Sitting of 20 December 1995

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

Adjournment (Christmas)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House, at its rising today, do adjourn till Tuesday 9 January.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
9.34 am
Sir Peter Emery: On this last day before the Christmas recess, may I wish you, Madam Speaker, a very happy Christmas? Some of us believe that you do an excellent job in the Chair.
The Leader of the House may recall that, during the Prime Minister's speech on the Loyal Address, I raised the issue of the amount of money and effort that Labour and Liberal Democrat local authorities were expending to put forward arguments, when votes are taken at schools, against their opting for grant-maintained status. The Prime Minister said that the matter would be looked at. What steps are being taken? In the county of Devon, there is constant proof that the local education authority and county council employees are making a considerable effort to urge and support those who wish to resist grant-maintained status. Examples in Devon of the great success that grant-maintained status has brought about include Colyton grammar school. It is not right that ratepayers' money should be used for the political purpose of resisting grant-maintained status.
Will the Leader of the House discuss with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment whether the Government have considered the possibility that, where sums have been expended for that purpose, they should be surcharged against the councillors for unnecessary expenditure that does not form part of a local authority's normal expenditure? The matter is of considerable importance. I need not spend more time on it, and I should be pleased if, in the period before the House reassembles, it could be looked at much more fully.
9.37 am
Mr. David Winnick: In the spirit of Christmas, may I too wish you, Madam Speaker, a happy Christmas and new year? If next year I sometimes feel that I am not catching your eye, I shall bear in mind the fact that I wished you a happy Christmas at the appropriate time.
I wish only briefly to mention what occurred last night: once again, the Government were defeated and humiliated. It is important, however, and it would be useful, to have a proper statement arising from that defeat. So far, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has merely made an inadequate statement on a point of
1450
order. The Government must now work on the assumption that the political arithmetic is going against them. They would be wrong to work on any other assumption, as their majority is likely to go down next year, and they will be faced time and again with the same difficulties as last night.
How much better it would be if the Government resolved that matter by going to the country and letting it decide, rather than trying to linger on until the last possible moment, despite all the setbacks and humiliations. It is time for a general election, and I hope that it will come sooner rather than later.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: How many times were the Labour Government of the day, whom the hon. Gentleman supported, defeated in Parliament between October 1974 and 1979? Did they not soldier on as long as they could?
Mr. Winnick: Conservative Members have often told us that that was unfortunate and undignified, and that the Labour Government should have gone to the country. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has said the same. Regardless of what happened in the 1970s, surely it is time for Conservative Members to practise what they preach, given that we have been lectured so often by them. Let the country decide sooner rather than later.
I must raise two other matters before we go into the recess. Not long ago, I applied under Standing Order No. 20 for an emergency debate on cold weather payments, especially for those pensioners on income support. It was not successful.
It is extremely unfortunate that, despite the extremely harsh weather that we have been experiencing, so few pensioners who would have been eligible to receive what is only a modest sum—£8.50 a week—have received it. I checked the latest information with the Library. Out of 55 weather stations—I do not know how the country is divided up and why there are 55, but so be it—the trigger mechanism worked in only seven. What conditions are necessary for it to work?
The Leader of the House will understand all this, because he was involved with the appropriate Department for some time. The weather has to be freezing for seven days and seven nights continuously. If it is intensely cold or freezing for three, four or even six days, as it has been in many parts of the country, but there is then a change in the weather, the payments are not made. It is a daft scheme, which deprives so many elderly people on the lowest incomes of extra money to keep themselves warm.
In the main, it is rare for pensioners to get into fuel debt—that applies as much to other Members' constituents as to mine—simply because they are frightened of receiving a bill that they cannot afford to pay. They do not keep the heating on as much as they should, or as we would do because we have the income to do so. They might heat only one room, or go to the library or some other public place during the day to save fuel. It is a terrible situation, and that is why I applied for an emergency debate and why I have kept on about the subject.
As the Leader of the House is aware, I am sure, percentage-wise more elderly people die here in the winter months than in many other European countries. One can only come to the conclusion that, because elderly people on low incomes suffer so much misery and

1451
hardship, they put their health at risk—they risk hypothermia and related conditions. The emergency payment should be made to all those who would otherwise be eligible. As I said, out of the 55 weather stations scattered around the country, the mechanism has worked in only seven.
Finally, the Leader of the House may be aware that, following the terrible tragedy of the headmaster who was knifed to death, I asked at the first opportunity in the House—on the following Monday—whether it would be possible for the Government urgently to consider legislation to toughen up on knives. They have responded in some ways. I am not merely criticising; I am pleased with that response.
A private Member's Bill—the Offensive Weapons Bill—has been tabled, and there is no reason why I, along with my hon. Friends, should not support it. Obviously, we will have to wait until Second Reading and the Committee stage, and I hope that the Bill receives a Second Reading. The Bill and the response of the House are the attitude that the general public want.
In a dignified and courageous statement last weekend, Mrs. Lawrence, the widow of the head who was murdered, gave an interview to the Press Association. She spoke of her family's deep sorrow, for her children and herself. She also said that she would like it to be more difficult for knives to be purchased.
At business questions last Thursday, I asked whether, rather than the Home Secretary taking a confrontational attitude to the Opposition over this—although the Leader of the House denied that that was the case—the Home Secretary could meet my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) before the Second Reading of the Offensive Weapons Bill to find out whether any agreement could be reached on the purchase of knives.
I understand all the counter-arguments—what would happen about bread knives, and would one stop people buying knives for legitimate sporting purposes?—but we should be aware that there is a knife culture among youths in certain areas. It is almost as if a knife is a part of their dress when they go out. Fortunately for the safety of the general public, the knives are not usually used, but their use for criminal purposes is increasing.
At about the time that Philip Lawrence was knifed to death, a security officer at an Asda store in Newcastle was also knifed to death when he courageously went to the aid of two female employees. We should not forget him, either. Those two men exhibited the highest courage. They could have saved their own lives by acting differently; instead, they lost their lives.
The Government must understand that, yes, we want to tighten up on sentencing, for which there is a strong case—hence my support for the private Member's Bill—but that there is scope to make it more difficult for knives to be purchased, despite all the difficulties. Fortunately, unlike the United States, we have pretty tough restrictions on guns. In some respects, I would like them to be tougher. Fortunately, one cannot simply purchase a gun.
I hope that the Home Secretary, with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, will be able to find out whether there is scope for tightening up the sale of knives, and will take legal advice and so forth, so that one will
1452
not be able to buy the most ghastly knives in shops in central London or by mail order. The weapons might not be intended for criminal purposes, but what guarantee do we have of that? I hope that the Leader of the House will pass on my views to the appropriate Ministers.
9.47 am
Mr. Barry Field: May I join colleagues on both sides of the House in wishing you a happy Christmas, Madam Speaker. I hope that you will take my word for it that no analogy is intended in the fact that I intend to begin by mentioning the royal yacht. I often likened my wife, when I married her, to a sleek racing craft. After 26 years of marriage, I now say that the cargo has shifted a bit.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: It has in my hon. Friend's case, too.
Mr. Field: Yes, it has in my case, too, as my hon. Friend so rightly points out.
I have a slight sense of déjà vu, since we began the year with a campaign for the royal yacht—or I certainly did—and I seem to be ending the year with one. Having said our prayers for the royal family, what more appropriate way is there to start?
The BBC is running a programme on that magnificent vessel tonight. As she is a riveted ship, I do not understand why we cannot keep her in commission for many years to come. She is quite capable of being repaired and kept in good order and, although in her present state she requires a large crew, the manning levels could be reduced with modern machinery.
I hope that I may yet win that important battle because, as has been said many times, the yacht is very much part of the fabric of our nation. There could be no finer sight than the Heads of State embarking on that magnificent vessel to celebrate the D-day landings. One Head of State, the President of the United States, chose not to travel on the royal yacht, and went aboard a grey-funnel ship of his own nation—it did not look the part. If Heads of State of the major countries throughout Europe voted with their feet and stayed aboard the royal yacht, that would be a good way of influencing the Government.
I should like to keep with the slightly salty flavour, and mention last night's fishing debate. I was rather surprised to receive a letter from the Liberal Democrat-controlled council of the Isle of Wight asking me to vote against the measure. In the right-hand corner of the council's notepaper, there is a silhouette of the Isle of Wight, over which it says that it is a "region of Europe".
The Liberal Democrat Members seem to have gone off to Christmas rather early. I wonder if some of the Opposition Members who are present could search behind the Benches to see if there are any Liberal Democrat Members in the Chamber—it seems rather bereft of their presence. Perhaps Liberal Democrat Members have decided that the United Kingdom has become a region of Europe; they are so Brussels-barmy that they have probably gone there for the day.
It is extraordinary for the Liberal Democrat-controlled council on the Isle of Wight to tell everyone that the Isle of Wight is a region of Europe. It even went to the extent of minting its own coins, on the back of which it said that

1453
the Isle of Wight ecu would be introduced in 1996. That same council says that we should vote against the fisheries policy of the EC.
I went to the trouble of telephoning the chairman and secretary of the Isle of Wight fishermen's association, who also approached me about last night's debate. I asked them what had changed since I last voted on the issue in the House. Fisheries policy is, of course, a contentious matter, particularly for Members of Parliament who represent fishermen who fish in the western approaches. The chairman and secretary could not tell me what had changed in terms of the Isle of Wight, but they suggested that I contact a fisherman named Ray Hayles.
I telephoned Ray Hayles, and asked him what had happened. He said, "It is the general conservation view—we are concerned that there are more Frenchmen and Spaniards, and fewer fish." I told him that I understood that, but that the Government had reduced the number of fishermen who can come from the rest of the EC into British waters. I said that I wanted to know what had changed in relation to the Isle of Wight.
I took the trouble to ask staff in the House of Commons Library what had changed, and they more or less confirmed that nothing had changed. There is an incredible perception that hon. Members were voting to determine a policy, but the vote was taken on the motion to "take note", and had little influence. The vote was not, as many fishermen thought, on a motion to take Britain out of the EC fisheries policy. The vote did not make one ha'p'orth of difference to the fishermen of the Isle of Wight. As all hon. Members have long since realised, reality and fiction in the House are certainly not bedfellows.
One of my favourite subjects, which I first raised when I entered the House in 1987, involves light dues. The Government have done remarkably well in abolishing the dock labour scheme. There has been a fantastic increase in the amount of trade to our ports, which were privatised under the trust port legislation. The one remaining problem is the considerable cost of light dues when bringing a ship to Great Britain.
Even more pernicious, all constituents pay tax to the Treasury, but my constituents in some parts of the Solent also have to pay a tax to Trinity house for travelling backwards and forwards to the Isle of Wight. The position is anomalous: in the eastern Solent, the buoyage is controlled by the Queen's habourmaster—the Royal Navy—and no light dues are charged, but in the western Solent, Trinity house controls the buoyage, and has to charge light dues on the ferries coming to and from the Isle of Wight. Just outside Cowes harbour are two buoys which do not contribute to safe navigation in and out of the harbour, but their presence means that the red-funnel service to Southampton from Cowes has to pay light dues for the buoys, as do all day-trip vessel operators, both on the island and travelling from the mainland.
There was a recent inquiry in the western Solent, because Associated British Ports wanted to take over that section of the Solent, the channel up from the Needles, which is unregulated—there is no authority for it, which is extraordinary. ABP proposed that it should become the navigation authority, and I thought that, with some qualifications, that would be an ideal way of easing Trinity house out of the Solent.
Associated British Ports has offered to take over the buoyage in the Solent from Trinity house, but the proposal has been rejected for a variety of reasons. I find it difficult
1454
to understand why my constituents should be placed at a disadvantage compared with those of the rest of the United Kingdom by having to pay an additional form of taxation just because they live on an offshore island.
We have also encountered problems over the years with dredging for aggregate in the Solent. I am pleased that both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Crown estate have given me a guarantee that in future there will be no renewal or extension of licences for the dredging of aggregate in the Solent.
It is remarkable that one of the objections to ABP's proposal, which included maintenance dredging in the Needles channel, was that it should not be allowed to dredge. That objection came from the Isle of Wight council—the same council that refused to support me against New Forest district council dredging the, shingle bank to replenish Hurst spit. That is an extraordinary example of environmental double standards, which seem to infect not only Isle of Wight council policy but some of its councillors.
There have been difficulties in Solent waters in recent years due to sewage pollution. One oyster bed has been closed in the western Solent this year. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has kindly agreed that we should meet the fish experts at Weymouth, which we shall do in the new year. When we have done that, we shall go to see the Environment Minister to discuss the problem of sewer outfalls. Southern Water tried hard to get the Solent waters redesignated; I am pleased to say that Her Majesty's Government resisted that proposal.
All the requirements of the urban waste water directives will have to be met. That will involve building a new sewerage plant with a long sea outfall at Sandown. Local fishermen and the tourist board are rightly concerned that there should be a cast-iron guarantee that the effluent will not wash up on the beaches to create the problems that have occurred in other parts of the country. It is proposed that the sewerage plant and outfall system should serve the whole of the Isle of Wight—or at least a great proportion of it. I hope that the Lord President will take note of my remarks, as it is a tortuous problem; we have suffered for many years from the inadequate Victorian sewerage system around the coast of the United Kingdom.
As a result of water privatisation and EC directives, there has been a massive investment and clean-up. We won some blue flags for our beaches on the Isle of Wight. However, one problem is that the scheme for Ventnor has been delayed; Ventnor has a serious problem, because it has an inadequate system. It was to have a new system, but that has been scrapped because of the redesignation of the seas off the north side of the island, the Solent. I hope that ministerial pressure will be exerted on Southern Water to ensure that it gets on with the scheme, and to guarantee that it is effective.
I now turn to the subject of education on the Isle of Wight and our standard spending assessments. The capping limits for the Isle of Wight council have been raised, and in March a whole series of bids will come in for various functions of the new unitary council. However, a substantial body of opinion on the island is encouraged to believe that the Government have not properly funded education on the Isle of Wight. I take great exception to that, because the settlement we have just had is more than adequate, taken with the savings made by having a unitary authority that we expect from—indeed, were promised by—the Isle of Wight council.

1455
The settlement should be more than adequate to ensure that we have a quality education service on the island. We understand that it is more expensive than most other education authorities, because it is a three-tier system. Given the small size of our population, education will always be more expensive per capita.
I support, and align myself with, the chairman of the education committee on the council. The council should spend all the money available on education in the island, which is mostly good. Obviously, education is our future, not just for the Isle of Wight, but for our nation, too.
On the island, we have had a serious problem with the British Medical Association. It has, on three occasions, run some serious scare stories about the island's health service. The most recent was last week—the suggestion in a television programme that St. Mary's hospital was to become a cottage hospital, and that the single-handed specialties were to be removed from the Isle of Wight.
The story suggested that, in future, we would have to travel to the mainland to have those surgical operations that have hitherto been available on the Isle of Wight. In fact, those operations have been available on the Isle of Wight only since the funding improvements and the general expansion of the health service by the Government.
On Sunday, with my wife, the chairman of the Isle of Wight council and the high sheriff, I toured St. Mary's hospital. We started at 9 am, and my wife and I finished our tour just after 6 pm. I was told by the chief executive that there was absolutely no truth in the programme on the BBC that emanated from the BMA. The chairman has written to the single-handed specialists in ophthalmology, oral surgery, and ear, nose and throat to say that the suggestion in the programme is not true, and that he is awaiting the results of an advertisement for a cardiac consultant on the island.
We have had problems, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know, with community care and its funding on the Isle of Wight. I was shocked to be told on my rounds on Sunday that there was a proposal for the closure of the Totland ward. That ward is operated by the Isle of Wight Community Healthcare NHS trust, and a little lady there told me how much it meant to her for respite care.
The Leader of the House is ideally qualified, because of his previous ministerial offices, to understand the great conundrums one faces in trying to deliver community care. For example, Margaret Condon, who was a patient in that ward and is a great supporter of mine, was worried that she would no longer receive assistance from that facility. The hospital is trying to contract out the service to private nursing homes, because of the numbers involved and the staff ratios. The next person I spoke to, whom I had never met before, was Alfred Chapman, who is 91 and blind. His wife is blind as well. He told me that he thought the time was coming when he and his wife might need a little assistance at home from social services.
Those two examples show the diversity in people's needs and requirements of the health service. That chap of 91, blind and living with his wife, has hitherto been completely independent at home, and has come in for respite care because he had a problem with his chest and
1456
was feeling down. On the other hand, Margaret Condon, who is considerably younger, relies on that type of care all the time.
We will have a unitary authority, and we have some sense of realism about the delivery of community care on the island. We also expect the decision—which I have long campaigned for—on the amalgamation of the Isle of Wight Community Healthcare NHS trust with St. Mary's Hospital (Isle of Wight) trust. We are told that that will save nearly £500,000 per annum.
I hope that the council will not continue to insist on running an entirely separate organisation, but will join in one mutual organisation with shared services, so that we can ensure the greatest efficiency and the most money for patient care. In the meantime, I hope that the Leader of the House will support the staff and the rest of us to ensure that Totland ward does not close.
There is concern about the target formula from the Department of Health—
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not the House suffering a selfish abuse of the procedure? The understanding is that these Adjournment debates are limited to three hours and that each of us should show some kind of restraint. Parading constituency problem after constituency problem is not a proper use of a Wednesday morning.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member who is speaking is entirely in order, in relation to the subject before us.
Mr. Tony Banks: Tedious repetition.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There has been no repetition. If there had been, I would have intervened.
Mr. Banks: Well, it has been very tedious.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would have intervened had there been repetition. I imagine that the hon. Member who is speaking will notice how many other hon. Members wish to contribute.
Mr. Field: If the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) had had the courtesy to intervene, I would have given way to him. I hope that he would have accepted—because he is reasonable—that I have a cogent explanation for my speech this morning.
Since I came to the House in 1987, I have never made an entire speech about the Isle of Wight. I am the only Member who represents an entire county in its own right, and we have a number of problems. Not least, I am the only Member who represents more than 100,000 constituents, and this is the first occasion on which I have endeavoured, and am endeavouring, to make a comprehensive speech about the Isle of Wight. I am sorry if Opposition Members find it tedious: I am sure that my constituents do not. I can tell the hon. Member for Linlithgow that I do not intend to have a similar marathon in the future, having made this speech.
However, I have a number of other, separate points that I intend to raise this morning.
Mr. Banks: Tut-tut.
Mr. Field: The tut-tutting from Opposition Members would be more reasonable if they understood the considerable pressure and work load that having more than 100,000 constituents brings.

1457
I shall continue. Sadly, this week, a policeman was stabbed on the Isle of Wight. I am pleased to say that his injuries will not cause him to be off work for long, but I am sure that we wish him a speedy recovery. I am pleased that the House is addressing the subject of the carrying of knives in public places. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has already—and rightly—raised that subject this morning.
There is considerable frustration on the Isle of Wight that we cannot get our local authority to take seriously the installation of closed circuit television cameras in public places. I am not suggesting that the island needs to be blanketed by them—fortunately, we have a considerably lower crime rate than the rest of the United Kingdom—but many people on the island believe, and I am sure it is a universal opinion, that CCTV can make a major contribution to reducing crime, particularly petty vandalism in public places.
I am pleased that the Chancellor made provision for that in the Budget. We do not seem to be making much progress on its installation on the island, although I believe that the council, in conjunction with the police, will submit a bid for CCTV shortly.
We have the highest level of seasonal unemployment in the United Kingdom, which is another reason why I feel fully justified in taking up the time of the House this morning. In the past few days, however, we have benefited from the single regeneration budget.
There is a feeling on the island that glad tidings are about to come to us from the Government in the form of the assistance that they will give us. The business link has been established, and it is beginning to extend its tentacles throughout the island to draw together all the agencies of Government. I am sure that it will grapple with the intractable problem of seasonal unemployment, from which the island has suffered for so many years.
I still wonder why the Department for Education and Employment, the Isle of Wight council or business link has not conducted a survey of the number of people who commute to work from the mainland to the Isle of Wight. My constituency has one of the highest unemployment rates of all Conservative constituencies, and it seems extraordinary that a contingent of people commute to the Isle of Wight to work. We should endeavour to address that mismatch.
This week, the island's citizens advice bureau received the largest grant of those given throughout the south of England—more than £300,000—to assist its work on the island. I am particularly pleased about that, because our CAB has had problems in obtaining funding locally in the past. I am sure that that funding will ensure that it gives an efficient service to all my constituents throughout the island, and not just those in Newport, as it did hitherto.
The Isle of Wight's roads are notorious. When one drives off the car ferry, there is, for some reason, a large sign, erected courtesy of the council, which says, "Island roads are different", and indeed they are. They are rather corrugated. One former Transport Minister, who knows the Isle of Wight extremely well, said that the island's geological formation is a road maker's nightmare.
We have some serious traffic problems on the island. We have conducted some experiments, such as removing double yellow lines, to try to improve the lot of local
1458
traders who have suffered from the arrival of large supermarkets on the island, which have absorbed a considerable amount of the traders' business.
Like other hon. Members, I am concerned that my council continues to pursue traders who operate on the pavements. Given that the Isle of Wight is a holiday resort, I think such trading is perfectly reasonable and acceptable, and adds to the holiday atmosphere. I am sad that that trading practice is frowned upon where the pavement is wide enough to allow it.
The island recently received a substantial grant from lottery funds for its housing advice centre. I backed that bid, and I am pleased that the Department of the Environment has also given the centre money. My right hon. Friend might like to know that the Liberal Democrats opposed the allocation of that money, on the ground that the centre was also receiving income from Shelter.
That centre has made a considerable improvement to the advice that young people and those threatened with homelessness receive. It has also assisted them in finding accommodation. The centre is greatly trusted by all parties on the island, because of the excellence and professionalism of its advice. It has made great strides, and its professional, specialist advice has helped to lessen the work load of the CAB. I should like my right hon. Friend to pass on my thanks to Ministers at the Department of the Environment for their support in the early stages of establishing the centre.
The Isle of Wight has a number of bids in for the millennium fund. My own proposal, which I hope will be accepted, is for the establishment of a national civil war museum on the island. As everyone in the House is aware, at the other end of the building lies the arrest warrant for King Charles I, which was served at Carisbrooke on the Isle of Wight.
Although it is understandable that no nation would wish to celebrate a civil war, sufficient years have now passed, and we should try to draw together all the artefacts and historic memorabilia from around the country in one national museum. People could visit it to learn about the incarceration of King Charles 1, and how that affected the island. In due course, I hope that that museum could become a national centre of excellence, as well as an archive of that remarkable period of history.
Mr. Winnick: I do not want to antagonise the hon. Gentleman, because I hope that he will support my private Member's Bill. I have already spoken, so I have no personal motive in asking the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the fact that this is a time-restricted debate. He has spoken for half an hour, and if he continues to speak he will deprive many other hon. Members, Conservative and Labour, of the opportunity of speaking. I have no motive in saying that, other than that I think he is being extremely unfair. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that criticism in the spirit in which it is intended.
Mr. Field: It is Christmas, so I will. I also think that it is extremely unfair that Opposition Members get the same allowance for office costs as I do, when, after the next election I shall have almost half as many constituents again as the rest of them. I make no complaint about that, however, because it is a great privilege to be here. I must repeat that I have never been selfish since I was elected in 1987, and I am coming to a conclusion, but I have just two more points to make.

