. However, she drew attention to Amendments Nos. 166 and 168. I have to point out that where the Government propose to bring War Crimes Act cases in Northern Ireland within the definition of notice of transfer, she does so under orders provided for by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which have not yet been put before Parliament.
When I proposed to make provisions on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill which followed the civil evidence legislation which was a day off being completed, I was told, "No, we do not anticipate other legislation". I should have thought that that situation applied here: that it was at the very least unusual to propose to bring on to the statute book matters that depend on orders which, although the Act has been passed, have not yet been placed before Parliament.
Baroness Blatch: I accept the criticism made by the noble Lord. I am not sure whether the situation is without precedent. If the noble Lord wishes at this stage of the Bill that I do not press those two amendments, I accept that. Between now and Report stage, I shall receive some indication as to when that part of the Act will be implemented.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That would be most helpful. I am grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 164 and 165:
Page 32, line 12, leave out ("make an order or").
Page 32, line 14, leave out ("order or code of practice made or") and insert ("code of practice")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 32, leave out lines 39 to 41.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 169 to 171:
Page 33, line 31, leave out from beginning to ("pre-trial") in line 32 and insert—
("In section (Meaning of pre-trial hearing) for subsections (1) and (2) substitute—
"(1) For the purposes of this Part a" ").
Page 33, line 48, at end insert—
("10A. In section (Restrictions on reporting) (1) for "Great Britain" where it twice occurs substitute "Northern Ireland".
10B. In section (Offences in connection with reporting) (3) omit "in England and Wales", and after "Attorney General" insert "for Northern Ireland"").
Page 34, line 2, at beginning insert—
(" —(I) In section 38(6)(c) for "section 1 of the Perjury Act 1911" substitute "Article 3 of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979".
(2)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 35, line 11, at end insert—
("1A. TRANSFER FOR TRIAL

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1980 c.43.

Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

In section 6(10), the word "written".

1994 c.33.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

In Schedule 4, paragraph 26.

These repeals have effect in accordance with Schedule (Transfer for trial) to this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 35, line 11, at end insert—
("1B. PROVISIONS CONNECTED WITH TRANSFER

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1980 c. 43.

Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

Section 28.

1994 c. 35.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

In Schedule 4,paragraph 39.

These repeals have effect in accordance with section (Provisions connected with transfer for trial) of this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Royal Assent
8.25 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act,
Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Amendment Order Confirmation Act.

Bodmin Moor Commons Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eight o'9clock.

  Organophosphate Sheep Dips: Epidemiological Research
  Organophosphate Sheep Dips: Epidemiological Research
  Bosnia: Rules of Engagement
  Bosnia: Rules of Engagement
  HELIOS II Programme
  HELIOS II Programme
  IFOR Operations
  IFOR Operations
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich: Advisory Group
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich: Advisory Group
  Mr. Darrel Gunn
  Mr. Darrel Gunn
  Asylum Applications: Processing Officers
  Asylum Applications: Processing Officers
  Whitemoor Prison: Learmont Report
  Whitemoor Prison: Learmont Report
  Royal Household: Appointments
  Royal Household: Appointments
  Alcoholic Drinks: Effects of Price Reduction
  Alcoholic Drinks: Effects of Price Reduction
  Hyperbaric Chambers
  Hyperbaric Chambers
  Treaties: Ponsonby Rule
  Treaties: Ponsonby Rule
  Iraq and UN Resolution 986
  Iraq and UN Resolution 986
  Iran: International Terrorism
  Iran: International Terrorism
  Syed Ali Geelani and Syed Misbarak Shah Geelani: Human Rights
  Syed Ali Geelani and Syed Misbarak Shah Geelani: Human Rights
  Yugoslav Federation
  Yugoslav Federation
  Greece and Turkey: US Funding
  Greece and Turkey: US Funding
  Gen. John Galvin
  Gen. John Galvin
  Bosnia: NATO Air Power
  Bosnia: NATO Air Power
  Bosnia: Allied Intelligence Co-operation
  Bosnia: Allied Intelligence Co-operation
  GCHQ
  GCHQ
  National Park Authorities: Members
  National Park Authorities: Members
  Valuation Tribunals: Response to Consultation Paper
  Valuation Tribunals: Response to Consultation Paper
  HMIP: Report
  HMIP: Report
  Cable Franchises
  Cable Franchises