1459
Under the Budget, the relief on capital gains tax was not extended. The yield from CGT has been considerably reduced because of the roll-over reinvestment available on unquoted shares. To combat that low yield, I suggest to the Treasury that, if the relief was extended to allow for investment in housing associations and external loans for investment in private housing schemes for renting—a Budget proposal—the yield from CGT would not alter, but it would be targeted at the private housing market and give it the oomph it needs.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Evening Standard has recently run an effective campaign about the problems of long leaseholds and landlords who take advantage of them. We have a lot of Victorian property on the island which has been converted into multiple-occupation housing and sold on long leases, so we have had problems with leases in the past. I was interested to note that the Evening Standard mentioned companies that were in a similar location to some that had caused me and my constituents considerable problems.
The cry for more legislation goes up yet again. If the Department of the Environment were to join with the Department of Trade and Industry, their combined weight against a company which is sailing very close to the wind would prove a very effective force. They could apply pressure to the directors of the company, and perhaps make public the organisation's activities. That would be much more effective than again opting for primary legislation, and it might well prove a more speedy solution.
That brings me, finally, to the question of deregulation. As hon. Members know, I am the Chairman of the Deregulation Committee, and it is a matter of personal regret to me that we shall not be able to dance on new year's eve—which falls on a Sunday this year—as dancing is prohibited in this country on a Sunday. I had hoped that the deregulation order would be passed to allow people to celebrate the new year, but the other place decided that that was an inappropriate use of a deregulation order. Therefore, I know that this year our constituents throughout the United Kingdom will sit at home cuddling a cup of Bovril instead of dancing. That is very sad.
In the new year, we should examine deregulation proposals and consider giving local authorities the discretion to exercise some of the powers they used to have. In my keenness to vote in the House for a unitary authority on the Isle of Wight and the Local Government Commission, I was surprised to learn that we were also voting for the commission to consider the issue of parish and town councils. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the old days, if a proportion of the local population—I think that the figure was two thirds, but I may be wrong—declared that they required a parish council, the local authority would put that proposal to the Secretary of State, who could then allow it.
I am now told that that is impossible without a complete review by the Local Government Commission. That band of wandering minstrels rumbles around the country while local communities, that would desperately like to have a parish council are no longer afforded that option. A deregulation order could be brought before the House to deal with that situation, and return that power to local authorities.
1460
If that cannot be done, my noble Friend Lord Mottistone in the other place is in the early stages of producing a Bill with the Government that will allow East Cowes to have a parish council. The Local Government Commission envisaged in its report that the Isle of Wight should have a unitary authority. In his capacity as Lord President of the Council, I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that all Government Departments give full force to my noble Friend's proposals, if that is the only alternative open to the people of the Isle of Wight.
10.22 am
Mr. Tom Cox: Hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have wished Madam Speaker a pleasant Christmas and a happy new year, so I think that it is appropriate to extend the same sentiments to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the many people who serve Members of Parliament in the House. I refer especially to those in the Refreshment Department and in the tearooms, who provide a valuable service and who are never fully appreciated for the work they do.
St. George's hospital, Tooting—one of the major hospitals in south London—is located in my parliamentary constituency. It serves Wandsworth, Merton and Sutton, and no doubt people from other areas attend the hospital for health care and other services. I do not question that it is an excellent hospital which offers good health services and employs a very dedicated team of doctors, nurses and other health service workers.
However, like so many other hospitals in London and in other parts of the country, St. George's faces more and more difficulties in its service provision. I am sure that all hon. Members have read in today's press, and have heard on this morning's radio broadcasts, reports about the problems that many hospitals in the United Kingdom have providing accident and emergency care. That is certainly the case at St. George's hospital.
I visited the St. George's accident and emergency department some months ago at the request of senior doctors, and both doctors and nurses told me about the problems they face. The hospital does not have the provision to meet patients' needs. While St. George's has difficulty finding beds for patients, whole hospital wards are closed. The difficulty of providing home care services in adjoining boroughs for patients who are about to be discharged adds to those problems. Unfortunately, the situation has not improved since my visit—and, in the case of elderly people and those who are most at risk, it has worsened.
John Millard, the consultant physician at St. George's hospital, sent me a letter shortly after my visit to the hospital. In the letter, dated 21 September, he says:
"Many thanks for your letter of 15th September. I am so glad that you were able to come to St. George's and see both junior and senior staff who have to work in the system. I will certainly pass your message on to them."
My message was to express my appreciation to the staff for the services they provide in the community. Mr. Millard continued:
"I hope your discussions with both Lambeth and Merton are fruitful. Getting elderly patients home, when they no longer need high-tech medical care is a major problem".
I think that that comment clearly outlines the problems at the hospital. However, it is only one aspect of the difficulties that it faces.

1461
Week after week, the Prime Minister and other Ministers cite figures to justify what they believe is happening in the national health service. I do not doubt that money is being spent, but doctors, nurses, local people and Members of Parliament with hospitals in their constituencies know that many Government changes have created a two-tier health service. I put it to the House that London has suffered far more than other parts of the country. Year after year, successive Secretaries of State have told us that there are too many hospital beds in London. In recent years, 2,500 beds have been closed in the Greater London area.
Hospital admissions in the Wandsworth area are much higher than the national average. The number of admissions for elderly people in Wandsworth is in the highest 10 per cent. of the national figures. Against the background that I have outlined, we have seen funding taken from St. George's and allocated to areas far away from London, which is having a disastrous effect on our health services. That is not only my view, but is the view of senior doctors and administrators at the hospital. The Wandsworth health authority loses money every year. Since 1993, our budget has been cut by some 24 per cent. The continuing reduction in expenditure cannot continue without the serious effects that we are now experiencing. I have discussed the matter with the chief executive, senior administrative officers, doctors and nurses at the hospital. They all accept that this is happening, and it will continue, as will their complaints to me and to the Secretary of State for Health.
Regrettably, a major hospital in south London that provides hospital care for in-patients and out-patients has closed wards, and nurses are about to be made redundant. We all know that it will lead to the cancellation of operations and cuts in services for out-patients. Senior doctors rightly complain to me, and we should give them credit for voicing their complaints about those matters, which ultimately will affect patients.
I sought this morning's short debate because the hospital is still set to have its funding cut in the coming years. Where is the sense in following such a policy, when it is roundly and repeatedly condemned by the very people who are seeking to run the services in that hospital?
My speech is not about the national health service in the United Kingdom; it relates solely to one hospital—a very important hospital that meets the needs not only of my constituents but of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Local people share the deep concern of the hospital administrators, the chief executive and senior doctors at the hospital that there is no sense whatsoever in closing hospital wards that are needed and making loyal members of staff redundant because, sadly, insufficient funding is available to that hospital.
It is no good for the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House, as they do week after week, to say how marvellous everything is in the national health service. One only wishes that was true. Sadly, it is not. It is now time for change. That is what people really want, not some time in the future, but with an urgency to face the need to change policies which are having such a regrettable, indeed disastrous, effect on the standards of that hospital—especially for the people in that part of south London who go there for their health provision.
10.32 am
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I welcome these Adjournment debates, as they give us the opportunity to raise matters of specific concern to our constituents. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Lord President would address two points when he replies to the debate, as my constituents are interested in them.
The first concerns the incident involving the chief inspector of prisons at HM prison Holloway. There has been much talk about the conditions in that prison, and I would be interested to know what my right hon. Friend has to say on the subject. I hope that he will bear it in mind that my constituents have scant sympathy for those serving prison sentences, as they have clearly offended against society. While we should ensure that our prisons are sanitary, they should be spartan, and not have conditions which are not available in our youth clubs and elsewhere.
Secondly, I should like to raise the vexed subject of Mr. Peter Davis, the national lottery regulator. As I understand it, he used free flights in the United States which otherwise would have been paid for by the taxpayer. He has a reputation as a dry accountant but a person of the utmost probity. Having been in business, I know that there is always pressure to save on one's expenses. If that is the context, it is to be commended, but I should like some assurance from my right hon. Friend on those points.
The debate was opened by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who was concerned about the pernicious campaign against parents when they are asked to decide whether they wish to back the decision of the board of governors for a school to become grant-maintained. It struck a strong chord with me, as I represent a Kent constituency.
Only yesterday, Gravesend received a magnificent Christmas present. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced her approval of the application for grant-maintained status from the Gravesend grammar school for girls. We have been dismayed at the delay in that approval, as the parents voted for that change by an overwhelming majority last July.
Eight out of nine secondary schools, and three of the primary schools, in Gravesham are now grant-maintained. The process has been a remarkable success. St. George's Church of England comprehensive school, the first school in the borough to become grant-maintained, has achieved wonderful results by redeploying 100 per cent. of the resources, balancing the staff against other spending, and getting value for money.
I commend to the House the comments of the chairman of the governors, the Rev. Joe King, who is a well-known Labour party supporter. He makes it clear that he values the school's new freedom and has considerable scorn for so-called specialist support supply by Kent county council.
Meopham school in my constituency, a rural secondary school that was under threat of closure from the county council, is now absolutely thriving. Those involved have used great imagination to make the school the core of the community campus in the village.
Only a few years ago, Southfields school in my constituency had the unenviable status of being bottom of the league of schools in Kent. It is now moving steadily away from the bottom as the school rallies round, using all the discretions available to grant-maintained schools.

1463
It is all most encouraging. The grant-maintained schools system is so successful that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the Opposition spokesman on education, is already well on the way to implying that it was all their own idea in the first place. We know that the Leader of the Opposition scorns his council schools in Islington, and has taken his young son right across London to a leading grant-maintained school. It is all positive. We want parental choice, and other schools to follow the great achievements of schools in Gravesham and in so many boroughs throughout the country.
We should consider the action taken by the Labour party in respect of grant-maintained schools. There have been 12 ballots in Gravesham, and in every one the parents voted by an overwhelming majority in favour. However, they have done so against a background of rumours, falsehoods and the spending of £100,000 of council tax payers' money by Labour-Liberal-controlled Kent county council. It is really dreadful.
There has been a great deal of messing about by the county council. There have been land grabs and disputes over land on campuses and equipment. There have even been problems over the delivery of pay slips and P45s to the teachers in the schools concerned.
The Labour party fought and won the county council elections two years ago on the basis that the borough of Gravesham needed more nursery schools. To date, not a single new one has been provided. When there was one such proposal from a grant-maintained school—the Holy Trinity Church of England school—the Labour-controlled county council opposed it. Having said that Gravesham needed more nursery units, it voted down one such proposal because it came from a grant-maintained school. Thanks only to the action of my hon. Friend the Minister, we now have a new unit serving youngsters in Gravesend.
Gravesend grammar school for girls is now going ahead with grant-maintained status. The delays have been caused by the bogus objections of Kent county council, under the inspiration of the Labour party. One of the objections was that the governors arrived at their decision in only 15 minutes. On investigation, we found that they had held two lengthy meetings to discuss the whole matter, and had deferred the second meeting only so as to allow the KCC area education officer time to confirm the exact details of his offer of an admissions policy for the north-west Kent area.
Another bogus objection which was particularly patronising and insulting to my Sikh constituents was the allegation contained in the following KCC letter:
"The ballot documentation supplied by the Electoral Reform Society was made available in the English language only. In an area with a substantial Asian languages speaking population, this will have had the effect of disenfranchising a proportion of the electorate on racial lines."
There is only one large minority in Gravesham—Sikhs from the Punjab, who speak the Punjabi language.
Most of the Sikh community are now second or third generation. The school itself already offers parents a translation service for general education matters, and not one parent has ever felt the need to take it up. Furthermore, not a single student in the school, of Sikh or any other origin, needs English language support on the ground that English is their second language. So this was yet another pernicious example of playing the race card.
1464
Another bogus objection came in the form of the suggestion that the public meeting for parents was not balanced. That cannot be true; the co-chairman of the education committee, a Labour county councillor, attended and spoke at the meeting. Is it thought that parents are so stupid that they cannot hear out a Labour councillor and then make their own minds up?
This was all, of course, a fatuous waste of time, but it delayed the process for five months and endangered the 1996 intake of girls to the school, at a time when parents were facing anxious decisions about the future of their daughters' education. The fact is that the Labour party issues soundbites of approval for GM status, but the reality is quite different.
Our schools in Gravesham have to cope not just with this sort of trench warfare but with other ridiculous nonsense to do with school funding. Last year, Kent county council was given another 2.1 per cent. funding in terms of actual cash, but passed on only a 1 per cent. increase to the budgets of schools—after considerable pressure had been exerted. That resulted in a shortfall of £3.4 million across the county. Weeks later, it was found that—possibly owing to mismanagement—the council had underspent for the previous year by £19 million.
The solution that was obvious to parents and anyone else of sound mind was to put £3.4 million from the £19 million into topping up schools' budgets to the amount that they should have had in the first place. Such a proposal was made by Conservative county councillors, but it was voted down by the Lib-Lab pact, whose members wanted to keep up the party political pressure on parents. Speaking as the parent of three youngsters in state schools in Kent, I do not believe that our youngsters' education should be played around with for party political purposes.
This year, the Government increased the funding for Kent county council by 4.38 per cent.—significantly more than inflation. As education is the top Government priority, the percentage applicable to education is even higher. But what is the prospect of that money getting through to the schools?
A meeting has just been held by Kent county council with the chairmen of governors of schools. At the end of the meeting, just as the Conservative leader of the county council opposition left the hall, up jumped the co-chairman of education—this time a Liberal Democrat—to tell the assembled chairmen of governors that there had been no increase whatever in Government funding. That is game playing of the most inaccurate and damaging kind. What on earth will these councillors do with the budget if their starting point is so inaccurate?
I should like to have spoken on Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, but blocking tactics were used to stop me being the last speaker in the debate, organised by the Labour Whip, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). Hence my sympathy in respect of certain recent comments is somewhat thin. Nevertheless, I want to put on record two points that I was unable to make at the time.
I have some personal experience of immigration racketeers. They charge large fees for smuggling immigrants into this country. In Kent, we see immigrants who cannot speak English wandering around the lay-bys of our motorways, where they have been dumped by these miserable intermediaries. Some immigrants have even been suffocated while hidden in the backs of lorries. It is vital that the problem be dealt with soon.

1465
There are also unscrupulous immigration brokers. Time and again, immigrants have been to my surgery to tell me that they have been led on by so-called advisers who charge huge fees. They take their clients through the mass of regulations, and then try to exploit our generous asylum system.
Worst of all are the immigration marriage brokers. They ruin the lives of young constituents of mine. I give the House the example of a 20-year-old British-born Sikh girl who used to work in a large office. One afternoon, she went to her boss and asked for half an hour off. He asked her why she wanted to go out. She replied that she wished to get married, but would be back in half an hour. The boss wondered what was going on. She said that there was a register office just across the road. So she went off and got married, but she did not much like the look of the man who was to be her husband—and then realised that he was an illegal immigrant.
The girl came to see me: could I do something to prevent her having to go through the religious ceremony? It seems that a marriage broker had arranged the marriage with her father and brother; she alleged that money had changed hands for that purpose. She had only one way out—to flee her home and the borough in which she had been brought up. She had to pack her personal belongings in her suitcase, which she had brought from the office, and flee to London that very weekend—a disgraceful episode.
The marriage broker concerned also happened to be the chief executive of the Gravesend Commission for Racial Equality, formerly the Gravesham community relations council, which had a valuable and long-standing record of service to the borough. The Gravesend CRE branch suddenly closed down. The secretary came to me at my surgery to tell me that she had been dumped with no redundancy money and to ask me whether I could help. I approached the chairman of the defunct CRE, a Labour councillor, who told me that there was nothing he could say. I then approached the one-time honorary president of the CRE, another Labour councillor, who was equally unable to help.
It is odd that this marriage broker and former chief executive of the defunct CRE, a Mr. Gurdev Singh Talwar, was also a Labour councillor at the time. For some months now, the Labour party has been throwing allegations of sleaze and secrecy across this Chamber. It is time that the Opposition cleaned up their act and came up with an explanation of what went on in the cases to which I have referred. I also hope that the press will turn to some investigative journalism to shed light on these scandals.
Another aspect of the Asylum and Immigration Bill—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot talk about a Bill which is already before the House. There will be other occasions when he can talk about it, of course. Meanwhile, he can talk freely about the problems of Gravesham, but not about the Bill.
Mr. Arnold: My Sikh constituents, largely because of their origins in the Punjab, depend for their livelihoods on labouring jobs—they work in construction, on roads, in market gardening and so on. For two or three years, they have been telling me that the pay for their jobs is being undercut by people who will work for very much less. They specifically asked, "What are the Government going to do about it? We know that these people are illegal immigrants and bogus asylum applicants." In fact, the Government are acting, and I support them.
1466
Denton, in my constituency, received a good Christmas present from the Government. It has received nearly £2 million from the challenge fund to support project Denton. Moneys from the single regeneration budget will go to a very old part of the borough. It is an area of small streets, in which a new factory has developed. The factory provides 250 jobs in an area of high unemployment. Comma Oil mixes and bottles lubricants and other fluids for the vehicle industry.
Heavy goods vehicles have rumbled through the old streets of Denton to reach the factory, to the distraction of residents. The clear solution was to build a new highway on the other side of Denton. We have never been able to implement that solution, because the local highway authority, Kent county council, has been resolute in not including it in its programme, despite the fact that the Labour co-chair of the relevant county council committee is the local ward councillor.
As a result of wonderful co-operation between the public and private sectors, a deal has been put together that includes a new road. It also includes training and youth opportunities, as well as anti-crime improvements. The deal is a considerable success. It will ensure that the factory will remain in the area. It was going to go elsewhere. I can now disclose that it would have gone to Huntingdon. I could not admit that earlier, because, if the proposed move to that particular constituency had been known about, there might have been a temptation not to approve our grant! Comma Oil is to stay on the site, and there will be an additional 50 jobs. The opening up of other land will create another 250 jobs.
The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) stirred a memory for me. He talked about parishes and a local population, virtually without exception, wanting to create a parish council. That is the position at the village of Vigo in my constituency, which is currently part of the parish of Meopham.
All the residents—I know of no exceptions—wish to establish a parish council in their own right. The mechanism is to go through the Local Government Commission for England. Unfortunately, given the vast amount of work that the commission is undertaking, it will not get on with the job. I hope that the matter can be re-examined, with a view to finding a simplified way of allowing populations, if they wish, to establish a parish council. They should be able to do so.
10.52 am
Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) should not be suspicious on every occasion about people who nip out from work to get married. Mrs. Banks and I did precisely that. We married and went back to work the same afternoon. She is not, as far as I am aware, an illegal immigrant.
There seems to be a practice—it has almost become a tradition—of Members presenting the House with compilations of their favourite speeches, or perhaps of speeches that they did not make, during these Adjournment debates. I suggest that letters to Ministers or local press releases might be equally appropriate ways of drawing attention to the points they want to raise.
I do not wish to be churlish, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I join all those who have wished you a happy Christmas. Long may I catch your eye, Sir. You might have a happy

1467
Christmas, but after the vote last night, I doubt very much whether the Prime Minister will be able to enjoy his Christmas. I am sure that he would like to wake up on Christmas morning to find all the heads of his Euro-sceptics in his Christmas stocking. He would then, of course, find that his parliamentary majority had disappeared. He is not, of course, able to rely on some Conservative Members these days. I endorse the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who said that the country desperately needs a general election. I suspect that parliamentary arithmetic will force one sooner rather than later on the Prime Minister.
I was not going to be here this morning. I had intended to travel to Zurich for a Council of Europe meeting. Unfortunately, being a practised wally, I left my passport at home. When I reached Heathrow, I found that the British immigration service was more than happy to let me leave the country. I do not know whether that tells me something of which I should be aware. British Midland was superb in arranging things. Unfortunately, those at the Zurich end refused to let me into Switzerland. Who would wish to impersonate a British Member of Parliament these days? That would be outrageous. This episode takes up the theme of illegal immigrants that the hon. Member for Gravesham introduced.
I would not fancy the chances of young Master Tell if I were to shoot at the apple on his head this morning. He would end up looking rather like King Harold.
The debate gives me the chance to raise the case of Mr. Mark Votier. He is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), who is a good friend of mine. She knows that I am raising Mr. Votier's case, and supports me in doing so.
Mr. Votier is a freelance journalist. He was commissioned to film a Japanese whaling expedition in the Antarctic. He was so shocked by what he saw aboard Japanese whaling ships that he released the footage of his film to journalists throughout the world. We saw examples of that footage in newspapers such as the Independent and The Guardian earlier this month. As a result of releasing his film, he is being sued by the Japanese Government's Institute of Cetacean Research for £60,000-worth of damages. Total costs will be another £200,000.
The Japanese are killing minke whales in the southern ocean sanctuary. This year, they will kill no fewer than 440 whales. Mr. Votier went to the area as someone who was not passionately committed to the preservation of whales. If he had been, he probably would not have wanted to go to the area to see what was going on. There are, of course, brave people who are supportive of the anti-whaling movement who are prepared to expose themselves to both dangers and horrors. However, Mr. Votier saw things that appalled him.
Mr. Votier found that 50 per cent. of the minke whales that were caught were only wounded by the harpoon, not killed. The Japanese butchers then put into the minke whale a lance through which they passed an electric force. The force is not sufficient to kill the whale instantly. On average, they took at least eight minutes to die. On one occasion, Mr. Votier saw a minke whale thrashing around for 23 minutes waiting to die while the Japanese put an electric shock through it. That is a whale dying in agony. The Japanese have no right to do this.
1468
We should make a strong protest to the Japanese authorities. The British representatives at the International Whaling Commission met in May. They attempted to use examples of Mr. Votier's film to demonstrate that so-called scientific whaling is butchery by the Japanese. The Japanese vetoed the attempt. They said that the film that the British representatives wished to use—it was shot by Mr. Votier—was illegally obtained.
When Mr. Votier was commissioned, he was told that he must exclude from his film all unsightly tasks—in other words, the sort of things that tell us the truth about what the Japanese are doing to whales in the southern ocean sanctuary. He was told that his film would have to be submitted to the Japanese authorities for censorship.
A spokesman for the agriculture and fisheries division of the Japanese embassy in London denied that whaling was unscientific. He said:
"We need to gather scientific data on the age, sex and population of the minke whales in the antarctic."
He claimed that 400 whales had to be slaughtered to satisfy statistical best practice.
The United States, using the Pelly amendment, has censured Japan for its so-called scientific whaling, and Japan is now 90 days away from having sanctions imposed on it. Incidentally, the sanctions will not affect electrical equipment or cars exported by the Japanese—I wish that they did, because that might concentrate their warped little minds. The sanctions will relate only to fishing, but they are still worth imposing, which is why I am asking the British Government to do something.
I have tabled an early-day motion that has been signed by 113 hon. Members, asking for the strongest protest to be made to the Japanese authorities. The case in Tokyo, which involves a British citizen, has been adjourned until 23 January. It is likely to be postponed again for procedural reasons until 20 February, when a decision is expected.
I ask the Lord President to pass on, through the Foreign Office, our strong feeling that the case against Mr. Votier should be dropped. He should not be prosecuted; he should be thanked by world opinion, although not, clearly, by the Japanese. I hope that the Lord President will bear in mind my remarks, and ensure that the necessary pressure, in defence of a British citizen who was doing his job and informing world opinion, is put on the Japanese authorities.
11 am
Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, I wish to raise three issues. However, before doing so, I put it on record that I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on some matters. I share his views on animal welfare and agree that an international railway station should be located at Stratford, but we disagree about football—he supports Chelsea and I support West Ham.
I was reflecting on the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who mentioned the education of the Leader of the Opposition's child. I was flattered when the leader of the Labour party and his deputy chose to mention me in their speeches to the Labour party conference, but my family is still smarting from the Labour party's delightful comments about me

1469
and the education of my own son. The attack was led by a former Labour Member of Parliament, supported by my defeated Labour rival in the general election for whom no handkerchief is big enough to blub into. However, I do not intend to go into detail about the conduct of those people. I shall wait until the leader of the Labour party and his deputy are present and then put a number of questions to them.
The first matter that I want to raise relates to the Solicitors Complaints Bureau. A number of my constituents are worried about the speed and effectiveness of the bureau. I have often passed on complaints which then meet inordinate delays. I know that the Law Society's new president believes in self-regulation, but I doubt whether self-regulation is in the best interests of our constituents. I am also concerned that the majority of people who sit on the bureau are solicitors. That seems bizarre; I should have thought it was fairer to have a majority of lay people.
Secondly, I wish to draw attention to the Raoul Wallenberg appeal. Some years ago, I introduced a Bill under the ten-minute rule procedure for him to be declared an honorary British citizen. The Bill was not successful so I introduced another, the object of which was to set aside a piece of land so that a suitable monument could be erected to honour him, even though there is still some dispute as to whether he is alive or dead.
I am delighted to be able to say that great progress has been made by the appeal committee under the chairmanship of Sir Sigmund Sternberg, aided by Mr. Lionel Altman and others. Next year, or certainly by the spring of 1997, a monument will be erected to Raoul Wallenberg.
As I am sure the House knows, Raoul Wallenberg was a brave Swedish diplomat who, in 1944, risked everything and saved the lives of more than 100,000 Hungarian Jews. He designed the Schutzpass, a fake document that effectively entitled the bearer to the same protection as that afforded by a Swedish passport, which the Nazis accepted. He did a very brave thing, and I am delighted that a splendid bronze sculpture, to be done by Philip Jackson, is to be erected in the crescent of Great Cumberland place in front of the Marble Arch synagogue. However, in order for that to happen, £100,000 has to be raised, to pay not only for the sculpture but for its maintenance.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will, through the best endeavours of his office, try to secure from the Department of National Heritage a substantial contribution on the nation's behalf to that magnificent sculpture, which is to be unveiled in the not too distant future.
Finally, I deal with local government. Yesterday, the Local Government Commission announced its findings on unitary status for Basildon, Thurrock and other parts of the country. For my part, I have always believed in unitary authorities and very much regret that we have not set about introducing more across the country. I very much want Basildon to be given unitary status. When we examined the matter in the early days, I should have preferred large unitary authorities. It might surprise the House to learn that, although Basildon was very happy to be joined up with other areas, some parts of Essex were reluctant to join up with Basildon. I very much hope that
1470
next year we shall make the firm announcement that Basildon has—perhaps as part of a larger authority—been given unitary status.
In Essex, there is a phenomenon of Liberal and Labour party pacts. The Labour and Liberal parties share a bed on Essex county council, Basildon district council and Southend district council. When the phenomenon first developed, both parties were anxious to see the back of the Conservative party but, since the two socialist parties joined together, they have had something of a falling out.
It is the old story: Opposition parties are adept at articulating problems but they have difficulty in coming up with solutions. When they get power and find that they have difficult decisions to make, there is a falling out.
On Essex county council, Labour and the Liberals have made a complete mess of social services, and care in the community has not been conducted as it would have been under Conservative control. Matters are in such a shambles that the Government have announced an inquiry. On education, Labour and the Liberals have done all that they possibly can to undermine the position of grant-maintained schools in the county. We recently received a letter from the leader of the Liberals on Essex county council, asking the 16 Essex Conservative Members of Parliament to vote against the 1p off income tax announced in the Budget. The Labour party bravely abstained because it worries about votes and about whether such action might make it unpopular and reduce its so-called lead in the opinion polls, but the Liberal Democrats bravely and courageously encouraged us not to go ahead with the penny off income tax.
On extra funding for education, I very much hope that it will be better understood that the Government have put in, as a result of the Budget, a substantial amount of extra money, which will go to education specifically to reduce the size of classrooms. It would be dishonest of any Labour or Liberal politician in Essex to try to deny what the Government have achieved.
What is going on in local government in Basildon at the moment is extraordinary. One is given the impression that the three parties in Basildon are sharing power and agree on everything, but the reality is that Labour and the Liberals vote against the Conservative party on everything. For three years, the Conservatives controlled Basildon district council and sensibly managed our finances so that people's council taxes would not be put up in the future. It has not taken the Labour and Liberal parties long to start wasting that money. Once again, they are setting up area offices. The most extraordinary thing is their handling of local government officers. Everyone in the House believes that local government officers should do their job professionally and not be signed up to any political party. The last time that we had a Labour council in Basildon, the chief executive disappeared, for whatever reason, with no details given of how his removal from office was conducted or, indeed, how much he was given to leave the local authority's employment.
I now find that since the Labour and Liberal parties have controlled Basildon district council, the chief executive, yet again, has disappeared, and his deputy has taken his job—no word of explanation or details about the money that local residents in Basildon were asked to fork out to make that happen. It gets worse. I learnt this week that the previous excellent director of housing in Basildon

1471
is no longer employed by the local authority. Instead, someone who I understood was sacked by the local authority has got his job.
I am not prepared to see those matters swept under the carpet. Given that the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats believe in open disclosure, I trust that Members of Parliament will have a word with the local councillors in Basildon to ensure that local residents know precisely what is going on in relation to the conduct of local officers in Basildon.
The country and the world will be celebrating Christmas on 25 December, but I wonder whether there is any profound realisation of what Christmas day is all about. Does it demonstrate that the country and the world believe in God? I hope that the real meaning of Christmas will be better understood by the whole of the population, because if the true spirit of Christmas is understood and followed—not just for one day in the year but for 365—the country and the world will truly he a better place.
11.13 am
Mr. Tarn Dalyell: Before the House adjourns, I seek clarification on two matters, notice of which I gave to the Lord President's officials, I thought prudently, at a quarter to 10: first, the expulsion from this country of Khalifa Barzelya, the head of the Libyan interests section; and, secondly, the veracity or otherwise of the very remarkable presentation in The Guardian of Saturday 16 December by Maggie O'Kane, which relates to the Gulf war. The article forms the foundation of a programme that is to be shown an Channel 4 on 3 January. It raises very important questions of truthfulness or otherwise in relation to the Gulf war.
First, on Khalifa Barzelya: because of Lockerbie, I have come to know him over the past three years relatively well. I really am astonished that he should be considered to warrant expulsion from this country. In the light of the dreadful murder of a Libyan business man, it is the opinion of Scotland yard that Mr. Barzelya was in no way related to that matter.
I must remind the Lord President that, at Heathrow tomorrow evening, a group of relatives will meet in the airport chapel for the seventh anniversary—they meet every year on 21 December—of that dreadful night when the Pan Am Clipper "Maid of the Seas" came down. They are as determined as ever to get to the truth. It is their view, as they know him, too, that Mr. Barzelya has been greatly helpful. My estimate is that he has tried to improve relations between Britain and Libya, and to help the Libyan students that we still have—although not as many as previously—in this country. I ask, therefore, why he is being expelled. When I ask him, he says that he really has no idea; he thinks that it may be because he has been developing associations with a number of academics and, indeed, politicians. I have to say that the politicians are "undesirables" like the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on the Conservative Benches and myself on the Opposition Benches.
If such contact is really creating trouble for the Foreign Office or the security services, it is outrageous that no explanation has been given. Therefore, I make a suggestion to the Lord President. We have a statutory committee on security. Could Mr. Barzelya's case be
1472
referred to it? I know better than to ask that I should be given some explanation from the security services, but that presumably is why we set up the committee, which is a non-House of Commons body, as I understand it, under the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).
I would be quite satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman were to say, "My Committee and I have seen the evidence and, on the basis of the evidence, the Government are quite justified," but, really, one does want some kind of objective assessment, because let us be clear about how damaging it is. Of course, tit-for-tat, David Hawkes has been told to get out of Tripoli. The Government should remember that there are some 5,000 of our citizens earning their bread and butter in one way or another, mostly in the Cyrenaican desert and mostly for firms such as Brown and Root. They want some kind of presence in the British interests section of the Italian embassy in Tripoli.
I could go on and on about the damage to British industry and to one of our traditional markets. The managing director of Babcock made it very clear that he would not have had to pay off some 400 skilled people in Renfrew the other day had we still had the traditional Libyan order.
No doubt I will be contradicted if I am wrong, but I fear that this has something to do with the on-going Lockerbie business, and the feeling that certain elements in the Government want an easy excuse not to hold a trial in The Hague with Scottish rules of evidence and under a Scottish judge. After seven years, any Government who wanted the truth would surely compromise to some extent, and go along with what has been offered. I have to say that I believe that the last thing that the British Government want is any kind of trial that would bring these matters to a head.
The second issue that I wish to raise relates to the article that appeared in The Guardian last Saturday. I want to ask three questions. First, are the satellite photographs from the Soyuz Karta genuine? If not, what happened in connection with the massive build-up on the Kuwaiti border about which we had been told? When I did my national service with the Royal Scots Greys, now the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, we were taught to read aerial photographs. I am no great expert, but it appears that the aerial photographs that were so crucial during the Gulf war do not show the build-up that served as the justification for that war.
Secondly, let me refer to specific statements that were made in The Guardian about dead babies. According to the article,
"Dead babies are nothing new. During the German invasion of Belgium in the first world war, stories circulated in Britain and France of Belgian babies being butchered by German soldiers wielding bayonets. There's always a dead baby story. The story of how Iraqi troops, in the first days of the invasion, went into al Adan hospital, tore the sick babies from incubators and left them on the cold floor to die, was graphically told to Congress in November, 1990—before a crucial vote—by Niyirah al Sabah who, unknown to her audience, was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US. In her tearful testimony, she said she had witnessed the Iraqi troops' brutality when she worked as a volunteer in the maternity ward.
About 100 yards from the front of the al Adan hospital in Kuwait City is a white two-storey building which houses about 50 nurses. Nurse Myra Ancog-Cooke is a Filipino nurse. Six months after the war ended, I found her still working in the hospital. She poured tea and told her story—a story which for me sowed the first seed of suspicion about the tales and half-truths that marked the build-up to

1473
the Gulf war. A staunch Catholic, she explained that it was her duty and God's will that she stayed to care for the sick. She was assigned to the children's ward and took it in turns with the other Filipino nurse who stayed behind, Freida Contrais-Naig, to sleep in the incubator room with the babies.
'I remember someone called and said, "Look at CNN, they are talking about us." We watched and it was strange seeing that girl telling them about the Iraqis taking the babies out of the incubators. I said to Freida, "That's funny, we've never seen her. She never worked here." We didn't think very much about it really. We were more excited seeing our hospital on the television.' Later, Amnesty, who had also been duped by the testimony, admitted they'd got it wrong. Andrew Whitley of Middle East Watch described it as a fabrication, but it took months for the truth to come out.
Meanwhile, President Bush mentioned the incubator babies in five speeches and seven senators referred to them in speeches backing a pro-war resolution. Subsequently, Hill and Knowlton were unabashed that the media worldwide, the UN Security Council and the US Congress had been deceived by a 15-year-old girl who had been 'trained' by a public relations firm. Lauri Fitz-Pegado of Hill and Knowlton, who prepared six witnesses who corroborated the incubator story to Congress, told John Macarthur, author of The Second Front, a book on censorship in the Gulf War: 'Come on John, who gives a shit whether there were six babies or two. I believed her.' The invading Iraqi army did rape, kill and torture in Kuwait, and that's what the world wanted to read.
Highly exaggerated reports of thousands of deaths were accepted uncritically, as the PR firm, using Kuwaiti contacts inside the country, smuggled 24 videotapes to hungry and unquestioning mass media. The tone was set, and the tide was running in the Kuwaiti Government/Hill and Knowlton direction—war."
That raises serious issues in relation to the role of public relations firms in general, and Hill and Knowlton in particular. In considering our role in the Gulf war, the British House of Commons is entitled to ask the Government whether what was published last Saturday, and what I understand is to be shown on 3 January, is true or false. I have given the Minister's officials some warning, and I hope that the Minister will give at least a preliminary reaction in his winding-up speech.
Let me ask my final question. According to the logs, the British, French and Soviets also detected chemicals flowing down wind from the Iraqis' chemical and biological stations, which had been bombed. This is not the occasion for me to go into detail about the problems of some of our constituents who may have suffered from the effects of chemical weapons; let me simply ask the Government whether they propose to give a considered response once they have seen the film, which goes to the heart of the truthfulness of the statement that has been made by Maggie O'Kane.
11.27 am
Mr. Sebastian Coe: I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak. I shall break with tradition—not, I hasten to add, with the protocol or the great traditions of this place. I intend to speak briefly about a subject about which I have not spoken in the House before, although it has been pretty close to my heart for many years: sport.
If the House will indulge me for a few minutes, I shall set the scene. I feel some concern—in fact, "concern" is probably too strong a word; I feel some nervousness—about one aspect of sport that has been highlighted in the past year or so. Governing bodies in sport—and, probably, the House at some stage—may wish to consider it, especially in view of the forthcoming passage of the Broadcasting Bill. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that sport is important—it matters.
1474
In 1989, just before I left the Sports Council as its vice-chairman to throw my hat into the political arena—obviously, I did not crave job security at that stage—I commissioned some work on its behalf by the Henley research centre, which identified two or three key statistics on the way in which sport was valued in this country. In the late 1980s, about 22 million people identified themselves as being involved in sport regularly at one level or another. I have no reason to believe that that number has decreased; in key sectors, it will have increased. That is getting on for roughly half the population. It is probably one of the most popular activities that could be identified in such statistical terms.
In economic terms, by the end of the 1980s, sport was about the fourth largest employer. It employed more than the car and petrochemical industries and the agricultural sector put together. It accounted for about £3.5 billion-worth of high street retail sales, which had it alongside, and in some areas outstripping, electrical goods and even, for a time, cassettes and other audio equipment.
That is a long-winded way of saying that sport matters and that people recognise that it matters. There is no hon. Member sitting in the House today who does not have sports clubs in his or her constituency. They are either closely attached to such clubs or recognise their work, whether they be in rural areas or in inner cities.
One of the key arguments that has always raged within sport, sports administrations and sports governing bodies—it raged especially during my time at the Sports Council—involved sports funding and whether the funds that were available, through the private or public sectors, should be distributed towards the excellence end of sport or towards its participation end, remembering that the Sports Council's royal charter specifically gave it the remit to increase participation in sport. We recognise that those were and remain key arguments.
Throughout a number of years in sports administration and certainly as a competitor, my belief has been that, in relation to participation and excellence and funding, we cannot have one without the other. We recognise the old pyramid argument that one needs a firm base through which the Daley Thompsons, Steve Ovetts, Steve Crams and Paul Gascoignes emerge. One also needs, however, specifically to target sport at the excellence end, either through our national sports centres or possibly through the development of an academy of sport—a whole range of issues exists here.
We recognise that some countries have targeted specifically and very well. The Swedes produced Bjorn Borg and Stefan Edberg; the Germans, in exactly the same way, identified what I suppose one could describe as a niche market, through which the Steffi Grafs and Boris Beckers emerged. There is, therefore, a gentle and fairly subtle balance in all that.
The landscape of sport in relation to its public face has changed dramatically, even since the time I was serving at the Sports Council. I wish that I had had available to me in the late 1980s the sort of budget that is now available through the mechanisms of the national lottery and the Sports Council grant. At that time, basically, the public face of British sport was run on about £40 million a year, which was significantly less than the Arts Council grant, but I do not wish to revisit old griefs.
"Raising the Game" is probably one of the best pieces of political thought that has gone into sport since 1945 and is something that hon. Members on both sides of the

1475
House agree should be welcomed. In the development of sport, whether with regard to competition in school, the maintenance of school sport, linking clubs—where there is now probably more coaching expertise than in schools—with schools and ensuring that funding is appropriate and resources are available as and where they are genuinely needed, "Raising the Game" was probably the single most important contribution that this place and Government have made for many years.
The general populace's access to top-class sport concerns me. We are not all likely to turn up at Wimbledon and lie in our sleeping bags for three days to obtain tickets for Centre court. We recognise that the majority of people who watch sport at the highest level do so through their television sets. I wish that more people turned up and actively supported sport, but that genie is not likely ever to be put back in the bottle. We must recognise that the main vehicle for sports promotion is television.
One of my concerns is that, if we are to maintain participation levels and excellence, we must maintain people's maximum access to sport on television. That difficult issue must be confronted, given the nature of some of the contracts that are being drawn up between sports governing bodies and television, the balance of terrestrial television and satellite television in particular, and the advent of pay-per-view, which, for the majority of sports fans in the United States of America, remains the most important access that they have to television sport.
Back in the 1950s, we produced a protected list of events. It was ostensibly to ensure that there was no likelihood that one of the key events—the World cup, the Olympic games, the English FA cup final or Scottish FA cup final—was protected from a monopoly broadcast. The protected list was put together to ensure that the majority of people had access to sport at that level. Satellite television is now in the arena, looking to and making hard progress towards the sort of exclusive deal that is likely to cause hon. Members concern in relation to access to some of the more traditional sports.
I was interested to be a bystander—a seated bystander, I hasten to add—at an Adjournment debate some months ago when hon. Members on both sides of the House spoke passionately about the deal that was being struck between Sky television, the Murdoch organisation and rugby league. Your colleague, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Sir G. Lofthouse), is well known for his strong rugby league background. One of my more cherished memories of that debate is of the hon. Gentleman trying to hold back his anger about developments in a sport that hon. Members on both sides of the House, and especially those with northern constituencies, recognise as causing concern.
I hope that we do not deprive the average sports fan of access to top-class television sport. In a few months' time, the Broadcasting Bill is due to be considered by the House and, when it does, perhaps we can visit that issue. Perhaps we could debate it in terms not of strong or tight prescriptive measures on governing bodies or television, but of how they might develop negotiations with satellite or terrestrial television authorities.
One issue that we could visit relates to highlights packages. In a few months the World cricket cup competition will be held in India and Pakistan. The
1476
agreement between Sky television and the world cricketing bodies was for exclusive coverage, but the original discussions agreed that the highlights package would be available to the BBC. I understand that that package will not be available and that means that, for large parts of the year, a generation of young cricket fans will have limited television access to their sport. Of course, domestic test matches will remain on the protected list, but we shall have to make sure that highlights packages for overseas tours are available.
In their negotiations with satellite companies, the governing bodies should carefully consider entering into contractual agreements that preclude terrestrial television showing such packages. It is in the interests of the governing bodies to have the maximum number of people wanting to take up their sport, whether that is badminton, cricket, football or track and field. Numbers are their life blood and, if they are limited, the ultimate price to be paid is that people will turn away from sports to which they do not have ready access on television and will find other sports. I gently suggest to governing bodies that might be negotiating at this moment that, if they are not careful, they may slaughter the goose that lays the golden egg.
Sport is important and it should remain accessible to as many people as possible. It has gained a political status in this place that most of us who were working in the vineyard in the 1980s did not think would come about so quickly. I am grateful for that, but I am still nervous about the other issues.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is just under half an hour to the winding-up speeches. Five hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate and I ask for short speeches so that all five may take part.
11.43 am
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate this opportunity to take part in the debate. This is the season of good will, but on the first Christmas people were too busy with their own interests to care about others, and there was the murder of the innocents. I do not say whether the person who was murdered last evening in my constituency was innocent, but that murder reflects the issue that we must keep before us—there can be a tendency in society to excuse certain events because people might have deserved what happened to them. The House should give a clear signal that lawlessness in any guise is unacceptable in a democratic society. I know that we will sympathise with the widow and children who in this Christmas season have the harrowing experience of such a tragic loss.
Just before the House rose last Christmas I had an Adjournment debate on traffic flows in Belfast. Is the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland serious about dealing with some of the road congestion that remains? One of the blights in my constituency that affects housing and health is the Broadway roundabout for the west link and the Donegall road. Is it the Department's policy not to have flyovers? If it is, it has never been stated publicly. Is the Department concerned about the topography and geology in the area: I understand that there are two underground rivers there? There is also an electrical cable and that causes similar problems. We have

1477
constantly been told that the delay in taking action is due to lack of finance. Are there other reasons that the Department is not prepared to reveal?
I should like to speak about the problem of vetting procedures, especially as they affect people from Northern Ireland. One of my constituents went to Edinburgh university and volunteered for the officer training corps and encouraged one of her room mates to join. The room mate was accepted, but because my constituent had a Northern Ireland background she had to be vetted and, despite letters to the Minister about the issue, she has not been cleared.
I understand the need for vetting, but I also understand the deep hurt that is felt by my constituent's father, an Englishman who served in the Royal Navy for 18 years, and by her grandfather, who served in the Royal Ulster Rifles for more than 30 years. They are dismayed that she is so vetted that she cannot take her place with her friends. The same pattern was evident in a London constituency when the granddaughter of a former councillor and high sheriff of Belfast, who never lived there and whose father was an Englishman, was subjected to long vetting procedures simply because of the Northern Ireland connection.
A colleague engaged an aide in his constituency office and sought to get him a pass so that his bona fides were acceptable here. Although that aide had 30 years' service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, vetting took three months. I am not sure whether it is a matter of job protection or whether some people with cosy jobs, even part-time ones, do not realise the impact of such vetting. Perhaps they do not give the matter the attention that is necessary, although I am convinced that much of the vetting is unnecessary.
I have no intention of delaying the House. I have made my points succinctly but definitely, and I seek clear answers.
11.49 am
Mr. Michael Stephen: I wish Madam Speaker, her three deputies and all the clerks and servants of the House a very peaceful Christmas and a happy new year.
In the short time available I would like to say a few words about Britain's relations with Europe. Britain is a European country, but it is very different from its continental neighbours. It is a maritime country. Our world interests are far-ranging and go back a very long time. Britain is a pragmatic country. Our common law is built on practical decisions made by judges in actual cases throughout the years, step by step—not for us the grand design, the "code Napoleon".
The exchange rate mechanism was a very good example of European grand design that ended in disaster. Instead of trying, as we would have done step by step on a pragmatic basis to build up a system of aligned currencies firmly based in the economies of the countries concerned, the imposition of an artificial structure from above with deadlines and timetables was attempted, and it collapsed under its own weight, as most of us knew that it would. It was rather like fiddling with the oil pressure gauge on a car instead of attending to the engine. Market rates cannot be rigged, as King Canute would have told us if he had still been here. Perhaps it is not insignificant that King Canute was a Dane.
1478
Britain has had to go to the rescue of Europe three times in recent history—in 1815, 1914 and 1939—and, throughout the ages before 1815, Britain's policy has always been to maintain the balance of power in Europe. We have not been pro-French or anti-German. We have not been pro-German or anti-French. We allied with the French if the Germans began to get too powerful, and with the Germans if the French began to get too powerful. It worries me that such a strong Franco-German alliance is developing in Europe and I worry about the future balance of power in Europe. That ought to worry the French, the Germans and all the other Europeans too.
As for external security, it has not been the European Union that has protected us from war since 1945 but NATO, and the involvement of our American allies. Let no one ever lose sight of that or ever think that the Western European Union could take the place of NATO.
We are good Europeans and, as such, it is our duty to advise, to warn, and, if necessary, to say no. A single currency is a matter of enormous political significance. It is being sold to people on the basis that they will not have to pay exchange costs when they change their money. If they think that the banks will not find another way to extract that amount of money from their pockets, they are very naive.
The single currency would prevent us from setting our own interest rates, tax policy, public borrowing policy and exchange rates. Since the economies of Europe would not be able to move in relation to each other by shifting their exchange rates, massive subsidies would be required. It could all end in tears, just like the ERM.
We fought a civil war in this country 350 years ago to place in the hands of the elected representatives of the people the control of the purse strings, and we should not lightly allow that control to slip into the hands of bankers—who have not covered themselves with glory during the past 20 years—and certainly not foreign bankers.
The opt-out that the Prime Minister negotiated for us at Maastricht was one of his greatest achievements. It may well be that if other countries decide to go ahead and form a single currency, we might be better off outside it—no one can tell at this stage. The City of London is used to dealing with all manner of currencies; it would not matter to the City whether we were in or out of a single currency. What matters to the City is the cost of doing business in London—the cost of regulation.
The questions that the Prime Minister put in Madrid were pertinent, and we need answers to them before we can decide whether to take this momentous step. It would be very foolish to rule in or rule out Britain's membership of a single currency at this stage, as the Prime Minister is often urged to do. Although it seems almost inconceivable that we will join a single currency in the foreseeable future, it is a constitutional principle in this country that no Parliament can bind its successors. Therefore, even if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wished to rule out Britain's membership of a single currency within the lifetime of the next Parliament, he could not do so.
I am concerned, too, about the activities of the European Court of Justice. It proceeds by virtue of the civil law tradition, not the step-by-step, pragmatic approach of our common law judges. Continental judges adopt what is called a purposive construction. Put simply, it means that, by basing their judgments on general principles, they can make the treaties mean anything they want them to mean,

1479
which is very dangerous. It means that we are forced to comply with rules to which we would never have agreed had they been spelled out in the treaties.
For example, we would never have allowed the European Court to interfere in relations between the Ministry of Defence and serving soldiers, whether male or female. The European Court of Justice must be put on the agenda of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, and some effective way must be found to clip the wings of these judicial legislators.
I am also concerned about the European Court of Human Rights, an organ not of the European Union but of the Council of Europe. We signed the European convention on human rights just after the second world war to protect the peoples of Europe against gross abuses of human rights perpetrated by fascists and communists. We did not sign that convention to allow foreign judges to interfere in every nook and cranny of our national life, so that we could be told whether we could cane schoolboys in our schools. There are hon. Members on both sides of the argument on caning, but it is a matter for this country to decide. This Parliament is perfectly capable of deciding such matters and it is no business of European judges to tell us whether we can cane our schoolboys.
It is also no business of European judges to tell us whether our courts martial system can continue. It has been the basis of our military discipline and, partly as a result of it, we have some of the finest armed forces in the world. Defence is entirely outside the competence of the European Union and I do not know how it could be argued that the European Court of Justice has any right to interfere in defence matters in relation to pregnant service women or anything else.
There is no such prohibition, however, in relation to the European Court of Human Rights and therefore it is entitled, if it so wishes, to tell us what we can and cannot do in relation to courts martial. I believe that we should make it very clear to the judges of the European Court of Human Rights that Britain will not tolerate interference in defence matters. If the European Court of Human Rights will not restrain itself, we may have to exercise the right conferred on us by article 65 and withdraw from the European convention on human rights altogether. I fear that our own courts are also getting into bad habits. They are being led on by the European courts to make much more use of their powers of judicial review than they ever did before.
Democracy depends on a delicate balance between the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary. British and European judges must resist the temptation to trespass too far into the field that the people have entrusted to their elected representatives.
11.58 am
Mr. Paddy Tipping: I am delighted to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to wish you a merry Christmas. I wish a successful new year to all my colleagues who have remained in the Chamber, although I think that we might define success in different ways.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to return to an issue that I first raised when the House resumed after the summer recess on 15 October. It may be fitting, on the
1480
day before we break for Christmas, to highlight it again. It is the tragic and fatal mining accident that occurred on 12 October at Thoresby colliery in Nottinghamshire.
We were promised an inquiry into the accident. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), said in written replies and correspondence with me that an inquiry was under way. I have also been in touch with the director general of the Health and Safety Executive, who has confirmed that an inquiry is taking place. So far we have merely had a press statement, which the Health and Safety Executive released at the end of October, confirming what we already knew: that there was an inrush of gas, oil and water and one man lost his life. We have not yet had a detailed report on the causes of the accident.
It is essential that the men who work in the industry and the wider community know the cause of the accident so that precautions can be taken and best practice can be put into operation.
Rumour and speculation abound in Nottinghamshire about the accident. Some say that it was caused by old oil industry boreholes, while others maintain that the evacuation procedures were not properly followed. Men who work down the colliery persistently complain that, before the accident, there were severe smells—worse than normal—in the pit.
On the day of the accident, R.J. Budge (Mining), which now operates the pit, did not contact all the mining unions. I remind the Leader of the House that Sir Bernard Crossland's inquiry into the Bilsthorpe colliery accident stressed the need for all unions to be involved because pit safety is a matter not just for management but for all those who work at a pit; no one should be denied the knowledge about the cause of an accident.
It is now two months since the accident and we are still waiting for a report. It is essential that we have one, but it is equally vital that a wider look is taken at pit safety. This is the first year in which the deep-mine coal industry in Britain is operating under private ownership and the record for major accidents appears to have deteriorated. It is common knowledge in the mining community that the number of major incidents has increased over the year. I am told that, at the end of October, the number of incidents was 64, compared with 42 in the previous period when the industry was controlled by British Coal. It therefore appears that major incidents have risen by 50 per cent.
When I wrote to the director general of the Health and Safety Executive asking whether the figures were correct, he could not confirm them. That gives rise to serious concerns because the HSE was set up to prevent accidents and promote good practice. It is not satisfactory that it should be unable to come clean about those figures. It clearly has the figures but will not release them. That is bad practice because working in the deep-mine coal industry is still a dangerous activity. I am not exaggerating when I say that it is a matter of life and death. Men's lives depend on examining accidents and propagating the knowledge gained so that precautions can be taken to stop them occurring again.
I hope that the Leader of the House has listened carefully to my complaints and will use his best endeavours to ensure that the report that we have been promised, which is now two months overdue, is soon put into the public domain.

1481
Most important, I hope that he will read early-day motion 165, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and others, which states that mining records should be kept on a pit-by-pit and company-by-company basis so that we can identify what is going wrong. Those of us associated with the industry know that accidents will occur in pits, but we are determined to ensure that, when a tragedy occurs, we learn from it.
12.5 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wish to raise the case of a young constituent of mine, Neil Edwards from Creswell, who has suffered a serious accident. I promised that I would draw it to the House's attention in view of the bizarre circumstances that surround it. It is a story about declining safety standards in industry, fraud by an employer, lack of regulation and a dereliction of duty by the Health and Safety Executive.
Neil Edwards found a job advertised in a jobcentre to work at a sawmill in Clumber park, Worksop. He had been a building worker and had been laid off, so he took the job. The sawmill was owned by a fellow called Philip Gray and was run on land owned by the National Trust. Neil Edwards had been working there only since 9 September 1994 when he suffered a serious injury. All kinds of logs were lying on the ground and he slipped on one. As no proper guards protected employees from the machinery, his hand went into a machine and he was lucky to escape with his life. He was given emergency treatment and extensive surgery at hospital but lost part of his hand and fingers.
Neil Edwards' employer did not even report the serious accident under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985. As a result, the Health and Safety Executive was not informed of it and Neil Edwards' mother had to inform the HSE herself. It then examined the accident but did not prosecute, despite the fact that, only a few years previously, another employee, Mr. Ryan, had lost three fingers at the same sawmill.
As Neil's employer had not even paid sickness benefit, Neil Edwards decided to claim compensation from him under common law regulations. His employer told him, "Here's a few quid, kid. Keep your mouth shut," but young Neil refused to take the money. He decided that his employer was acting contrary to the law and took action to try to claim compensation. Despite the fact that wealthy people such as Roger Levitt and the Maxwell brothers were granted legal aid, young Neil Edwards was at first refused it. He would obviously never be able to work in the building industry again so he tried to get a few bob for having lost part of his hand, yet he could not even claim legal aid. I intervened and managed to get legal aid to take up the case.
I attempted to get common law payments. As former miners for a number of years before we came to this House, you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would simply have taken action through the responsible lawyers and, as a result, the National Coal Board or British Coal would have had to foot the bill. In this case, there was no money because the employer had not even taken out compulsory liability insurance. He did not pay sickness benefit, did not have liability insurance, had not guarded the machinery correctly and had broken the law because he did not even report the case to the Health and Safety Executive.
1482
The HSE was informed that liability insurance had not been taken out. It could have fined the employer, Philip Gray, £1,000 per day. Under this tawdry Government, who seem not to care—they are against regulation and all the rest of it—the Health and Safety Executive did nothing. It did not even rap him over the knuckles. It discovered that Mr. Gray had no assets, or said he had not, although he has been running a business, making a profit and doing so for several years. The legal aid lawyers said that they were unable to discover whether the man had assets that they could claim against so that Neil Edwards could get proper compensation.
The battle is still going on. I call on the Leader of the House to get in touch with the appropriate Government Departments, which are those that control or have some connection with the Health and Safety Executive, to ensure that it does its job correctly, to bear in mind cases like this when they talk about fraud by employees on the Department of Social Security, and to ensure that Philip Gray carries out the duties for which he is responsible.
As we all know, the Health and Safety Executive is just another quango. We have just found out that the medical wing is to be cut by 25 per cent., and that 14 senior HSE posts are to go. The story goes on and on. That may be why employers feel confident about taking risks with workers' safety. Not prosecuting criminals gives a green light to other bosses who are contemplating taking such risks. If the Government are so keen on law and order, they should look no further than the bosses whom they protect. Deregulating health and safety law for employers is a sure way of maiming more people like Neil Edwards.
Postscript: the Worksop jobcentre has just put another advertisement in the window to advertise Neil Edwards' job. The employer is carrying on. Neil Edwards has got no benefits. It is time that the Government did something about it.
12.11 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a powerful case on behalf of his constituent. If we had had a little more time, we might have heard more details. My hon. Friend was the 13th hon. Member to speak this morning. That demonstrates the failure of this debate, which is part of a series of pre-Adjournment debates. Normally, about 20 hon. Members manage to contribute in the three hours. By and large, it has been a tradition for hon. Members to speak briefly and to raise no more than one or two subjects—that has always been my experience. Unfortunately, two speeches ran to 55 minutes, which has prevented all hon. Members who wished to participate from doing so.
Mr. Harry Barnes: As you realise, Madam Speaker, I am the only hon. Member who has been present throughout the debate and who has been seeking to speak, but has been unable to do so. By taking 55 minutes, the hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) have prevented me from speaking on the state of our democracy. It might have been useful if I had been able to make my speech, so that they could respond. Obviously, they do not act within its spirit.
Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend made the point that I was trying to make, but did so much more clearly. I hope that

1483
the Leader of the House will take that on board and that those who organise our business will do so to enable the maximum number of Members to benefit from this brief debate, which occurs only four times a year before a recess.
I cannot refer to all the speeches—I cannot even attempt to answer what amounted to an Adjournment debate about the Isle of Wight. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) made a powerful case about the difficulties in his constituency and the creation of a two-tier health service. That case has to be answered and is typical of what is happening throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) referred to the difficulties at Holloway prison.
Mr. Tony Banks: He is not here.
Mr. Rooker: That may be so, but I still intend to raise this point.
The hon. Member for Gravesham made it clear that he had no sympathy for the inmates of Holloway prison. If the reports of the past few days are true and all the problems at Holloway prison were raised with the Minister of State, Home Office in July of this year, the situation at the prison should have come as no surprise when the inspectors walked in. Yesterday, one newspaper reported that a pregnant prisoner at Holloway was shackled to a male officer while undergoing an antenatal examination. Is that report about the situation inside the prison and the overzealousness true? That situation is disgraceful. People have lost their liberty. That is the penalty that we impose on them—we do not impose other penalties. If that report is true, it is unacceptable.
The hon. Member for Gravesham also mentioned—and other hon. Members were planning to do so—the lottery regulator and the astonishing decision taken by the Secretary of State for National Heritage yesterday evening. As a senior Cabinet Minister, will the Leader of the House say whether it is true that senior Cabinet Ministers ganged up on the National Heritage Secretary to keep that discredited regulator in his place, to avoid adverse publicity? Clearly, the man has lost the confidence of those in public affairs, who are concerned with the good name of the lottery. It has been an outstanding success and there is no argument about that, but the fact that he appears to have done nothing to stop Camelot selling the names of winners to junk mail firms adds to disquiet about its regulation. That is unacceptable and I warn the Leader of the House that the problem will not go away by keeping the gentleman in his job just to save some adverse publicity. It will probably rebound on this accident-prone Government early in the new year and it will be their own fault when it does.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made a powerful point about the British citizen who is the subject of the vagaries of Japanese court action over the disclosure of the horrific scenes from Japanese whaling activities. The majority view in the House is that the hypocrisy of the Japanese about whaling is well known. They have always lied about the purpose of experimental whaling. It is well known where the meat ends up. The international community has not taken the matter seriously. I hope that there is no even-handedness
1484
or soft-glove treatment on the part of the Government simply because the Secretary of State for Defence is trying to persuade the Japanese to contribute troops to Bosnia. For all we know, it might be, "We'll keep quiet on this, if you help us out on the other."
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Come off it.
Mr. Rooker: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that. That is how things are done—behind closed doors.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rooker: No. I ask the Leader of the House to deny that that is true and to give a commitment that the British Government will take a strong and positive stand against what the Japanese are doing and the fact that they are penalising a British citizen for making it known.
Several hon. Members mentioned education. In the brief time available, I want to raise a side issue, but one that is important. In the past few weeks, many of my hon. Friends have mentioned the position of the 400 colleges of further education, which serve 2.5 million students. It is becoming clear that the 5,000 governors of those colleges are in a very uncertain position regarding their financial liabilities. I must declare an interest as I was a governor for more than 20 years. We cannot get an answer from the Department for Education and Employment about the liabilities of such governors. They are not in the same position as directors or trustees, but they are the governors of a statutory, set-up authority.
Due to the effects of the Budget, some of those colleges will probably become insolvent in the forthcoming year. There needs to be a clear statement that, in terms of public service—these are unremunerated positions, by the way—those governors will not be placed at a worse risk than trustees and company directors. The Nolan committee is considering that aspect, although it is not considering protection for those 5,000 governors. If governors are put at risk because of the refusal of the Department for Education and Employment to make a clear statement, it will ruin the tradition of voluntary public service in this country. It is no good saying, as the Department for Education and Employment has more or less said, that one governor will have to take a test case to court. That is quite unacceptable. Many hon. Members have spoken about education issues, but that particular aspect deserves detailed examination by the Government early in the new year.
Before the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) was elected to the House, many of us sat in front of our television sets and cheered him on as he ran for this country. The situation has, of course, changed since he entered the House, and today it was interesting to listen to him talk about sport—some of us thought that he might talk about fishing. I regret that you were not in the Chair at the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the hon. Gentleman, who is a powerful source for such comments, spoke about the possible television tyranny of sport—I use my words, not his—and particularly cable television's shackling of rugby league players.
The House, particularly the Government, should listen to the hon. Gentleman's warning, which has also come from other hon. Members. Access to televised sporting

1485
events will be denied to millions of people in this country, which is unacceptable. If the Government want to avoid any defeats over the forthcoming Broadcasting Bill, they had better get the Bill and the policy right. There will be support from both sides of the House to ensure that millions of citizens of this country are not denied access to top sporting events, as that would damage future generations.
12.20 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): There has been unanimity on one aspect of the debate: wishing the occupant of the Chair—Madam Speaker or you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a happy Christmas, but no one has seen fit to wish the Leader of the House a happy Christmas. If I were to seek to respond fully to everything that has been raised with me today, I would still be here at Christmas. I do not think that even my worst opponents in the House would wish that upon me.
All our Christmases have been brightened by the Swiss immigration authorities, to whom we owe the presence of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who made his usual vigorous remarks. I doubt whether the Japanese Government would welcome his presence here today as much as we do, but he has certainly improved the quality of our debate. I am tempted to express the hope that the Swiss immigration authorities might have let him in because, as he did not have a passport, our authorities might not have let him back in. As this is Christmas, however, I do not think that I will pursue that matter any further.
I acknowledge that I shall clearly be unable to comment on all the speeches. Various hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), raised important constituency issues and I shall ensure that those points, as well as any others that I do not cover, are drawn to the attention of the relevant Ministers.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) raised a specific point on whaling and I was slightly surprised that he did not know—I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West does—that the United Kingdom has been consistently critical of Japanese whaling for research purposes. At meetings of the international whaling conference we have played a major part in the adoption of several resolutions calling on countries to stop lethal research whaling in International Whaling Commission sanctuaries and for research on whales anywhere to be conducted using non-lethal means, except in exceptional circumstances. We have made it clear that we object to the use of the electric lance in that context. There is no doubt about the United Kingdom Government's position—that should be firmly on the record.
I understand that the legal action in Japan involving Mr. Votier is not a criminal prosecution but a civil lawsuit taken out by the Japanese Institute of Cetaceous Research, if I have the title correct. For the British Government to seek to interfere in civil proceedings in another country would not be easy—it would be difficult enough to interfere in criminal proceedings. I hope that that point will be registered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and the hon. Member for Perry Barr raised two important issues: Holloway and the lottery regulator.
1486
On the subject of Holloway, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, to whom I was speaking about the issue yesterday, visited Holloway last year, and as a result of that visit action was already being taken. In October more than £300,000 was added to Holloway's budget to provide extra staff and fully trained new staff are due to join next month. Senior management at headquarters are working with the governor to set firm targets for improvements and dates by which the targets should be achieved. Yesterday, arrangements were made to send 16 staff on loan to Holloway from other establishments to help ease the immediate problems. I hope that I have been able to give the hon. Member for Perry Barr some information and some reassurance that the problem is not only recognised but is already being tackled.
On the issue of the lottery regulator, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham will have read the letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage to the regulator, dated yesterday, in which she made it clear that she expects him to
"maintain a proper distance from the company"—
Camelot—
"and its constituent parts, and be seen to do so, taking all steps to guard against possible misunderstanding"
of his actions.
In her letter my right hon. Friend drew attention to a number of factors, which I hope the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will, at the very least, bear in mind. The visits to America—the subject of the controversy—took place some months after the award of the main licence to Camelot. I do not think that anyone has suggested otherwise—certainly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accepted that there was no question of the regulator having sought or received personal gain from the visits that he undertook. It is important that that fact should at least be placed on the record.
In the remaining minutes I shall comment on as many issues as possible. My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham made a number of points about local authority spending on what they regard as political campaigning in respect of grant-maintained school ballots. Regulations limit local education authority expenditure on influencing the outcome of ballots. I acknowledge that my right hon. and hon. Friends do not regard those limits as adequate. Shortly after Christmas we expect a further education Bill on grant-maintained schools and my right hon. and hon. Friends may wish to pursue aspects of the argument in that context.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and I had some exchanges about cold-weather payments during, I think, business questions last week and I do not think that I can add to what I said then. I also had some exchanges in the House about knives—I cannot add to what I said then. I shall ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's support for the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and that attention is drawn to the hon. Gentleman's other suggestions.
As usual, I have improved the range of my knowledge during our debate; I am unbelievably well informed about the Isle of Wight. I know the location of every lightship, buoy, sewer outfall, school and hospital and the size of

1487
the grant to the local citizens advice bureau—I shall be unable to cover all those issues. I now know much more about light dues around the British coast: apparently, they are administered by three general lighthouse authorities, including one called the commissioner of Irish lights, which no doubt operates as close to Belfast as anyone can. Fascinated though I am by the subject, I had better not engage in it any further today.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) made a number of points about St. George's hospital —which I believe I visited when I was Minister for Health—and London health services in general. Clearly, I do not have time to rehearse that debate now. As a Member of Parliament who represents part of Essex, I know that the home counties, including Essex, have long felt that the sharing of resources between London and the home counties was not fair. I believe that the Government have been right to tackle that problem and to recognise the need to shift the resources to where the population has moved historically—to the counties around London.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), not for the first time in an Adjournment debate, made a number of references to Essex. I recognise his concerns about care in the community, and I am glad that, following the representations that a number of us made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, he has asked the social security inspectorate to consider the provision of community care in Essex.
I have made at least as many comments as I could have been expected to make in such a short time. I think I have done rather well. Even though nobody wished me a happy Christmas, I wish everyone a happy Christmas.

International Station (Stratford)
12.29 pm
Mr. Stephen Timms: Our most recent full debate on this topic was on the day before the Christmas recess in 1994, although it was at a somewhat less congenial hour—about 4.30 am. This shorter debate today gives us an opportunity to review the progress since then.
The then Secretary of State for Transport announced in 1991 that the channel tunnel rail link would run through east London, because it would bring regeneration to east London. If there were to be no station in east London, however, there would be no regeneration, either. In good faith, the Government should honour the commitment they made in choosing the route for the channel tunnel rail link.
The transport case for the Stratford station is a compelling one. Stratford is a better station location for users of the rail link based in east and much of south London. Given the Jubilee line extension, Stratford is better for users from Westminster, and for users from the City, Essex and East Anglia. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) in his place this morning, and that hon. Members from Essex and East Anglia have signed early-day motion 126.
The Thames Gateway Partnership was launched in the City at the European bank for reconstruction and development on 1 December. The event was extremely well attended, and it was distinguished by the strong support voiced for an international station at Stratford in the speeches of both the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, and Mr. Neil Kinnock, the European Transport Commissioner.
I wish to highlight the developments since the previous debate, because they have powerfully advanced the case for Stratford. I shall concentrate on just two: first, the July report of the Select Committee on Transport; secondly, the publication of the London Pride Partnership's transport action programme.
The Select Committee, after its exhaustive deliberations, gave a ringing endorsement to the Stratford proposal. It identified the national and regional importance of the Stratford proposal and urged that the necessary powers for the station under the transport and works legislation should be obtained as soon as possible. That was a welcome and important decision, which recognised the case for Stratford at national level, which we had not previously achieved. We debated that report last summer.
The second development I wish to highlight is the launch of the London Pride programme last month. That was significant, because of the breadth of support it has achieved from local government and the business sector in London. The transport action programme that London Pride has produced represents a remarkable consensus among all those concerned about the future of London.
In the foreword to the programme, signed by Lord Sheppard and Toby Harris, the leader of Haringey council and chairman of the Association of London Authorities, one of the main priorities of the programme of action is
"the award of the concession for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link with an international station at Stratford".

1489
All the London boroughs, London First, the Confederation of British Industry and the London chamber of commerce have recognised the Stratford station decision as one of the keys to the future of transport in London. As the Stratford promoter group has shown, the proposal can be achieved at no cost to Government.
One of the benefits of the Stratford station proposal is the excellent onward connections that Stratford can offer to the north. The Minister may be aware that the proposal, in its initial form, for additional tunnelling at Islington—which I support—could jeopardise some of those connections. Newham council, of which I am still a member, is working with the London borough of Islington on a proposal that would give the extra protection in Islington that the Select Committee advocated, without jeopardising Stratford's link to the west coast main line.
When we debated this topic at 4.30 am a year ago, the Minister intimated that a final decision would be announced in spring 1995. We have not yet had that decision, and I understand that there will be a decision in January. I appeal to the Minister to make a real and substantial decision. Some people are saying that the Government will duck the issue, by leaving it to somebody else to make the decision. It is a priority for the capital, as London Pride has demonstrated, and it is important to the national interest, as the Select Committee has shown.
This matter cannot be left to the vagaries of purely commercial decision-making. The Government need to make this decision; they have always suggested that they will; and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm today that that remains their intention. The Government should now resolve swiftly, clearly and unequivocally in favour of Stratford International.
Mr. David Amess: Unfortunately, I am advised that the procedures of the House mean that, as I have already spoken this morning, I cannot make a separate speech. However, I can intervene.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) understands my personal commitment to Newham. As the House has become tired of hearing, it is the place where I was born, and I still have family there. The case for having the international railway station at Stratford is very strong. There is enormous support from Conservative Members of Parliament in Essex and in East Anglia for having the international railway station at Stratford.
From my point of view, on the Conservative Benches, I am very proud that the Conservative Government built the channel tunnel, and I am very proud of what they did in the London docklands. I believe fundamentally that the case for the international railway station being at Stratford will enhance the success of the docklands. There will be an enormous benefit for constituents in Essex and East Anglia if we have the railway station at Stratford.
Does the hon. Member join me in hoping that my hon. Friend the Minister will give the House a Christmas present by announcing in the new year that the railway station will be at Stratford?
Mr. Timms: I gladly endorse many of the points that the hon. Member has made, especially the last one about the aspiration for a Christmas present from the Minister. I gladly acknowledge and put on the record the long-standing and unwavering support that the hon.
1490
Member has given to the interests of Newham and to the case for the international station at Stratford. I agree with his assessment of the importance of this proposal, not just for east London, but for Essex and East Anglia. I have already said that I especially appreciate the support that many Conservative Members have given to the proposals by signing the early-day motion.
The channel tunnel was built by a private sector organisation rather than by the Government, but I agree with the hon. Member for Basildon that it is an important element of our infrastructure. We need to ensure that it brings benefit not just to London, but to Essex and East Anglia. An international station at Stratford would help to make that possible.
Mr. Tony Banks: Stratford is in my constituency, but I am in favour of the proposed international station not because of a narrow constituency interest, but because, as my hon. Friend has rightly said, the project involves all London. I am glad that the three Members who represent Newham, together with supporters on the Government Benches, have worked together on the campaign for Stratford international station.
Does my hon. Friend agree that that campaign is an example of the public and private sectors working together? Organisations across London of all political persuasions have said that the station should be located at Stratford, as have Conservative Members. Is that not a perfect example of a co-operative venture? Does my hon. Friend agree that that should impress the Government? Given the enormous support across the House and across London and the south-east for the station to be located at Stratford, we cannot understand why it has taken the Government so long to make a decision.
Mr. Timms: I agree. I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend is with us this morning, and I know that to some extent we owe that to the immigration authorities at Zurich.
A year ago, the Minister acknowledged the impressive nature of the public-private sector partnership which supports the Stratford proposal. I agree with my hon. Friend: I hope that the Minister and the Government will swiftly make the decision for which so many of us have been pressing for such a long time.
12.41 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am glad to join my hon. Friends from Newham, and the support from Basildon of all places, in praising a multi-party, multi-beneficial investment in public transport. I say "public transport" even though there may be a slightly different emphasis on the manner in which it is funded. That is now less important than the principle.
I am also glad to support the Stratford proposal because I can support, surprisingly enough, two aspects of Government policy that are intimately connected with it. That may sound strange, but it is absolutely true.
The first policy with which I agree is the provision of the station works at Stratford without cost to the public purse. That will not come under the various formulae that we have talked about or the private finance initiative, but it will be funded by the Stratford Development Partnership and those in the area who are willing to provide the capital for the station inside the concrete box

1491
that is part of the works that have been agreed. That is wholly in line with the Government's policy of private enterprise, and development from private means. On this occasion at least, the Opposition have no objection to that.
The second aspect of Government policy with which I agree is something that I heard the Secretary of State for Transport, no less, express only this morning on "Today"—a programme which often reflects, or perhaps leads, rightly or wrongly, what happens in the Chamber. He said that the Government want more and more people to travel by rail. That is good news, particularly when congestion is caused by cars and other traffic in Greater London. A station at Stratford would contribute not just to international facilities but to traffic flow in Greater London. We all know that people choose to travel by the underground not just because of the time saved, but because of the convenience of it.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Stratford location is truly extraordinary. Whether trains from the channel tunnel rail link will eventually stop there or not, the existing rail network from Stratford is considerable. Fortunately, I have time to spell out the links from Stratford to other parts of Greater London. One can travel around the North London link to Richmond, Cambridge and beyond, to Stansted airport.
Stratford is linked to two branches of the Central line, one to Epping and one to Hainault. It is linked to two, possibly three branches of the Great Eastern line to Southend, Clacton, Chelmsford and Norwich. It is also possible to take a night service from Stratford to Barking and Southend, and indeed to Basildon by another route.
In future, there may be a permanent service operating every half an hour from Stratford to the royal docks, and beyond, under the Thames, to Woolwich and north Kent, should the proposed link be built. At the moment, it is perfectly possible to travel to north Woolwich and the important development and exhibition centres and the university college of East London at the royal docks.
Stratford will also be connected to the Jubilee line, on which it will be possible to travel to London Bridge, Waterloo, Westminster, central London and beyond. Stratford is also on the docklands light railway, which connects to Canary Wharf, which is an important development, whatever one may think of it. It may well be possible, should that line be extended, to travel on to Lewisham.
Stratford is also on the Central line, and is thus linked to central London through the Oxford street access. In addition, if crossrail is built, that would add a through line to Paddington, London airport, Reading and perhaps as far south as Bristol or Exeter. Such is the network to which Stratford has, or is soon likely to have, access.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I do not want to pour cold water on the comments of the hon. Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who have said that passengers from south London and Kent would be able to use Stratford station, but may I remind them that Ebbsfleet international station has already been approved for the route? Due to the excellence of the South Eastern Railway Company, it will be able to cater precisely for those people from south London and Kent. That does not detract, however, from the advantages of Stratford to Essex and north London.
Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member speaks for north Kent, and Ebbsfleet will be a valuable link on the network. We all know that there are breakdowns on every line for good or bad reasons. If trains have to stop at Ebbsfleet, it may be possible to change to alternative routes. It is to those alternatives that I wish to refer.
The channel tunnel rail link should go to King's Cross and St. Pancras by some means or another. Many visitors to London get taxis from King's Cross or St. Pancras to their hotels or an exhibition centre, so they are the preferable stations to which the rail link should go. A station at Stratford would also offer additional access to the channel tunnel rail link to many people in Greater London through designated trains or routes, and could provide luggage facilities for passengers. If things go wrong—they go wrong in the best regulated circumstances—trains have to be reversed from a station further out—for example, Reading. A station at Stratford would offer an additional facility to cope with such problems.
I believe that the choice of Stratford would add to the returns of traffic on the route. We know that the rail link has been subject to financial difficulties, so I suggest to the Minister that everything points to supporting the works order, and thus creating a station at Stratford.
12.47 pm
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House again. As he reminded us, we last debated it a year ago, at a less sociable hour. I know that he and many other hon. Members have campaigned long and vigorously for an intermediate station at Stratford. I understand their concern and impatience that a decision should be made without further delay. I therefore welcome the opportunity to inform the House of the current position on the proposal.
On the occasion of our previous debate, I explained the process by which the Government had reached decisions to date about intermediate stations on the rail link. I described the position as it then stood, and how we saw things moving forward to a final decision. I also acknowledged that an international station would assist the regeneration of the Stratford area. I also drew attention, however, to the need to be sure that there was a good economic case for it.
At that time, we were hopeful that we would be able to reach a decision in the early part of this year. In the event, the nature and complexity of the bids received from the consortia bidding to construct and operate the rail link, and their proposals for a possible Stratford station, meant that that decision has had to be delayed. I do not apologise for that, because the Government have to be sure that they make the right decision on the basis of all the necessary information. The important thing is that no time has been wasted in the process of reaching a decision.
The Government and the two short-listed consortia have had the opportunity to address the concerns expressed in the various recommendations of the Select Committee on Transport, which considered the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister said that the Government must ensure that they make the right

1493
decision. When reaching a decision about Stratford, will the Minister take into account strategic reasons, or will he look only at the commercial case put by the developers? He said that the Government must make the right decision. What factors will influence the Government?
Mr. Watts: I shall come to that issue in a moment. The Government will be influenced by a broad range of factors, including some of those to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded.
The Stratford promoter group has continued to lobby very hard, and there have been a number of meetings with Ministers. I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that it is an excellent example of public sector and private sector co-operation, the like of which we are seeing increasingly in London and around the country.
The group made presentations both to the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), and to me in February. I also had the pleasure of accepting an invitation to visit Stratford in March on a very wet day, and I was impressed by the strength of support from the local community. More recently, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), has also met representatives of the group.
The group has argued that patronage of, and therefore revenue from, the CTRL would be increased, that the station could be built at no cost to the Government, and that there would be substantial regeneration benefits. It has argued strongly that the total realised from the sale of development lands in the area would exceed the cost of providing the station, and that the site offers the prospect of a major new public transport interchange of national and international significance. It is accepted that Stratford is now an extremely important public transport interchange, and I can see advantages in expanding that role. I know, too, that a great deal of work has been done in estimating land values and on associated planning issues.
The promoter group's funding proposals rely heavily on income to be derived from the sale of development lands—the Stratford railway lands. The Government have always reserved the right to consider other funding approaches and have invited the CTRL bidders to put forward alternative funding proposals if they so wish.
However, in order to ensure that the approach of the station promoter group remains viable, the Government undertook to ensure that the Stratford railway lands should remain available pending a decision on the future of the station. Concern has been expressed from time to time as to whether that is still the case, and I am happy to confirm the assurances that I and other Ministers have given, that there will be no piecemeal disposals and that the Stratford railway lands will remain fully available until a decision on the station is made.
Mr. Timms: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. In raising again the decision about Stratford, do the Government intend to decide for or against the Stratford station, or will they allow someone else to make the decision? I urge the Minister to assure the House that the Government will make that decision.
Mr. Watts: I shall come to that issue. We might make a decision in favour of the station, but we shall not make a decision against it. I will explain that comment later. I assure hon. Members that we shall certainly not duck a decision.
1494
The Government will decide shortly whether a Stratford station should be provided now, and, if so, whether it should be a combined international and domestic station or an international station only. The possibility of having a station at some point in the future has already been secured as a result of the Government's acceptance this summer of the recommendations from the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.
The promoter will now be required to construct a long box at Stratford rather than the shorter version envisaged originally, which would have met only the operational requirements of the railway. The long box will be large enough to house the platforms and the other passenger facilities that are needed for a combined international and domestic station. Even if the decision is taken next year not to provide a station immediately, the possibility of adding one at a later stage will remain.
The decision will be either "yes" or "possibly in the future". It will not be "no", because the possibility of a station has been secured by the requirement to build the long box as part of the main construction of the link.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: At the beginning of the CTRL affair, British Rail espoused the wonderful theory that the economics of building a railway meant that, the fewer stops there were, the more money would be made. I am relieved to discover that Ministers have taken a rather different view. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is easier for passengers to get on and off the train when it stops?
Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Too many stops may reduce the frequency of services and may diminish revenue, but if the argument that it is better for trains not to stop is pursued to its logical conclusion, it means running trains that stop only at each end of the line—which would probably not maximise revenue.
The Government will decide whether to proceed immediately and, if so, how that would be financed. However, the views of the two short-listed bidders on the costs and benefits of such a station, and particularly the effect that it would have in terms of increasing or reducing the contribution sought from Government for the project, are key factors in that decision.
The bidders have been instructed to treat the long box as a minimum requirement, to price for a fully combined international and domestic station, and then to say how their bids would be adjusted for an international station only or no station at all. In that way, we shall receive the full range of available financial information.
Mr. Spearing: With regard to the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), does the Minister agree that the existence of some clause of which people are unaware, that traffic and fares are directly related to some formula involving distance and journey time, would be incompatible with the commonly held view? Stopping at a station may add only five minutes to the journey time but prove of inestimable benefit to many people, and thus increase traffic and revenue at the same time.
Mr. Watts: An extra stop might reduce the total number of trains that could be run. Against that, we must balance the extent to which the provision of an extra stop might generate additional passengers and revenue. Those are the sort of judgments that we must take on the basis of the best evidence available. The bidding consortia are

1495
also considering those matters when submitting their bids to us and indicating whether a scheme with a Stratford station is a better business proposition than a scheme without it.
If a decision is made in favour of a station, it will be promoted by an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992, which will provide the mechanism for the necessary planning consents. The process of securing such an order could begin next year, and, subject to securing the necessary approvals, should be capable of being completed and the station constructed within the same time scale as the completion of construction of the rail link.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that the final decision will be based on all strategic considerations, including the recognition by his predecessors, such as the present Deputy Prime Minister, that it is not simply a transport project but a vital contribution to the economic infrastructure of the area? Will he assure us that that strategic decision will be taken by the Government, and not by any consortium for commercial reasons?
Mr. Watts: I have already said that the Government will make the decision, and that we shall take into account a wide range of factors, including the strategic considerations to which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West have referred.
Apart from the CTRL effects and other transport benefits, another key factor in the decision-making process will be the regeneration benefits to be derived from an international station. The hon. Members for Newham, North-West, for Newham, North-East and for
1496
Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have been persuasive advocates of the contribution that a station would make to the regeneration of the Stratford area. We had substantial correspondence on that point following last year's debate.
I do not accept that east London would derive no economic benefits if there were no station development at Stratford. There is already substantial investment in transport, infrastructure and so on in east London. None the less, I accept—as I did when replying to the debates last year and in March—that a CTRL station at Stratford would prove a significant additional boost to those initiatives, and to the development of the Thames gateway as a whole.
In evaluating bids, the Government will carefully consider the assumptions about the viability of the station, the scope and nature of regeneration benefits, and the possible impact on the CTRL generally of a Stratford station. We shall also take into account other possible developments in transport infrastructure, such as the opening of the Jubilee line extension in 1998, and how traffic patterns and levels of use on existing and proposed transport links might respond to the opening of an international station.
In reaching their views on the costs and benefits of the various options, the two bidders have had the opportunity of extensive discussions with the Stratford promoter group. By deferring a decision until the final bids from the two short-listed consortia have been received, we have sought to give the promoter group and the bidders the maximum opportunity to make their best case for a station.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lefthouse): Order. Time is up.

Schools (Broadstairs)
1 pm
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am most grateful to have been given the opportunity to raise in an Adjournment debate the subject of schools in Broadstairs.
I shall devote most of my speech to the individual and separate problems of three schools in Broadstairs that have become most inappropriately entangled in a complex dispute and need some help—perhaps even a touch of the wisdom of Solomon—from my hon. Friend the Minister if the dispute is to be sorted out swiftly and satisfactorily to the benefit of several hundred local schoolchildren, their anxious families and their worried teachers.
Before I focus on the dispute and make some suggestions for solving it, I shall make some general comments on the wider subject of school education in Broadstairs because it is, on the whole, a sparkling success story in which our local community rightly takes great pride.
Broadstairs is a charming town on the Kent coast with a residential population of approximately 25,000 and a flourishing education sector consisting of 12 schools. They include at secondary level Holy Cross school and St. George's grant-maintained school, whose GCSE examination results last year were top of the league tables for non-selective schools in Kent and second top in the league table for modern schools in the entire country. Charles Dickens grant-maintained school has a new science block under construction and scored a commendable 89 per cent. pass rate among its GCSE candidates taking five or more subjects. Dane Court grant-maintained school had its best ever year for examination results last year, with a 95 per cent. pass rate among GCSE candidates taking five or more subjects.
At junior level, Broadstairs has three good schools: Upton, Bromstone and St. Peter's, to which I shall refer in a moment. There are also two infant schools: St. Mildred's and Callis Grange, which also features in the dispute that is central to the debate.
I should also mention that the independent sector flourishes in Broadstairs with Haddon Dene school, St. Joseph's convent school and Wellesley House school—the latter being one of the outstanding preparatory schools in the country. Perhaps I should declare an interest as I say those words of praise about Wellesley House, as our own three children have had remarkably happy and successful educations there.
What all those schools in Broadstairs have in common are high standards, dedicated teachers and a keen sense of mutual interest and interaction with the local community. When something goes right, such as the good examination results that I have just mentioned, the whole community sits up and takes notice.
The same is also true, however, if something goes wrong. That is why I now refer to a subject that is in danger of going wrong on the Broadstairs education scene—the dispute affecting three schools—and that is the main focus of the debate.
At the heart of the dispute is a question mark hanging over the future of one of the oldest and most respected schools in Broadstairs. That is St. Peter's school, or to give it its formal title, St. Peter's in Thanet Church of England aided junior school. Unfortunately, St. Peter's
1498
also has the less happy distinction of having some of the worst premises in the entire county in the shape of its 19th-century physical facilities.
St. Peter's has the fundamental disadvantage of being a split-site school, with its two main buildings separated by a high street. The busy traffic creates daily physical risks for the pupils. The buildings deserve the overworked adjective "Dickensian", for they are overcrowded, unhealthy, damp and dangerous.
To give the House a vivid picture of St. Peter's in the winter rain, I can do no better than quote a report written last autumn by the school's then chairman of governors, Mr. Norman Morland:
"As chairman of governors I visited the school on Wednesday 13 October, following several days of heavy autumnal rain. For the sake of the morale of all concerned, I went over to the high street building and can only say that I was appalled by what I saw. The atmosphere was akin to that of a hot house in Kew. Buckets and bowls were everywhere to catch the rain. Water was trickling down one of the walls, the pages of the books were curling up in the moisture-laden air, there was fungus on the cupboard walls. The catalogue could continue on and on.
In the midst of all this the staff and the pupils worked heroically and deserve the highest commendation for continuing in conditions that are totally unacceptable and are deleterious to health of pupil and teacher."
So much for the bad news, which was well recorded in Mr. Morland's vivid prose and confirmed by a recent report by the Office of Standards in Education inspectorate. However, that bad news is on the verge of being consigned to the archives of history because the good news is that the local education authority, Kent county council and the Canterbury diocesan board of education, after many long and disappointing delays, have put forward an excellent proposal for a new St. Peter's school building.
That building project, which received no objections during the consultation period and was overwhelmingly well supported by the local community, is for a new, enlarged third-form entry junior school for 360 pupils. The new St. Peter's school would consist of 12 classrooms to be built around a central courtyard on land already owned by the local education authority adjacent to Callis Grange infant school. The funding for the project—some £1.6 million—is now in place, so until the recent unexpected dispute erupted, the new St. Peter's school was ready to roll, confidently on schedule to open its doors in September 1997.
I should emphasise that the new St. Peter's school building is being developed alongside another important school building development on the same site—that of Callis Grange county infant school. Callis Grange school, which currently has 356 pupils on its roll, suffers from an overcrowding problem, which has been temporarily alleviated by the use of five mobile classrooms and a mobile toilet block.
The facilities are woefully inadequate, particularly in the freezing, wind-chill weather conditions that prevailed last week. The LEA recognised the problem, which is exacerbated by the growing demand for school places in Broadstairs, and gave its full backing to a building project that would enlarge the school by 90 extra places. That means building new classroom accommodation to cope with the expected increase in the school roll and to replace some of the mobiles. The enlargement of Callis Grange school is scheduled to take place in time for the new

1499
classrooms to be opened in September 1997. As the project is being built on the same site and time scale as the new St. Peter's school, the two developments need to proceed simultaneously.
Against that background, I hope that it is clear to my hon. Friend that the substantial combined building project of a new school for St. Peter's and enlarged classrooms for Callis Grange is important and urgent in terms of the physical facilities and the basic need for more school places in Broadstairs.
Broadstairs is sometimes thought of as a town for retired people, but the community is becoming demographically more well balanced and has an increasing number of young families moving into the area. There was consternation among those young families, whose children require adequate provision for primary and infant school places, when the news broke recently that the St. Peter's and Callis Grange building projects had been halted in their tracks because of a totally unexpected and unpredictable obstacle in the form of eight letters of statutory objection signed by 10 Broadstairs residents. They were all dated 9 November. The letters were received by my hon. Friend's Department just two days before the period for objections to the public notices expired on 12 November. Those objections have the explosive potential to block or seriously delay the St. Peter's and Callis Grange school building developments unless they are withdrawn or my hon. Friend uses her statutory ministerial powers swiftly to overrule them.
I said a few moments ago that the unexpected arrival of those last-minute objections caused consternation in Broadstairs, but in some ways the word "consternation" is an understatement. For I am sorry to have to report that there was also a degree of anger and astonishment when it became apparent that the letters of objection were identical in text and had apparently been organised by the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Southwark's commission for schools in Kent, in order to draw attention to the plight of St. Joseph's convent school in Broadstairs, which faced the possibility of closure.
Needless to say, there are two sides to this story and I shall endeavour to explain sympathetically and constructively the anxieties of the archdiocese of Southwark about St. Joseph's in a moment. Nevertheless the manner and format in which those essentially bogus, although paradoxically sincere, objections were lodged raised the bizarre spectacle of a sectarian divide in Broadstairs, in which Roman Catholics were suspected of blocking the urgently needed building of a Church of England school.
I hasten to assure the House that those fears are not justified. Broadstairs has not suddenly become Belfast. The religious communities in the town remain on good terms, not least because local Catholic leaders such as Father Ronald Duggan, the parish priest of Broadstairs, and Canon Bill Clements, the dean of Thanet, have made it clear that the local Roman Catholic community has no objections to the St. Peter's school building project.
Meanwhile the Church of England vicar of St. Peter's, Canon Nick Bury, who is also chairman of the governors of St. Peter's school, has made it clear that there is nothing but Anglican good will towards St. Joseph's
1500
convent school, whose future aspirations should not affect the St. Peter's building project at all and should be seen as a quite separate issue, important though it is to the Catholic community of Broadstairs.
Let me therefore now refer to the separate issue of the future of St. Joseph's convent school. That excellent independent private school, which has approximately 100 Catholic pupils of primary school age, has for many years been run and subsidised by the sisters of the Christian retreat in Broadstairs. Sadly, the sisters, whose numbers and resources are declining, have decided that they can no longer continue to subsidise the operation of the school after 1997.
The archdiocese of Southwark, after taking local soundings in Broadstairs, came to the conclusion that, rather than see a much loved Catholic school close, it would make greater sense to try to continue the excellent traditions of St. Joseph's by seeing whether it could be taken into the maintained sector as a primary school. Confidential discussions between the LEA and the archdiocese for that purpose therefore started earlier this year.
I think it fair to say that there must have been some misunderstandings in those discussions, since for some reason or other the archdiocese came to believe that the only way to protect the future interest of St. Joseph's was to lodge objections to the St. Peter's and Callis Grange building project at the last minute in order to draw the attention of the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister to the full background of primary school options in Broadstairs. I hope that I have now explained enough about the background to primary school education in Broadstairs to demonstrate that there is a basic need for, and room for, a new and enlarged St. Peter's Church of England primary school and a St. Joseph's Roman Catholic primary school, transferred from the independent sector to the maintained sector as a voluntary-aided Roman Catholic school.
Since I started balloting for this Adjournment debate, further talks have been held between the LEA and the archdiocese of Southwark. A few days ago the Kent education committee, with much input and encouragement from Councillor Fred Shutler, the energetic county councillor for Broadstairs, decided to support the proposal to establish a new voluntary-aided Roman Catholic primary school in Broadstairs in September 1997, on the basis that the LEA will be submitting a bid for 90 additional primary school places for Thanet in 1997. Those additional places, taken together with the existing roll of St. Joseph's, will provide ample justification for the proposed new one-form entry primary school.
Against that background, and even though there is no real linkage between the St. Joseph's and the St. Peter's projects, it does seem that this should be a story that will have a happy outcome early in 1996, bringing to an end the current tense dispute affecting the three schools that I have been talking about.
So in order that those three schools can live happily ever after, I now ask my hon. Friend to respond, I hope affirmatively, to the key questions that need to be answered. So far as St. Joseph's is concerned, can my hon. Friend confirm that her Department has received, or expects to receive, a bid from Kent local education authority for additional primary school places for Thanet in 1997? Will she look favourably on the proposal, which

1501
I know her officials are aware of, for a new St. Joseph's voluntary-aided Roman Catholic primary school, to open in September 1997?
So far as St. Peter's school and Callis Grange school are concerned, can my hon. Friend the Minister announce that she is now minded—or soon will be minded—to approve the LEA's and the Canterbury diocesan board's proposals for the combined building projects to go ahead as planned and in good time for the new St. Peter's school and the new Callis Grange classrooms to open their doors in September 1997?
If my hon. Friend is minded, in this season of peace and good will, to indicate her approval for all those projects this afternoon, I can assure her that she will be giving the education world in Broadstairs the best possible Christmas present.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) on securing this important Adjournment debate on the schools in his constituency. He is well known as a champion of the excellent education in South Thanet, and his diligence in requesting this debate is a testament to his attitude to his constituency and its schools.
I want to begin by discussing some general issues that my right hon. Friend raised, not least the sparkling success of the schools in his constituency. I am delighted to hear about the high standards being achieved in Broadstairs schools, which clearly owe much to the excellent quality of the teaching. Once again, we must applaud the enthusiasm and dedication of the teaching profession, which has so rightly been described as a vocation.
School improvement is always at the top of the Government's agenda. It is also encouraging to note that this year's GCSE results for Broadstairs continue to be good. I am aware that three of the four secondary schools are grant-maintained, and their success is a testament to the GM policy.
We firmly believe that self-government is the best way of running schools. It sets schools free to decide for themselves how they use their resources and to target them where they will have most effect. It means that they can keep and develop their distinctive characters to meet the needs of the communities that they serve. Self-government releases the energies of teachers and governors by giving them responsibility for their schools' futures, and they certainly rise to that challenge. GM schools are well managed, achieve excellent results as they have done in Broadstairs, and are clearly popular with parents. They can get things done quickly, without waiting for town hall bureaucracy to get things moving, and they are directly accountable to local parents.
In Kent, more than half the secondary pupils are now being educated in GM schools. Parents have voted yes in ballots on going GM, so it is pretty clear that Kent parents support self-government of schools. It is a pity that we do not often see a positive approach on the part of Kent county council. It has been quite hostile to grant-maintained status, and it makes life as difficult as possible once schools have decided to ballot.
The development of GM schools is only one aspect of the Government's mission to promote excellence in education. We are also funding initiatives to encourage the
1502
development of specialist schools, which bring together three important strands of our education and employment policies: raising standards, extending choice and diversity, and linking schools and the business community. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the popularity of our specialist schools programme; indeed Sandwich high school, in South Thanet, has recently been designated a technology college. That programme proves that education and business want to work together. Each technology or language college is backed by sponsorship of about £100,000; private sector sponsorship for school education totals more than £14 million as a result of the programme.
The specialist schools programme is outstandingly popular. It was launched only in September 1993, but there are now more than 140 schools in it. There are 127 technology colleges as well as the first 16 language colleges. As there is stiff competition for places in the programme, all the schools approved can be proud of their success.
I have more good news about Kent to add to that presented by my right hon. Friend. We have been able to confirm our support for capital spending on schools. The figures for Kent are not available, but we have national figures, as I announced yesterday. Despite the tight public spending round, we have been able to secure capital spending for 1996–97 in local education authority maintained schools at a level that is 7 per cent. higher than the current year. That demonstrates the Government's commitment to helping LEAs improve the quality of their school buildings.
It is for LEAs, however, to decide their own capital expenditure priorities and to make the best use of the resources that are available to them. The annual capital guidelines, the ACGs, that have been announced are not tied to particular projects. Nor do they represent the total of resources available to LEAs for capital spending. The authorities are able also to invest their capital receipts. They can use funds from their revenue budgets for capital purposes if they wish. The Government do not control the funding of individual projects at county or voluntary-controlled schools.
The Kent local education authority was given an ACG of £23,223,000 in 1996–97. That was by far the largest in the country. That sum represents 40 per cent. of its total bid. It is significantly above the national average of 23 per cent. The ACG largely reflects the extent to which the authority's plans for spending on schools matched the national priority criteria.
Allocations for voluntary-aided schools' capital works have increased by 7 per cent. to £62 million in 1996–97. There has been set aside £38 million for repair grants in line with 1995–96.
Allocations for basic need and exceptional basic need will be much higher in 1996–97 than in recent years. They will be about £6.6 million compared with £2.5 million in 1995–96. The allocations for grant-maintained schools continue to show a healthy increase as well, from £130 million in the current year to £138 million in 1996–97. Those figures demonstrate the Government's commitment to improving standards in education. The examples given by my right hon. Friend provide encouraging evidence of the success of our policies in practice.
My right hon. Friend drew the attention of the House to Callis Grange and St. Peter's schools in Thanet. Both schools are in Broadstairs. I am sure that my right hon.

1503
Friend will appreciate that as an enlarged county infant school and a new Church of England junior in Broadstairs will be considered in the context of statutory proposals, those matters are currently under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Therefore, I cannot comment in detail on the issues that he raised. I am well aware, however, of the problems surrounding the provision of primary school places in Broadstairs.
My officials visited St. Peter's junior school earlier this year. They were able to advise the governors and Kent LEA on how to proceed. My right hon. Friend will understand that I cannot prejudge the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I can assure my right hon. Friend, however, that I have listened carefully to what he said about the condition of the buildings used by pupils at Callis Grange and St. Peter's. I can give him my assurance that his description and the details that he has given will be taken into account.
Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the constructive and helpful tone in which she is replying. I understand that, for statutory reasons, she cannot prejudge the ruling of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. But what is the timetable within which my right hon. Friend will make a decision'? If it is a favourable one, will it be made in good time to allow the building works to start within a period that will enable them to be completed so that the schools may open their doors in September 1997?
Mrs. Gillan: I understand my right hon. Friend's determination to try to extract from me a timetable, but I am unable to give him one today. I undertake to write to him in the new year. I shall try to give him an idea of the timetable for my right hon. Friend's decisions.
As for St. Joseph's school, I should explain that we have not yet received any statutory proposals to establish a new voluntary-aided Roman Catholic primary school in Broadstairs. That remains an outstanding matter. If and when we do receive such proposals, we shall consider them fully and carefully, and as speedily as possible.
On a more positive note, I can confirm that we have accepted in principle the basic need case for additional primary school places in Broadstairs. For reasons that I think I have explained fully, I cannot comment on whether those places will be provided at St. Peter's and St. Joseph's, bearing in mind the need for the statutory process. I cannot go beyond saying that, if the proposals are approved, funding will, of course, follow.
I am sorry that I am unable to deliver all the Christmas presents on my right hon. Friend's list. I trust that he will accept my reply as just a little stocking filler.

Knockhill Motor Sport Centre
1.26 pm
Ms Rachel Squire: I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the future of motor sport facilities in Scotland. I shall use the debate to highlight the success of Scotland's national motor sport centre at Knockhill in my constituency and express the grave concerns that I and many others have that a proposed alternative facility at Forrestburn in Lanarkshire could lead to no winners, only losers, and a waste of public money.
If the Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members want an exciting day out, I recommend that they head for Knockhill rather than remain at Westminster. Knockhill is recognised by the Scottish Sports Council and the Scottish Motor Sport Federation as Scotland's national motor sport centre. The track deals with a wide range of car and motor cycle racing. It was declared the circuit of the year by the Touring Car Association. If the Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members want to visit a successful private enterprise, I recommend Knockhill.
The track was rescued from receivership some years ago by the director, Derek Butcher, who has put more than £3 million of his own money into the venture. Knockhill has not received any public funding for capital expenditure yet it employs 16 full-time permanent staff directors. The track supports three franchise businesses on site with a further 10 permanent staff. It takes on up to an additional 100 part-time staff when there is a big event. It thus makes a considerable contribution to the local economy. In addition, when there is a big event such as the British championship for touring cars, hotels in the Fife area are fully booked. The circuit manager, Eric Houston, said:
"We put more people into hotels than Open Golf does",
and that is once a year, not once every four years.
Knockhill's success, however, is threatened by the proposed development at Forrestburn. I can understand the Minister saying that that is a shame but asking why it should concern the Government. Let me explain.
The Minister is aware that, because of their industrial decline, parts of Fife and parts of Lanarkshire are eligible for support from European structural funds. That means that decisions on proposed programmes for areas that seek European funding are taken by committees. The principal committees involved in taking decisions on individual projects such as that at Forrestburn are, I understand, the programme management committees for eastern and western Scotland. They are chaired by the Scottish Office development department, acting on behalf of the Government as the official implementing authority for European Union funding programmes.
The first reason, therefore, why the Government should be concerned about the future of Knockhill and the proposed development at Forrestburn is that the Scottish Office retains responsibility for the payment of European grant money and is ultimately responsible for the audit requirements. My understanding is that Forrestburn has been allocated £1.4 million in European grant money, so the Government have a direct interest.
The second reason why the Government should be concerned about the Forrestburn development is that there is strong evidence that the use of European money to

1505
support the project will, in effect, displace an existing facility—in other words, it will put Knockhill out of business. I understand that such a displacement contravenes the rules for European funding.
The Treasury defines displacement as occurring when support for one project has the effect of reducing economic activity in other parts of the economy. I understand that a displacement analysis has been undertaken, but considerable concern has been expressed by many organisations that do not believe that it went into sufficient depth to enable it to be established that the only way in which Forrestburn could be successful was by taking much of Knockhill's business.
It appears that key interests such as the Scottish Sports Council, Fife Enterprise, Fife regional council and Dunfermline district council were not fully consulted about their views on displacement. Scottish Enterprise told me in a letter dated 27 October this year that
"the developers of Forrestburn have not adequately addressed the question of displacement … if the Forrestburn project proceeds it may very well put Knockhill out of business."
In the past few days, Scottish Enterprise has changed its tune—one can only speculate why that is—but I hope that the Minister will want to satisfy himself about the adequacy of the displacement analysis that has apparently been conducted.
People with expertise and interest in motor sport facilities in Scotland believe that Forrestburn will be viable only if it takes business from Knockhill.
Sir Hector Monro: Although I do not know a great deal about Forrestburn, I agree wholeheartedly that Knockhill has been a huge success in hosting not only the touring car championship but motor cycle racing and weekly club events, which are so popular in Scotland. Whatever my hon. Friend the Minister says in reply, I hope that he will in no way deprecate Knockhill's achievement. It has been an outstanding success in recent years.
Ms Squire: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for his support, which I know will be greatly appreciated by Knockhill. I have no doubt that Knockhill would look forward to a visit from him in the not too distant future.
Only a limited number of motor racing events attract sufficiently large crowds to make a business viable. I understand that at Knockhill only three events a year attract crowds of more than 5,000, and they are vital to Knockhill's commercial success. Forrestburn would have to compete with Knockhill and take those events from it if it was to be viable.
I believe that Forrestburn hopes to attract formula 1 racing, which Knockhill does not stage. I believe, however, that there is already fierce competition among existing tracks such as Brands Hatch for such events. Formula 1 racing is very costly, and the £6.5 million being talked about for the Forrestburn development would not support even the track safety and maintenance requirements of a formula 1 racing track for a single year.
A formula 1 track was opened in Japan this year. According to one set of figures, it cost £60 million to develop and will require £10 million every year just to maintain the facilities. Therefore, without a sufficient market in Scotland, public money could be wasted and a successful business badly, if not mortally, damaged.
1506
Does the Minister believe that a detailed analysis was carried out by Lanarkshire development agency? Has a careful study been made of what events Forrestburn would host and the extent to which they would displace those that Knockhill has been successful in attracting? If a full consultation has not been carried out, will the Minister assure me that one will be undertaken; that it will involve experts in the industry, not only in Scotland but in the UK as a whole; and that it will be undertaken before any further attempt is made to decide whether there is sufficient business to support two racing tracks with such a short distance between them? The Minister's answers will be heard carefully not only by me and Knockhill but by the hotels and businesses in the Fife area, which gain so much from major motor sports events.
I have already touched on the third reason why Knockhill's future and the Forrestburn development should be of interest to the Minister. It is the apparent inadequacies in the decision-making arrangements that the proposals for Forrestburn have highlighted. I do not believe that key organisations such as Fife Enterprise and the Scottish Sports Council have been fully consulted. Not even the programme management committee for the east of Scotland was consulted. Although Forrestburn is a west of Scotland development, it will have a displacement effect on an existing east-of-Scotland facility. I understand that no direct approach to Knockhill has been made by the company involved in the Forrestburn development, Inreco, and that its only contact was three or four years ago—in a telephone discussion with KPMG Peat Marwick. Full consultation would have called into question the Forrestburn project's ability to satisfy the technical and financial eligibility appraisals and the core criteria, which include demonstrating clear evidence of demand.
I hope that the Minister will say that he believes that further investigation is necessary, and that a full and thorough displacement analysis will result, with all interested parties being fully consulted. If there is not the business to support two race tracks so close together, as I and others fear, we could end up with neither being commercially viable. Public money will have been used to build up false hopes in Lanarkshire, to ruin a successful private enterprise business in Fife and, I believe, to damage the sporting reputation of Scotland.
I hope that the Minister will bring some Christmas cheer to Knockhill and to all those who support it and are concerned with its future.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) would like to contribute. Will the hon. Lady agree to that?
Ms Squire: I am most willing to allow the right hon. Gentleman to contribute.
1.41 pm
Sir Hector Monro: I shall say a few words in support of the position of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on Knockhill.
I have been deeply involved in motor racing and motor sport in Scotland since the war, as the former president of the Auto-cycle Union. One has seen, sadly, the demise of Charterhall and Ingliston, and Crimond up in the north. The one circuit that has been a success is Knockhill. I note that the hon. Lady said that it went through a

1507
difficult period, but in recent years it has come back very strongly indeed and is popular among competitors because in Scotland there is nowhere else to go. There are two or three major meetings that attract big crowds, particularly the touring car championship, which was an outstanding success not only at Knockhill but on television.
Many motor racing enthusiasts would have to travel far south, down to Croft or further into the midlands of England and to Oulton park if they wanted to take part in competitive motor sport. Knockhill has given them the opportunity to take part, through club meetings and renting the track for club groups. My own Bentley drivers club has a day out in August or September each year. That all brings valuable income to the area and to Fife generally. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider carefully the important issue of whether to promote what may, on paper, be an outstanding opportunity in Lanarkshire, to the detriment of Knockhill, which is so successful.
The hon. Lady flew kites about the enormous cost of major international events. It is all very well to say that we will attract formula 1 cars, but when it is difficult for a country to stage a grand prix, it is unlikely that we would get two—at Silverstone or Brands Hatch and one in Scotland. She rightly highlighted the immense cost of staging a grand prix, and the Pacific is likely to opt out next year. I think it wrong to say that we will have a formula 1 circuit, without any definite assurance that we will get a formula 1 race. The grand prix circuit is closely controlled. There is immense competition from Brands Hatch and, indeed, from Donington, which most drivers would say is a much more attractive course on which to drive than Brands Hatch.
It is not just a simple decision. We cannot just say that we should have a brand new circuit in Lanarkshire that would attract all the competition and sponsorship that is so central to modern motor racing. We should not go headlong for that concept, although it is a great vision, without realising that it could be to the detriment of Knockhill, which has done so much over the past 10 or 15 years to give those who are interested in motor sport the opportunity to participate.
1.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): I am particularly pleased to be here today to respond to the debate, which was initiated by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), and equally to have heard the wise words of experience from my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). I am most grateful to both of them, because I believe that the debate enables us to clarify the position with regard to Knockhill race track and the proposed development at Forrestburn.
There was a discussion as to whether this was a sporting debate or an industrial development debate. I am the Minister responsible for industry and, therefore, perhaps the industrial development side. I looked at the background to the sporting side and asked to be briefed on the range of motor sports that are available in Scotland at present, and how many were pursued.
In motor car racing, we have motor racing itself; circuit racing of various classes; speed events; stage rallying, road rallying; auto tests and trials; and, indeed, stock car
1508
racing. There are around 40 motor cycling clubs in Scotland associated with the Scottish Motor Cycle Union. Events include moto-cross, road racing, speedway, motor cycle trials and motor cycle rallies. Events take place throughout Scotland—I shall come to Knockhill in a moment. We have, for example, a world-renowned auto-cross event that is held annually in Fort William, which attracts a top-quality field from Europe and America.
Scotland—as even I knew—has a long tradition of success in motor sport at both national and international level. In formula 1 racing, to which the hon. Lady referred, I remember very well Jim Clark being the world champion in 1963 and 1965; Jackie Stewart held the same title in 1969, 1971 and 1973.
More recently in formula 1 racing, there is David Coulthard, whom I thought was from the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, but when I asked earlier today, I was told that he lives in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang). David Coulthard's success in winning his first grand prix at Estoril in Portugal during this season, which has just finished, sets him up on a very promising motor racing career. I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in wishing him every success with his new team, McLaren.
In the 1960s, Scotland had it is own motor racing stable. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is old enough to remember Ecurie Ecosse, but I certainly do, and the driving at Le Mans and the successes that it had over those years. It helped to develop many budding young drivers, such as Jim Clark and Jackie Stewart. In the past few years, we have also seen Colin MacRae, who has been highly successful in motor rallying. He won the Royal Automobile Club rally in 1994 and earlier this year became the first British competitor to win the world rallying championship; he won it in a nail-biting climax in the Network Q RAC rally, showing tremendous skill and courage to come through an arduous final stage. Another Scotsman, John Clelland, this year won the British touring car championship, to add to his previous title won in 1989.
I think that 1995 has been a tremendous year for Scottish motor sport. I cover all this to provide a backdrop to today's debate, to emphasise the importance of sport, particularly motor sport, within the Government's wider priorities, and to stress that the future of Knockhill race track, which is the issue that we are addressing today, has indeed been carefully considered.
The hon. Lady clearly and ably set out her concerns for the future of Knockhill; she has previously raised those concerns with me in writing. I wrote to her on 14 September and 12 December, explaining the situation with regard to the proposed development at Forrestburn.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, I am well aware of the success of the Knockhill race track in recent years. It has attracted top-level competition to the site, and has diversified its interests into other areas. I gather that it also carries out test circuit work for prominent motor companies. As the hon. Lady said, it is an excellent example of the benefits of private sector investment in sport. I join her in commending Derek Butcher for his success with Knockhill, which is currently recognised as the country's national centre by the Scottish Motor Sport Federation.

1509
I listened carefully to the concerns expressed about the proposed development of a new motor-racing circuit at Forrestburn in Monklands, and its potential impact on Knockhill. The hon. Lady pointed out that the Forrestburn project would receive financial support from public sector bodies—Monklands district council and Lanarkshire development agency—as well as from the European regional development fund. I understand that the concerns expressed about the potential displacement effect of the new race track on Knockhill have been carefully assessed by the funding partners.
The hon. Lady quoted from a letter from Scottish Enterprise, dated 27 October. I, too, have a copy of that letter. She also referred to a later letter dated 4 December, which states:
"Further to my letter of 27 October, I have now had the benefit of discussion with the Lanarkshire Development Agency from which I learned that a displacement analysis had indeed been undertaken with regard to the project.
The decision to proceed by Lanarkshire has been taken within their authority and following proper analysis. Accordingly, Scottish Enterprise does not consider it appropriate to intervene in this matter."
The letter finishes with an apology for the fact that
"the above information was not fully available at the time of my earlier letter."
I, too, apologise for the fact that the first letter from Scottish Enterprise to the hon. Lady was not fully informed. Earlier correspondence relating to Scottish Enterprise had made it clear that a displacement analysis had been carried out.
The proposed facility at Forrestburn is on a completely different scale from that at Knockhill. The Forrestburn circuit will be 3.2 miles long, which makes it as long as Silverstone and longer than Brands Hatch. It is well above the threshold for international racing events. The Knockhill circuit is only 1.3 miles long. I understand that the Forrestburn promoters intend to develop a circuit of international standards that would secure an FIA licence, which would allow events of international status to take place in Scotland.
I believe that the promoters of the Forrestburn facility will seek to attract such events as the British formula 2 and 3 championships, the German touring car championship and the FIA formula 3000 international championships. The hon. Lady will note that I have left out the formula 1 championship. I understand that it has not been included in the promoters' proposals; I suspect that they are being realistic about what they can achieve.
None of the events that I have mentioned is the kind that Knockhill would be able to attract. On that basis, it seems that the two facilities are considering essentially different markets, and accordingly the development of Forrestburn is unlikely to have an adverse impact on Knockhill. Indeed, the Forrestburn track is expected to bring new opportunities for co-operation with—for example—Knockhill through championships and back-to-back events. One of the wider attractions of Forrestburn is its potential to generate further interest in motor sport at an international level, and thus to expand the overall market, in which Knockhill will continue to play an important part.
As I have said, the Forrestburn project has secured funding from Monklands district council, the Lanarkshire development agency and the European regional
1510
development fund, but it would be wrong to describe it as a public sector project. The vast bulk of the finance is coming from the private sector; the public agencies are very much in a minority supporting role.
I understand—this will interest the hon. Lady—that the Forrestburn project has secured the support of the RAC Motor Sports Association and the Royal Scottish Automobile Club. Both bodies have emphasised the importance of Knockhill in Scottish motor sport, and clearly do not regard Forrestburn and Knockhill as competing facilities.
I understand the hon. Lady's reservations, expressed today and in letters that she has written. I am no expert on motor sport, and I suspect that the same applies to the hon. Lady, but I suggest that the RAC Motor Sports Association and the Royal Scottish Automobile Club are experts. I urge the hon. Lady to seek an early meeting with those organisations, and to try to understand why they consider the two projects complementary rather than adversarial.
Ms Rachel Squire: I shall take the Minister's advice, and seek meetings with those two organisations. I am, indeed, no expert on motor racing, although I share my London flat with a woman formula 3 racing driver, which gives me a certain insight into the subject.
I was not claiming that no displacement analysis had been carried out; my point is that that analysis has not been as detailed and thorough as it should have been, and has not involved all the interested parties sufficiently.
I understand that Knockhill involves formula 3 racing. I know that a longer track is being promoted at Forrestburn, but I gather that shorter tracks have distinct advantages, in that they allow spectators to see far more: the cars come round even faster.
Mr. Kynoch: I am pleased to learn that the hon. Lady shares a London flat with a young lady who is involved in formula 3 racing. Some claim that I can remember being a member of Bristol university's motor club and winning a rally. Perhaps I was wrong to say that I knew little about motor sport, but I must confess that I am a little rusty.
The hon. Lady asked whether a full displacement analysis had been carried out. That is a matter for the funding bodies—and Strathclyde European partnership, the tourism advisory group, the Lanarkshire development agency and Scottish Enterprise are indeed satisfied that the displacement issue has been dealt with adequately.
People in Fife are bound to disapprove of the project until they see that it will increase the inflow of motor sport into Scotland to their possible benefit. It might be helpful, however, if the proprietor of Knockhill talked to the project team at Forrestburn. I cannot bring that about; I can only urge the hon. Lady to suggest that Mr. Butcher in Knockhill try to establish contact. When the project is completed—if it is completed—there may well be a working relationship allowing discussion. If, as I am assured, the two facilities will not be in competition, let us ensure that the relationship is established on an informal basis at a fairly early stage. That could allay some fears. I suggest, however, that the hon. Lady contact the two bodies that I mentioned earlier.
Other than Knockhill, Great Britain has no proper motor sports venue further north than Oulton park in Cheshire. Given the potential catchment area of Scotland

1511
and much of the north of England, there is no reason why the motor sports market should not be able to support more than one circuit. That was certainly the case in the 1950s and 1960s, when Scotland had a number of successful circuits—for example, at Charterhall, Turnberry and Crail.
Given the resurgence of interest in motor sports—encouraged by the success of David Coulthard—I believe
1512
that it is a growing business. I consider that the question of displacement has been properly investigated by the bodies concerned, and I see no justification for Government intervention.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions

  SCOTLAND
  Mr. Merchant: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the total tourism revenues in Scotland. [5201]
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Some £2.1 billion in 1994, and we expect 1995 to be even better.
  Mr. Merchant: I welcome my right hon. Friend's increased provision—to more than £18 million next year—to the Scottish tourist board. Will he confirm that that represents an increase of 20 per cent. over previous plans thanks to the reordering of priorities at Scottish Enterprise? Does he agree that that increase reflects the high priority that the Government give to the tourist industry in energising the Scottish economy?
  Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. The difference between Conservatives and hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is that Conservative Members do not believe that organisations such as Scottish Enterprise exist for their own account. If organisations such as Scottish Enterprise are able to deliver their targets within reduced budgets and we deploy the money to help tourism, which is what we have done, that is a good deal for the taxpayer and represents the right way to use scarce resources to encourage the wealth-creating sector. Tourism has a vital role to play in rural Scotland and throughout Scotland, and I congratulate the Scottish tourist board on its magnificent work in increasing the numbers of people coming to Scotland. There is still great scope for improvement, and that is why, in a difficult public expenditure round, we were able to increase its budget by no less than 20 per cent.
  Mr. Donohoe: The Secretary of State, in giving us that information, will know of the shambles that has resulted from the lack of funding for the celebrations next year of the bicentenary of the death of Burns. There is a severe lack of sponsorship from the private sector. In those circumstances, will he give a commitment to funding the celebrations directly from the Scottish Office to make up for the losses that are being incurred?
  Mr. Forsyth: I cannot give that commitment, but I can tell the House that we propose to have celebrations of the bard's life, in both London and Scotland. On 31 January, we shall be holding a large function in London, to which a number of Opposition Members will receive invitations, to celebrate the life and works of Rabbie Burns. It is also our intention to mark the passing of Robert Burns's life with an event in Scotland, and it is appropriate that that should take place in the south-west of Scotland.
  Sir Hector Monro: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Forsyth: I can hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) saying, "Hear, hear." I am sure that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) will welcome that information also.
  Mrs. Ewing: The Secretary of State will recognise that tourism is an all-year industry, and that winter tourism plays an important part in the livelihoods of people in rural areas. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State's work in establishing the Scottish avalanche information service. Does he accept that there is now some concern about the future of that organisation? Can we expect an early report
  1522
  from the review group, because considered action will be needed to ensure that we continue and expand that important aspect of our tourist industry?
  Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Lady. I established that avalanche warning service myself.
  Mr. Canavan: It did not work last night.
  Mr. Forsyth: This is a serious subject and people's lives are at risk.
  I established the service on the recommendation of the distinguished mountaineer, Hamish McInnes. I was aware that there was a question mark over the service, and I gave instructions that the service should continue to be supported. We have given the service an extra £ 6,000, and we have commissioned a study, costing about £5,000, to consider the scope for expanding the service. I hope that one of the issues that will be addressed is whether we could cover a wider area using telemetric equipment.
  I thought that some of the press reports were very unfair. The Government have every intention, as long as I am Secretary of State, of ensuring that the service is encouraged and expanded as far as is practically possible. However, we must ensure that money is spent wisely and that resources are used effectively, so that we get the best benefit out of the service.
  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me an opportunity to make that statement.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I take this opportunity to wish the Secretary of State and all Scots Members a braw hogmanay. Has the Secretary of State taken into consideration the interest in tourism in Northern Ireland, following the visit by the President of the United States, and will he urge the Scottish tourist board to use the Scottish-Irish connection to build up the tourist routes and encourage the growth of overseas visitors?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his greetings for the new year. I wish him a happy Christmas and a happy new year, and you, too, Madam Speaker.
  On the hon. Gentleman's point about tourism and Ulster, we Unionists must stick together on that and other matters. There is scope for encouraging tourism, and I am in discussion with the Scottish tourist board and others to improve the links between Ulster and Scotland. That will enable us to develop packages and tourism opportunities, and I shall raise the prospects for co-operation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the light of the hon. Gentleman's helpful suggestion.

  SCOTLAND

    Agricultural Subsidy
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current level of agricultural subsidy in Scotland. [5195]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): Agriculture grants and subsidies in Scotland amounted to around £330 million in 1994.
    Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. Friend yet aware of the findings of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which, I understand, recently went to New Zealand? From what I have read in the newspapers, I believe that it has done away with its farmers subsidy system. At first, of course, that was greeted with consternation, but now it is being welcomed by farmers, who are doing very nicely without having to do all that dreadful paperwork. If he has been informed about that event, will he tell us a little about its outcome?
    Mr. Robertson: The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs did go to New Zealand to consider a country that had abolished all agricultural subsidy under, I must add, a Labour Government, but we have no plans to follow suit. The Committee has still to report and I am sure that the Committee's Chairman will ensure that my hon. Friend has a copy of the report once it is published.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I declare an interest, Madam Speaker. After years of half measures, will the Government now introduce a subsidised scheme, if necessary, for the eradication of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, both for the sake of better animal welfare and to restore confidence in Scottish beef? Meanwhile, will the Minister advise people that it might be risky to inject tissue from infected cattle into their brains, but that the more conventional practice of eating prime Scottish beef is much more enjoyable and perfectly safe?
    Mr. Robertson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, two weeks ago in the Scottish Grand Committee, we had a useful Adjournment debate, initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), on that matter. I told the Committee on that occasion, and I repeat it now, that our measures to eradicate bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle are working. In Scotland, out of a total of more than 2 million cattle, the number of confirmed BSE cases in 1995 is expected to be around 600, some 27 per cent. below the 1993 level. We are fully aware of the problem and our measures are working.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that our support through the beef special premium and the suckler cow subsidy helps to provide the best prime Scots beef? Will he say yet again that prime Scots beef is safe to eat and that the education authorities and others who are depriving children of good Scots beef are wrong?
    Mr. Robertson: I agree completely with my right hon. Friend. I know that, at this time of year, our thoughts turn to eating white meat, but, perhaps after Christmas day's
    1514
    turkey, hon. Members on both sides of the House will decide to have a good, big, juicy steak, preferably from an Aberdeen Angus.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Government reverse their disgraceful decision to discontinue taking up the European Union milk subsidy, which will mean that many school children will be deprived of free school milk, with detrimental consequences for their health and nutrition? Is it not ironic that the Government are proposing that measure when, earlier this week, the Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for health was complaining that 62 per cent. of Scottish five-year-old children suffered from tooth decay and that Scottish school children were near the bottom of the dental health league table?
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman should direct his comments to local authorities all over the country, and I hope that he will take the opportunity to raise the matter with his own Labour-controlled authority.

    Student Loans Scheme
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the operation of the student loans scheme in Scotland. [5196]
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I am pleased to say that the scheme is working well.
    Mrs. Fyfe: That is not what the Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment said on Thursday in Committee when he announced that the whole scheme had had to be postponed until October 1997 because the banks had difficulties over mergers and because of difficulties with information technology. That is in spite of the whole thing being hustled through in the Queen's Speech at great speed. Will the Minister extricate himself from this mess or will he be tied into his hon. Friend's shambles and share the blame for the mess that no one in Scotland needs or wants?
    Mr. Robertson: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her consistency. She disagrees with the Government's approach and with that of her Front-Bench spokesmen to student support. We announced a postponement of the scheme after discussions with the banks and building societies to ensure a proper and smooth transition a year later. As always, the hon. Lady is scaremongering on student numbers and on student support. She cannot accept, and will not admit, that there are more students in higher and further education in Scotland than ever before in our nation's history.
    Mr. Stewart: Can my hon. Friend confirm that parity between grants and loans will be achieved in 1996–97? Secondly, does he agree that parity will be maintained thereafter? Thirdly, does he agree that recent debates in the House have shown that the Opposition have no policy whatever?
    Mr. Robertson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks. As I have said, we have more students than ever before in higher education and the last survey showed that for the first time students from less well-off backgrounds are now in the majority in our universities and colleges.
    Mrs. Liddell: The Government have been forced to walk away from the student loan privatisation proposals.

    1515
    They would earn my respect and that of my hon. Friends if they would also walk away from the ill-conceived plans for nursery vouchers. Make no mistake about it, Labour is opposed to nursery vouchers. We will get rid of them when we are elected and will make sure that all three and four-year-olds get nursery education when their parents wish it. However, we have said—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have to bring two points to the hon. Lady's attention. First, I have not yet heard a question from her: that is most important. Secondly, we are dealing with student loan schemes and not with nursery vouchers.
    Mrs. Liddell: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was just coming to my substantive question. We have put a number of questions on education to the Minister and have failed to get replies. Why are we not getting a response to our request for an independent assessment board in relation to nursery vouchers?[Interruption.] Why is the Minister not prepared to respond to detailed questions about student loans and student accommodation and about other aspects of education policy? Will he give us a substantive reply rather than the bluster that we are used to when he is flummoxed?
    Mr. Robertson: What does the hon. Lady have against those from less well-off backgrounds? Yesterday she was at every media outlet criticising our scheme for assisted places, which helps children from less well-off backgrounds. Today she is ranting about student loans and nursery vouchers, which are designed to help everyone in society but particularly those from less well-off backgrounds. Over the recess she should take a long hard look at what she has been saying since she joined the Front Bench because some of it has been quite shameful.

    Health Board Boundaries
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about health board boundaries in Scotland. [5197]
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): We continue to consider the impact of local government reform on Scottish health board boundaries.
    Mr. Worthington: When I recently met people from Argyll and Clyde who were trying to persuade Clydebank to join Argyll and Clyde health board, they told me that the Secretary of State had said that there would be no changes to health board boundaries unless they were uncontroversial. If Clydebank joined Argyll and Clyde and lost its links with Gartnavel, the Western, Queen Mother's and Yorkhill hospitals, and had to manage with the appalling transport links with the Vale of Leven, that would be very controversial. Will the Minister assure me that plans to move Clydebank into Argyll and Clyde do not exist and will not exist?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We certainly have no plans to change Scottish health board boundaries in the immediate future.
    Mr. Gallie: While I welcome the ever-increasing amount of money that the Government are prepared to spend on health services in Scotland, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that he has almost managed to achieve parity in funding in the Ayrshire and Arran health
    1516
    board area? The redistribution of health service money around Scotland certainly benefits my constituents, and each and every one of them should say thank you to the Scottish Office.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have provided substantial expenditure of £4.2 billion this year. That is an additional £121.3 million, which provides real terms growth of 0.2 per cent. There is much higher spending per head in Scotland on health than there is south of the border. In Scotland £820 a head will be spent, which is 23 per cent. higher than in England. So very high priority is being given to that area.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister review the boundaries in Edinburgh and use that as a pretext for getting rid of his Conservative-appointed health board, which has presided over the shambles in the Royal Edinburgh hospital in my constituency, as evidenced in a secret report which shows that cleaning levels are "abysmal" and that staff shortages are chronic?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer is no. We are, however, considering a bid from the Royal Edinburgh hospital and I shall let the hon. Gentleman know the outcome in due course.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the quality of health services provided by the health authorities is even more important than the delineation of boundaries? Does he agree that, despite all the knocking copy from Opposition Members, the quality of the health service in Scotland is very much better than it was in 1979?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At all times we will give top priority to the interests of patients.
    Mr. George Robertson: When the Minister is looking at the boundaries of health boards, will he consider in particular Grampian—especially Grampian healthcare trust, whose plans for a new hospital in Stonehaven break new boundaries in the Government's push towards privatising the health service? Will he perhaps look up the pamphlet co-authored by the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1985, in which the Secretary of State wrote:
    "The rise of private medicine is an excellent thing and should be encouraged even more"?
    The Secretary of State has never repudiated that, and indeed claims authorship of the pamphlet in "Who's Who". Is it not a fact that the Stonehaven project is but a Trojan horse for the mission of the whole Government—not just the Thatcherite rump over there—to go ahead with the ultimate privatisation of the national health service?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is engaging in scaremongering. The proposals for Stonehaven will result very much more quickly in the provision of a purpose-built, modern hospital than would otherwise have been possible any other way. Services will of course remain free at the point of delivery.

    Earnings
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the change in average weekly earnings for (a) males and (b) females in Scotland over the last 15 years. [5198]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): In 1995, full-time male earnings were almost three times more and female earnings were almost three and a half times more than the 1980 level.
    Dr. Spink: May I follow that happy answer by wishing you, Madam Speaker, a very happy Christmas? Is it not a fact that the enterprise culture promoted by the Government's policies, which has driven up wages by such a great degree, would be damaged, if not destroyed entirely, by a tartan tax as proposed by the Opposition, which would destroy jobs and put a 3p premium on the suggested 10p minimum tax level? That would be a 30 per cent. subsidy for working in Scotland at the lowest level of the economy. How could that be just or fair?
    Mr. Kynoch: I am sure that all hon. Members wish you a happy Christmas, Madam Speaker and since it is Scottish Question Time, would want you to have good Christmas spirit. My hon. Friend's point is absolutely right. Clearly, the Opposition have not worked out the damage that they are intending to do to Scotland and to Scotland's business by the imposition of a tartan tax that is bound to force earnings up. I have not heard any detail from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) in explaining what extra the tax will provide. It will simply force earnings up and provide absolutely nothing for the people concerned except fewer jobs in Scotland.
    Mr. Wilson: Some people in Scotland object to paying taxes, tartan or otherwise, for the purpose of moving jobs from Keith to the south of England. But that is another story.
    Does the Minister recognise the effect that the firm, Burger King, is having on minimum earnings in Scotland? Does he have it in him to condemn unequivocally Grand Metropolitan, a Tory party funder, for paying its employees as little as 20p an hour? Is not that a Tory national minimum wage policy in action?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman's question is no better than usual. He does not realise the damage that his party's minimum wage policy would do to Scotland and the whole United Kingdom. Labour Front-Bench Members will not even say at what level they propose to set a minimum wage; they simply say that they want one. If they want the same level as the unions want, £4.15, it is estimated that, if only half the differentials were restored, some 950,000 jobs would go.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: The question of average weekly earnings is of no interest to people who are out of work. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to contrast the fact that unemployment in Scotland is falling steadily under this Government whereas it would undoubtedly rise as a result of the Labour party's minimum wage policy?
    Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That would be the effect not only of a minium wage but of a tartan tax, which Labour wants to apply through a Scottish tax-raising Parliament and the imposition of the social chapter. Its policies would badly damage Scotland and the Scottish people.
    Mr. McFall: Have not the Government imposed 22 tax rises in Scotland over the past three years? For the population at large, Christmas comes but once a year, but for the Government since 1992, Christmas has
    1518
    come on average every seven weeks. What Christmas cheer will there be for the women who constitute 80 per cent. of the low-paid in Scotland and are paid less than the European decency threshold, or for the 107,000 people in Scotland who work for the miserably low rate of less than £2.50 an hour?
    Mr. Kynoch: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will say what minimum wage he proposes. Will he confirm that Labour's tax-raising Parliament would not put a 3p tax on the Scottish people? Under this Government, taxation is UK-wide; unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman represents policies that would tax Scottish people higher than people in the rest of the United Kingdom and put people out of work.

    Council of Ministers
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent meeting of the EC Council of Ministers he has attended. [5199]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I attended a meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 26 October 1995. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), will leave today to attend a Fisheries Council. It is expected to be concluded on Christmas eve, although I assume that that depends on my hon. Friend achieving a good settlement for Scotland's fishermen.
    Mr. Hamilton: In the conscientious preparation that my right hon. Friend does before he goes to Council meetings, has he ever calculated the costs that would be imposed on Scottish businesses if Labour's policy of imposing the social chapter on Scotland became Government policy? Would not the Labour party's policies grind the Scottish economy between the nether millstone of Brussels burdens and the upper millstone of tartan taxes?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Labour party's policies would destroy jobs in Scotland through the imposition of a minimum wage, the social chapter and a tartan tax. I assume that the minimum wage in Scotland would be higher than in England to compensate for the fact that the Scots will pay a tartan tax, so their take-home pay on the same wage would he less than that of people in England and Wales.
    Dr. Godman: Compliments of the season to you, Madam Speaker. The Minister mentioned his attendance at the Council of Fisheries Ministers. Did he discuss the construction of the new fisheries research vessel for his Department? Could I remind him that Ferguson's in Port Glasgow has bid for that ship? Were he to announce that it was successful, it would be a very pleasant Christmas present for the men and women who work in that excellent yard in Port Glasgow.
    Mr. Forsyth: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the determination with which he has pursued the case for Ferguson's. We hope to be able to make an announcement shortly and I am delighted to be able to tell the House that it is not a matter on which I require the agreement of the European Community, so the hon. Gentleman can expect us to move fairly speedily. We will certainly do our best to look out for Scotland's interests.
    Mr. Salmond: Should not the question he, at how many Council meetings has the Secretary of State actually

    1519
    spoken? The reports were that he went to the Fisheries Council playing second fiddle to the English Fisheries Minister and never uttered a word. Given that last night he totally failed to convince his former colleagues and Euro-sceptics to bail out his Cabinet colleagues to save their discredited fishing policy, why is he not going to the Fisheries Council tomorrow? Where will Scotland be tomorrow without the Secretary of State for Scotland going to the Council to represent our interests—with him saying nothing?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the Member for Aberdeen, South, is attending that Council and will be speaking at it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the grace to welcome that, given his complaints. As for my attendance at meetings of the Council of Ministers, I think that I have attended more such meetings than the hon. Gentleman and I have spoken at a number of them, including the Justice and Home Affairs Councils and the Social Affairs Council, where I saw at first hand how disastrous the policies on the social chapter that the hon. Gentleman and the Scottish National party advocate would be for Scotland's work force. In the margins of those meetings, many of the Ministers whose countries have the social chapter say privately that they recognise that, because we have an opt-out from it, we are a magnet for inward investment. That is why Scotland has benefited from so much inward investment in jobs, which the Scottish National party would destroy.
    Mr. McAvoy: The Secretary of State will be aware that we still have a Scottish steel industry. In that context, can he tell us what representations he has ensured will be made at the Council of Ministers that is dealing with the application by Irish Steel for a European Union subsidy? Will he rest assured that he has the full support of Labour Members in opposing such a subsidy to an Irish steel company—unlike the Scottish National party, which voted against Scotland's interests last week?
    Mr. Forsyth: Halleluiah! Labour Members are denouncing subsidies to the steel industry and distinguishing themselves from the nationalists on the basis that they no longer believe in subsidies. We really have achieved a lot since 1979.
    Mr. George Robertson: If the Secretary of State is ever allowed to attend another European Council of Ministers meeting, will he bear in mind and perhaps learn the lesson of the stinging humiliation that he and the Government suffered last night? Is not it a fact that, even though they put up the last two Thatcherites in the Government to try to appeal to the rebels, they could not stave off defeat, or the exposed chasm that exists in the Tory party on Europe? Just as he cannot speak for the people of Scotland, with 87 per cent. of them opposed to him and his Government, is it not true that the Government cannot speak for this country in Europe? The sooner we have a general election and get a Government who can speak for the whole country the better it will be for us in Europe and in Britain.
    Mr. Forsyth: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was able to follow the debate last night, but I should have thought that he would have recognised that the Labour party amendment was defeated by eight votes and did not reflect a policy that enjoyed unanimity on his Benches. Several of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues
    1520
    argued against the common fisheries policy, while the Opposition Front Bench argued in favour, so he should not present the idea that the Labour party is united on anything in Europe save in one respect; it is the party that would sell out our veto in Europe, hand power to Brussels, ensure that our veto was replaced by qualified majority voting in respect of the social chapter and the rest and which, on fishing, has nothing whatsoever in its manifesto because it has nothing to say to the fishermen of Scotland or of Britain.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to accelerate the deregulatory process, with special reference to small businesses in Scotland. [5200]
    Mr. Kynoch: The Scottish Office is playing its full part in the deregulation initiative and is particularly alert to the concerns of small firms.
    Mr. Steen: As the Secretary of State has not referred one regulation to the Deregulation Committee to deregulate, and as his commitment to deregulation and his support for keeping enforcement of European directives from Europe to the minimum are well known, will he say something about how we can reduce the burdens on small businesses so that they can become more effective and do not have to bear the burdens of officialdom?
    Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is aware that Conservatives are totally committed to deregulation; the Deregulation Committee has been bombarded with proposals and the Scottish Office has a number of proposals in the queue waiting to go to the Committee. I can assure my hon. Friend that my officials are well aware of the need not to hassle small businesses—the life-blood of this country. If my hon. Friend has any concrete evidence of firms being hassled, he should give it to me.
    Mr. Foulkes: The Minister will be aware that many small businesses are in rural areas and he will know from the rural White Paper published last week that, in one decade, employment in Cumnock and Doon valley fell by 27 per cent.—the largest fall in a rural area in Scotland. Is it not crazy to cut the grant to Scottish Enterprise by £33 million and reduce the help to those small businesses in rural areas? Is it not equally crazy for the Secretary of State to cut capital consents to local authorities and restrict their capital borrowing, thus ensuring that some of the money that was to come from the European Community will no longer be forthcoming? My constituents who are unemployed will not have a happy Christmas.
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is aware that unemployment is falling significantly across Scotland. The hon. Gentleman does not recognise that the Government are committed to ensuring that taxpayers' funds are used wisely and sensibly. The hoard of Scottish Enterprise has assured us that, with its reduced budget, it can maintain and even improve output. The hon. Gentleman does not recognise that an important industry in rural areas such as ours is tourism, which employs about 8 per cent. of Scotland's work force. There has been a 20 per cent. increase in the budget to the Scottish tourist board—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is good news for tourism and rural economies.

  Capital Spending
  Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to authorise new capital spending under section 94 consents for local authorities for the financial year 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [5202]
  Mr. Kynoch: In February or March 1996.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Will not the announcement on capital expenditure in November, which restricts the amount which local authorities can spend through capital receipts on capital expenditure in 1996–97. and

  1523
  the current constraints on the amount of capital that can be funded from revenue, mean that £160 million or £170 million less capital expenditure will be devoted to capital projects next year in Scotland? Is it not passing strange that, after 16 years in office, £100 billion from North sea oil and gas and £60 billion from privatisations, the Government are putting constraints on capital expenditure, which means that less will be spent on roads, bridges, schools and industrial development north of the border next year?
  Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman refers to the capital allowances. He must accept that, at present, capital expenditure by local authorities in Scotland is running significantly higher than elsewhere—it is 77 per cent. higher overall than in England. It is therefore only right and proper that we should try to cut the borrowing costs which divert funds from front-line services. That is why the constraints have been put in place.
  When the hon. Gentleman came to see me with the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), we talked about specific projects in his constituency. We also spoke about the opportunity to use the private finance initiative. I hope very much that local authorities will fully explore that possibility, because they could bring forward projects sooner than would be possible if the authorities used purely public funds. They may well find that they get those projects significantly cheaper by using private expertise.
  Mr. Stewart: Will my hon. Friend say something about Government policy towards smallish local authorities which may have major capital projects to finance? I have no doubt that my hon. Friend has the Eaglesham bypass particularly in mind. I am grateful to the Minister of State for meeting a delegation on that recently. Can my hon. Friend say how those projects fit into the allocation process?
  Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend will be aware of the challenge funding arrangement, which will be maintained. Some road and transport spending may be settled by those means, and I am sure that that arrangement will be considered for the particular bypass that my hon. Friend mentioned.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister may know that his colleague, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), visited my constituency recently to look at multi-storey flats. He will no doubt agree that it is important that more and more of such flats, which are not the worst place in the world to live, should have concierge systems. The local authority has tried its utmost to offer to as many multi-storey flats as possible the security of concierge systems. Will the Government release funds to allow local authorities to install such systems, which offer safety particularly to the elderly living in such flats?
  Mr. Kynoch: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman's local authority on the work that it has done on security. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already announced increased funding for closed circuit television, and that local authorities have greater flexibility on how they spend their capital allocations.
  Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister not understand that, by forcing councils to use 25 per cent. of their capital receipts next year and 50 per cent. of them in the following year to repay outstanding capital debts, he is effectively cutting public investment in Scottish housing over those two years by at least £300 million, as well as depriving the already depressed construction industry in Scotland of £300 million-worth of business? How in God's name can that make any sense when there are still tens of thousands of Scots homeless and on the streets, and when the Government's own national housing conditions survey revealed that Scottish housing is riddled with damp and condensation and is in disrepair, which is an utter national disgrace? Why does not the Government give the people of Scotland and Britain the only Christmas present they want from the Government —a general election in the new year? That will give people the opportunity to cast the Government into the political oblivion that they justly deserve.
  Mr. Kynoch: I look forward to whenever the general election campaign begins, because I shall be able to ensure that the people of Scotland are aware of the reckless spending that the Labour party would introduce in the country. The Opposition must accept the fact that, since 1987, local authority housing debt has risen by almost £1 billion to £3.938 billion—an increase of nearly 20 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman were to encourage stock transfers, he would get receipts. He must accept that the cost of borrowing is significant and that it is diverting taxpayers' money into funding debt rather than it being used to deliver services.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local government funding. [5203]
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: On 19 January.
  Mr. McMaster: Does the Secretary of State recall that, last Christmas, hundreds of my constituents in Paisley and Johnstone were flooded out of their homes and that some of them have been unable to return to those homes? When I recently met the Secretary of State, he promised to introduce a new flood prevention Act for Scotland. When will he introduce that Act and, when he does, will he ensure that resources are available to the new unitary authorities so that they can put flood prevention schemes in place?
  Mr. Forsyth: I gave the hon. Gentleman those undertakings, and we shall deliver them. He knows that I promised to consult about the matter in the new year, and I shall do that. It will then be a matter of finding a slot in the legislative programme.
  Is it not a terrible condemnation of Labour councils that they must be forced by statute to do something about the flooding of people's homes? We shall place a duty upon them to ensure that the present discretion that they enjoy is replaced by a requirement to take action when people are flooded out of their homes. Strathclyde has singularly failed to take such action.
  As to the legislative opportunities, I am sure that Labour Members will be delighted that the new procedures in the Scottish Grand Committee and the

  1525
  opportunities for introducing new legislation mean that we may be able to take more action in respect of flood prevention than would have been possible otherwise.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Perth and those living in the Tay valley are very grateful to the Government for their prompt action during the flooding of the Tay last year? We welcome the pledge that my right hon. Friend has given at the Dispatch Box, that he will impose a statutory requirement on the new authorities following consultation. It is absolutely essential that local authorities are made aware of their duties and responsibilities with regard to flooding.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. However, I do not wish to misrepresent the position in respect of the Tayside region. I think that I am correct in saying that the Tayside region is taking forward a flood prevention scheme using the discretionary powers that I have mentioned. Unlike some Labour authorities, such as Strathclyde or Central region, Tayside has chosen that course of action and the Scottish Office is providing resources through the capital allocation to assist it in that process.
  My hon. Friend is right to acknowledge the progress that has been made, but I do not see why that cannot be achieved using the existing discretionary powers. In response to the representations from the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and the concerns that were expressed not only in his constituency but in Kilmarnock, we have said that we shall consult on the issue of imposing a specific mandatory duty upon local authorities.
  Mr. Wallace: Will the Secretary of State confirm that his Department announced earlier today a cut of £400 million in real terms in investment in council housing over the next three years—which is equivalent to some 9,000 houses? How can the Secretary of State justify that decision against a background of too many of our fellow Scots sleeping rough and of overcrowding? When there will be no room at the inn for many thousands of Scots this Christmas, why does he assume the mantle of Scrooge so enthusiastically?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he knows that the figures released recently show a welcome reduction in the number of homeless people. He also knows that we have spent £2 billion on housing and that we have been responsible for refurbishing about 750,000 council houses. He knows the figures for the increase in home ownership. I do not know whether he travels through Scotland on his way to Orkney and Shetland, but, if he does, he must see the transformation that has occurred under the Government, and I would have thought that he would welcome it.
  The hon. Gentleman puts the worst possible interpretation on the figures. Given that he is a prudent and an honest man who argues for higher taxation in order to provide higher expenditure, I am amazed that he has anything to do with the policies of the Labour party, which seems to want to see Scotland and Scottish local authorities disappear under a sea of debt. It wants to fritter away the resources that we make available for housing by paying interest charges and by reducing opportunities for the future.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Speaker: The pretty one—Rachel Squire.
  Ms Rachel Squire: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does the Secretary of State agree that, although the Budget announcement raising Department of Social Security thresholds in respect of means testing for residential and nursing care is welcome, it will place severe additional funding pressure on local authorities? Will he further agree to pursue additional funds for that purpose so that local authorities can ensure that no one in need of residential or nursing care is denied it or is forced into accepting a second-best standard of care?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am delighted, Madam Speaker, that political correctness has not found its way into the Chamber.
  I should have thought that the hon. Lady would have welcomed the changes introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, as they benefit elderly people who have scrimped and saved throughout their lives yet are placed at a disadvantage compared with those who have not. As for giving local authorities more money, if local authorities such as Edinburgh were not abandoning projects to spend £400,000 on corporate identities and painting their vans, and other Scottish local authorities were not receiving 45 per cent. more per head in grant than equivalent authorities in England, there might be a case for considering allocating more money to local government in Scotland. Local government in Scotland has grown at a rate of 6 per cent. while in England it has declined by 6 per cent. over the same period. Its expenditure and its borrowing have grown and it is out of control because it is mainly under the control of the Labour party.

  Tree Diseases
  Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into tree diseases; and what part he takes in its targeting. [5204]
  Mr. Kynoch: The Forestry Commission carries out a wide range of research on tree diseases. Its work is summarised in the commission's report on forest research, a copy of which is in the Library. My right hon. Friend approves the commission's expenditure plans for research.
  Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend's expertise in these matters is well known. Can he tell the House whether fungus diseases are on the increase? I am particularly concerned about honey fungus and the way in which it attacks a wide variety of trees and shrubs. What discussions are taking place with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to produce a cure for fungus diseases?
  Mr. Kynoch: I was not aware that my hon. Friend had appreciated that I had branched out into new areas.
  Mr. Pawsey: Not barking up the wrong tree.
  Mr. Kynoch: I am certainly not barking up the wrong tree. As it is Christmas time, I have taken a great interest in what could be wrong with my Christmas tree.
  The only completely effective way of dealing with an outbreak of honey fungus is to remove as much as possible of the infected plant, including the root system, and to replant a more resistant species. I understand that

  1527
  there are some chemical treatments on the market, but none is completely effective. My hon. Friend can be assured that we are trying to attack the problem. He will be happy to hear that many of our native broadleaved species such as oak are relatively resistant to honey fungus.

  Violent Crimes
  Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of reported violent crimes in Scotland in each of the last five years. [5205]
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Some 19,700, 23,200, 24,900, 21,000 and 21,400 respectively.
  Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister not ashamed and horrified by those figures? Can he explain why some old-age pensioners freeze to death because of VAT on fuel and why thousands of youngsters are homeless and refused benefits by the Government, yet violent crime continues to increase and is at an all-time high? Does one have to be a thug or a criminal to prosper in today's Tory Britain?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman should be perfectly well aware that we are spending about £86 million on urban aid in deprived areas; that should be of considerable assistance to his constituents and to many others in Glasgow.
  Violent crime has fallen; serious assaults are down by 13 per cent. since 1992. Offences of handling offensive weapons are down by 19 per cent., as are robberies by 22 per cent.—a substantial step in the right direction. I am glad that we are bringing closed circuit television to more town centres, to quell crime levels still further. The experiment in Airdrie, for instance, was a complete success. We are allocating £4 million more for that purpose.
  We are also bringing in proposals which mean that prisoners can expect to spend the whole of their sentences in custody, apart from a small amount of earned remission. We believe that that will be a deterrent. Of course there are appeals against too lenient sentences. When some criminals were recently caught on television, their sentence of four years was increased to seven as a result of the appeal by the Lord Advocate.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that the passage of the Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993 over two years ago made an enormous difference to controlling the circulation of knives? Since then, there have been 500 convictions and 300 people have been gaoled. That is an example of the Conservatives in Scotland leading and England eventually following—in the shape of my private Member's Bill. Would my hon. Friend consider an amnesty for knives along the lines of what was done in Scotland? In 1993, 4,500 knives were thrown away in bins—the only place for them to be.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I wish my hon. Friend every success with her knives Bill for England. The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) to control knife assaults has been remarkably successful. As my hon. Friend says, there have been a great many arrests—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is all very well for Opposition Members to grumble,
  1528
  but they opposed giving the police the powers of search in the first place, while the Conservatives forced the Bill through.
  We shall give top priority to ensuring that those who carry knives are caught through the necessary operations, and brought to justice.
  Mr. Connarty: The Minister will be aware of the success of Operation Blade in Strathclyde and Operation Combat in Tayside. One hundred and ninety-seven knives were found on the 1,011 people who were stopped—almost a 20 per cent. success rate—in the Tayside operation. Is the Minister concerned, as I am, by the fact that some police authorities which I have contacted have said that they do not have a knife problem in their areas and do not intend to carry out such operations? Will he assure me that the Scottish Office will encourage police authorities to run operations such as Blade and Combat in their areas, so as to cut out knife carrying in Scotland?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer is yes. The key piece of evidence is the fact that the number of homicides fell substantially as a result of the operation in the west of Scotland. Operation Combat led to many arrests and also to a fall in knife crime rates over a comparable period in the year concerned.

  Drift Netting
  Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet representatives of the fishing industry to discuss drift netting for migratory fish. [5206]
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I expect to meet members of the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards early in the new year.
  Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is huge concern in Scotland about the north-east drift net fishery, which regularly takes 50,000 salmon a year that would otherwise have run up Scottish rivers? Why is drift netting banned in Scotland, as it is in most other countries, but legal in England? Will my hon. Friend meet his MAFF colleagues to ensure that the fishery is closed down, with full compensation?
  Mr. Robertson: I know that my hon. Friend has pursued this issue on many occasions at Scottish questions and with many Scottish Fisheries Ministers. He will be pleased to know that the phasing out of drift netting is proceeding, and that the number of licence holders has dropped by nearly 30 per cent. since 1992.
  Sir David Steel: Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the work of the Tweed Foundation and the research that it is doing into migratory fish? Will he keep a close watch on the numbers being caught in the open seas, bearing in mind the decline in the east coast rivers of Scotland?
  Mr. Robertson: I am happy to agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman. He will be pleased to know that interest groups, including the National Rivers Authority, support a shorter phase-out period.
  Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to hasten the phasing out of the north-east drift net? He will appreciate that the wild salmon stock in our east coast rivers has been falling fast. That will inevitably have

  1529
  a long-term effect on the tourist industry, for example. Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to say whether he has obtained a minimum import price for farmed salmon?
  Mr. Robertson: My right hon. Friend, who had my job until July, is fully aware of the problems that have had to be faced. He has pursued the drift net issue from the Government Front Bench, as he has from the Back Benches. He will be pleased to know that there are now fewer licences. There were 149 in 1985 and in 1995 the number is 99 and falling.
  My right hon. Friend will be delighted to know that the European Union has announced a minimum import price. I am delighted to have had the opportunity of working hard with the Scottish industry in tackling the problem.

  NHS Trusts (Management Expenses)
  Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with NHS trusts on management expenses. [5207]
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Discussion between officials of the Scottish Office and NHS trusts on trust matters take place on an on-going basis. Trusts in Scotland have been asked to reduce their administration costs.
  Mr. Hughes: Even on the Government's own figures, there has been a staggering increase in administration costs over the past four years from £218 million a year to £355 million. As Scottish Office Ministers have defended those increases to the last ditch, what reasons can the Government give for asking for a cut in administration costs without acknowledging incompetence and failure?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman must bear it in mind that more patients are being treated than ever before. That factor must be taken into account. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that expenditure on the national health service in Scotland has increased steadily in real terms. We are insisting on a 5 per cent. switch of resources from administration, which I think he would support. That applies to trusts and health boards. That should result in £14 million more being spent by trusts on patient care. An additional £4 million will be available to health boards. It is right that we should concentrate on the top priorities of heart disease, mental illness and cancer. These are three of the highest priorities in Scotland.

  Local Government Electoral Reform
  Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to implement local government electoral reform. [5209]
  Mr. Kynoch: None.
  Mrs. Michie: Last night, the Secretary of State said that he was open to positive suggestions on further constitutional reform. Will the Minister try to persuade him that one of the most enlightened reforms that he could undertake would be to introduce a fair voting system based on proportional representation for local government elections? That would make councils more accountable and representative and it would be an
  1530
  incentive for voters to vote. The reform should be attractive to the Secretary of State because, if implemented, it might just result in more Tory council seats. After all, Tory councillors are becoming an endangered species in Scotland.
  Mr. Kynoch: When talking about a fair electoral system, the hon. Lady should talk to her colleagues in the Liberal Democrat party about a fair electoral system for their proposed tax-raising Parliament. She seems to have botched together some deal to get her party's proposals off the ground. It seems that about 56 of the 129 Members that they are proposing would be party hacks.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party has never changed constitutional rules to secure narrow benefits at elections? We are concerned about having a constitution that will stand the test of time, as has the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom. We shall have no truck with Members being selected in smoke-filled rooms instead of at the ballot box.
  Mr. Kynoch: I totally agree with my hon. Friend.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of benefits to Scotland from the national lottery. [5211]
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Scotland is doing extremely well from the national lottery. To date, more than 560 awards have been made, totalling around £125 million.
  Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the sums available for Scotland from the national lottery for the arts, heritage, sports, charities and the millennium fund are far larger than originally predicted, that that is bringing widespread benefits to Scotland, and that the national lottery is a brilliant national achievement?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some £23 million has gone towards Scotland's Field of Dreams at Hampden. The arts have received £27 million, sports £16 million, charities £7 million, heritage £22 million and the millennium £40 million, which includes a millennium forest that will extend the cover of native woodlands in Scotland. Some 80 per cent. of the awards have been for less than £100,000, so hundreds of small sports clubs, amateur dramatic societies and local museums have benefited to an extent beyond their wildest dreams.
  Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Austin Reilly of the national stadium committee, Queen's Park football club and the Scottish Football Association on obtaining £21 million from the millennium fund for the continuing redevelopment of Hampden? Will he also find an opportunity to discuss with the Secretary of State for National Heritage the changes to the rules in the operation of the national lottery to ensure that some of the money can be used for revenue spending for the arts rather than entirely for capital spending, thus removing the threat that hangs over Scottish Opera and some of our other great cultural organisations?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will have heard the hon. Gentleman's question. I share the hon.

  1531
  Gentleman's great enthusiasm for Hampden's success and for that of many other projects in Scotland, including the Glasgow film theatre, the Scottish gallery of modern art,
  1532
  and the Strathclyde Poverty Alliance, in which he has an interest. In addition, £1.5 million has gone to Tayside regional council for a sports complex.

Director General of Oflot
3.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement about the conduct of the Director General of Oflot and her decision to retain him in his post.
The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I met the director general yesterday to discuss the issues surrounding the flights and hospitality that GTech provided for him and his staff on visits in America.
My confidence in the director general remains. There is no doubt about his integrity. He has played a major part in the launch of the highly successful lottery. He was responsible for the conscientious and effective evaluation of bids for the licence to run the lottery. The process was endorsed by the National Audit Office as
"comprehensive, consistent, logical and properly controlled",
in line with the statutory duties placed on him.
The visits to America took place some months after Oflot awarded the main licence to Camelot. The director general considered with care the issues raised, recorded them thoroughly, and made no attempt to hide them. He declared his interests appropriately. There has been no question of his having sought or received personal gain from the visits that he undertook.
The director general is accountable to Parliament. He is making a full report on his overseas travel and hospitality arrangements to the Public Accounts Committee. He has assured me that there are no other issues that may come to light subsequently which could affect my decision in this matter.
I have told the director general that I do not think that his acceptance of the flights was wise in the context of his role as regulator of the lottery. Within the statutory role that he performs, which is to ensure that the lottery is run with propriety, that the interests of players are protected and, subject to that, that the proceeds for good causes are as great as possible, it is inevitable that he needs to work closely with Camelot. I have told him that this fact makes it all the more important that he should maintain a proper distance from the company and its constituent parts, and be seen to do so, taking all steps to guard against any possible misunderstanding of his actions.
The director general has assured me that, should any issues arise that may lead to a potential conflict with his role as regulator, he will seek guidance from my Department and inform it of the decision that he takes as to how to proceed.
I can inform the House that the director general has announced today that Miss Anne Rafferty QC will head an inquiry into the allegations by Richard Branson against Mr. Guy Snowden of GTech. The inquiry will start in the new year, and the report will be published. The House will be aware that Miss Rafferty was a member of the royal commission into the criminal justice system, chaired by Lord Runciman. She is currently chairman of the Criminal Bar Association and a recorder of the Crown court, sitting in the south-eastern circuit.
Dr. Cunningham: Does the right hon. Lady recognise that her astonishing decision to give Mr. Davis a vote of
1534
confidence was rightly met with universal condemnation in the press today? Does she acknowledge that, on Monday, during questions to the Department of National Heritage, she withheld important information about Mr. Davis's disregard of clear advice from her Department? As she twice promised on Monday to report to the House on her decision, in columns 1204 and 1205 of Hansard, why did she then announce her decision in a press statement and not in the Chamber?
It has taken a private notice question to get the right hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box to answer questions on which she assured the House two days ago she would report. In less than three days this week, she has re-established a pitiful record for inconsistency and bad judgment.
Does the right hon. Lady recall that, as recently as Monday of this week, her own departmental officials were briefing the press that Mr. Davis had to go, yet within 24 hours she had confirmed him in his post? As Mr. Davis has brazened out his position and the Secretary of State has backed down, will she now say to whom and on what basis the regulator is accountable? Is it not absurd for Mr. Davis to suggest that he can carry out his public responsibilities for the lottery effectively only if the very organisation he is there to supervise pays his expenses? That is a completely new doctrine of public accountability.
Does the point in the right hon. Lady's letter to Mr. Davis yesterday—that his visits took place after the licence was awarded to Camelot—mean anything at all? Surely it is irrelevant, as his duties and responsibilities to regulate Camelot and GTech persist. She has confirmed him in that post. How can she possibly defend the regulator's conduct when she and her Department specifically advised him against the visits before he undertook them?
Is it not clear that, if the civil service management code applied to Mr. Davis, his position would be completely indefensible? Civil servants are told that they
"must not receive gifts, hospitality or benefits of any kind from a third party which might be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity."
Is that not precisely what Mr. Davis has done? The code goes on to say:
"In drawing up and in interpreting their own standards of conduct, departments and agencies must pay full regard to the need for staff to conform and be seen to conform to the principles".
Has not Mr. Davis blatantly disregarded those principles? Does that not make it clear that a code of conduct for regulators of private monopoly organisations is now long overdue? Will the right hon. Lady undertake to present such a code to the House without delay?
Has not this whole episode exposed an abysmal lack of judgment, not only by Mr. Davis but by the right hon. Lady herself? Is it not clear from her inadequate response to this private notice question that she apparently has learnt nothing from the events of the past week?
Mrs. Bottomley: The decision was taken only after careful consideration, and an examination of all the facts. It remains the case that Mr. Davis, as the regulator, has overseen the introduction of an incredibly successful lottery—probably the most successful, and the most effectively regulated, anywhere in the world.

1535
There can be no question of withholding information from the House. The right hon. Gentleman is correct: the question of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) was answered at 3.30 pm. I hope that I have been entirely open with the House throughout. Yesterday, at the moment when I sent the letter to Mr. Davis, I also placed a copy in the House, and gave copies to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
The regulator of Oflot is indeed required to follow the directions for which the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 provides. I issue directions to him under section 11; he is required by section 14 to report annually to the Secretary of State, and I lay his report before Parliament. Indeed, I drew attention to that report at Question Time earlier this year, because it is a thorough, comprehensive and impressive document.
The regulator also answers to the Public Accounts Committee. His performance before that Committee—he replied at length to questions, openly giving information that he had recorded meticulously on all aspects of those questions—was an example of his sense of responsibility and accountability to it. Under section 15 of the Act, the regulator must supply me with any information that I require.
As for the question of advice given to the regulator, it is indeed the case—as I have made clear—that, in general terms, he was advised that he should pay the costs of the hospitality involved in the trip to America. The money used to pay for that trip was provided by Oflot and the taxpayer. In the case of these incidents, the regulator took the view—for operational reasons—that the only way in which he could visit all the different lottery centres and return to work in London in the time provided was to accept GTech's offer.
I do not think that that was wise, but it must be said that—notwithstanding the Labour party's innuendo—it did not constitute an acceptance of gifts: "gifts" implies personal gain, and there is no suggestion of any personal gain in this case. As my hon. Friends are only too aware, the beneficiary was the British taxpayer.
Throughout the affair, there has been no suggestion of the regulator's honesty or integrity being in question. The Labour party's victimisation, pursuit and hounding of a man who has done his job as well as the regulator has demonstrates that it is unfit to govern, now or ever.
Mr. Peter Brooke: My right hon. Friend had a very difficult decision to make, and no one would have blamed her if she had decided differently. She determined the issue fairly, judiciously and decisively. Are we not lucky to have in the director general a man who has created a most efficient lottery, as yet untainted by corruption? Is it not the case that only those with the languid intellectual self-assurance of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) would believe that total infallibility is as universal among princes as it is always supposed to be among popes?
Mrs. Bottomley: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I believe that we should make a considered decision that is right, rather than a rash decision that is wrong. I have weighed all the elements of the case very
1536
carefully, and I consider it right to retain confidence in Peter Davis, who has so far done an extremely impressive job.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Secretary of State refrain from implying that the Public Accounts Committee has given Mr. Davis a clean bill of health? Will she recognise that many people would like to know not only whether she was satisfied about the unwisdom of his accepting hospitality and flights from GTech, but whether she has asked any questions of Mr. Davis about the possible unwisdom of involving GTech in the British national lottery when that company in the United States has left a trail of charges in the criminal courts that are in the public domain? Senior officers have been accused of bribery, fraud, corruption and other crimes. Has she or any of her officials done anything to investigate that appalling background to a company that, on the face of it, appears ill suited to be the lead in running a clean national lottery, far from sleaze?
Mrs. Bottomley: I was referring to the National Audit Office report, which commented on Mr. Davis's evaluation of the eight bids to run the national lottery, and on the investigation into all the constituent parts, including whether it was suitable, fit and proper for GTech, as a member of the Camelot bid, to undertake that responsibility. The NAO report said:
"the evaluation process was comprehensive, consistent, logical and properly controlled".
As for the Public Accounts Committee, what I said was that the director general had given it thorough, open and honest answers at great length, on the basis of information that was carefully recorded and documented. He is a rigorous and thorough individual, which is characteristic of an accountant.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Are not the Opposition making themselves look trivial and foolish by taking this stand against Oflot's director general? Can there be any justification in attacking the integrity of that decent, honourable and successful man, who was trying only to save the taxpayer money—[Laughter.]—look how they laugh when it is a question of saving the taxpayer money—to no benefit whatever to himself? Can the justification be any more than a determined attempt to destabilise the lottery, which has been an outstanding success, and to undermine the Government with it?
Mrs. Bottomley: Undoubtedly, the Labour party always seeks to resort to personal vilification rather than carefully weighing up the evidence. My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right: the lottery has been a tremendous success. That affronts the Labour party, which loathes success. It would take it away from the operator, cap the prizes and reduce the remarkable amount of money coming through to good causes. Only today, there were another 22 grants from the national heritage memorial fund, which means that 4,600 different projects have benefited from the lottery.
Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the answer that she says she gave me at 3.30—which, incidentally, I did not receive at 3.30, but that is trivial—was nothing to do with the American flight? It was to do with Australia. Will she also confirm that her fax to me of the letter that was going

1537
in the Library was a welcome courtesy, but of no use to 650 other Members, and that it did not allow them or me to ask a question as to a decision on Monday?
Will the right hon. Lady now explain why she told me the day previously in an answer that her Department knew about these flights the week before the Public Accounts Committee hearing, why her accounting officer did not inform the National Audit Office of those flights, and why she did not, as a courtesy, inform the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee about those flights? We are left with a sneaking suspicion that, had it not been for the answer to one question at the PAC meeting, this matter would never have become public.
Mrs. Bottomley: It was neither appropriate nor necessary to take the steps that the right hon. Gentleman describes. My concern is second to none in wishing the lottery's good name to be maintained. It is a successful and well-run lottery. As I have explained to the House, I reported to it as I announced that decision. It was right to bring the uncertainty to an end.
Once I had had the opportunity, not only to discuss the matter with senior officials at my Department, who had spent a great deal of time with the director general, but to speak to him myself, as swiftly as I could, I took the opportunity of informing the right hon. Gentleman and the House, to bring the uncertainty to an end and to allow the director general to get on with his work.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Is it not obvious that Opposition Members detest the tremendous success of the lottery, and would love to overturn it? They cannot succeed in doing that: all they can do is chip around the edges to try to undermine it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the director general is a completely honest man who has done nothing bad, but that, as a distinguished accountant, he has acted more like an accountant than like a judge, which would have been wiser in the distinguished appointment that he occupies?
Mrs. Bottomley: I entirely share my hon. Friend's assessment. The lottery is certainly a great success. The director general's duty is to ensure the propriety of the lottery, to make sure that the interests of those who play are protected, and to maximise the amount for good causes. As my hon. Friend and 4,600 good causes are aware, the results for good causes have exceeded all expectations. I wish to maintain the lottery's good name, and that is the commitment of the director general. I have made it clear, albeit that these incidents took place several months after the award of the licence to Camelot, that his steps were unwise.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Did not the Secretary of State realise from the very beginning that Peter Davis was connected to this dodgy firm in the United States, which is well known for handing out ba khanders to get its own way? That is the firm that he has been cosying up to, and he has been flying here, there and everywhere using its money.
I am drawn to the conclusion reached by somebody, not in the House but out there, one of the people who buy lottery tickets, who said, "What is it Peter Davis knows? How does he manage to save himself from getting the sack? Does he know where the bodies are buried? Does he know about all the lottery fiddles that have been covered up by the Government?" When will this
1538
Government learn? They are hanging on to save this man's skin, but as sure as night follows day, like all the rest of them they have defended, in the new year he will have to go, and a different story will have to be told.
Mrs. Bottomley: It saddens me to hear the hon. Gentleman speak in that way on these matters. If I had taken the view that Peter Davis was unfit to continue as the regulator, I would not have hesitated to say so. Having looked fairly and thoroughly at all the evidence, it is my view that he is a proper person to continue with that task, which so far he has undertaken successfully.
I am sure that people "out there" are influenced by repeated comments, such as those made by the hon. Gentleman, which are neither fair nor proper. I understand that Mr. Davis's wife shared childbirth classes with the wife of a director of GTech 20 years ago. That is not a matter that people are required to enter in a register of interests. The hon. Gentleman may understand that.
Mr. Peter Luff: Does my right hon. Friend understand that her decision to stand by the director general of Oflot is widely welcomed by Conservative Members, and by the country as a whole? Does she share my sense of revulsion at the attempt by the Labour party to destroy the reputation of an honest public servant for narrow party advantage? What does she think that kind of gutter politics does for the reputation of politicians as a whole?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend speaks exactly the view that I share—that, if someone from outside the public service comes in to take on a position of responsibility, he has as much right as anyone else to be treated fairly on the basis of the facts. I thoroughly scrutinised all aspects of this case, and I believe that it is right for him to continue with the task. Labour's attitude does it no credit at all.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Whether the Minister likes it or not, is not the sad reality that, because of what business people call the "smell factor", Mr. Davis is from now on damaged goods? He will not have the legitimacy and credibility that are necessary for the proper performance of his functions.
Mrs. Bottomley: I think that I have made it clear that he has done an effective job. He has achieved a better result for the national lottery and for good causes than anyone expected. If the Labour party thinks that the decision should be made on the "smell factor", that makes it even less fit for government. People and their jobs and responsibilities should be considered on the basis of the evidence and the facts, and not on the smell from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Was that question from the Opposition not a dreadfully obscene example of blood sports, in pursuit of not a politician but an official who thought that he was doing something good by saving his employer—in this case the taxpayer—expenses?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend encapsulates the situation precisely. Mr. Davis has been competent, effective and successful. I believe that he should continue in his job.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Secretary of State may not know it, but she has issued a

1539
serious criticism of the director general from the Dispatch Box. She said that he seriously lacked wisdom in this matter. In those circumstances, an honourable person would resign from his position, or it should be her job to remove him. From now on, should not Oflot be called "Offload"?
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman did not—I believe—encapsulate the words that I used. What I said was that, in this case, which took place some months after the licence had been awarded, I took the view that it was unwise—albeit there was no personal gain, no lack of honesty or integrity and all aspects were carefully recorded and indeed discussed when questions were asked.
The hon. Gentleman should look carefully at the National Audit Office report, because it is as complimentary an endorsement of the rigour and integrity of the whole process of selection of the operator as any Member could wish to see. The director general of Oflot deserves a great deal of the credit for that successful process.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her courage in not taking the easy way out of this problem. It would have been very easy to ask Mr. Davis for his resignation. Is it right to think that a successful, intelligent and able man should be condemned and forced from a job that he is doing very well because of one instance of something that we might describe as naive?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend speaks for a great number of Members. The decision was not wise, but it has to be seen in the context of somebody undertaking his task extremely successfully and effectively. I should like to quote from a comment made by a former colleague of the director general. It said of Mr. Davis:
"He is totally honest and of the highest probity. He is a very meticulous man who writes down everything and all of the expenses he incurs."
That certainly coincides with my experience of him.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the right hon. Lady say whether the friendship of 20 years ago was continued, and whether it was known about at the time of the appointment of Camelot?
Hon. Members: McCarthyism.
Mrs. Bottomley: As my hon. Friends have said, this is becoming McCarthyism of the worst sort. Is the man fit to continue in his role or not? I have said that he retains my confidence, because I believe that he is a man of integrity and honesty. He has always been entirely clear about his past and present acquaintances. There is no evidence that I know of to suggest that the friendship affected his judgment in any way at all. I rely once again on the evidence of the National Audit Office, which gave such a thorough endorsement of his evaluation process of the eight people who bid for the lottery licence.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend has earned additional respect on the Conservative Benches for not taking the easy option. Does she not draw parallels with the visits of certain members of the National Heritage Select Committee, including
1540
myself and including the Chairman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), to Tattersall's, the Victoria state lottery in Australia, before the contract was awarded? That involved GTech too. There was no question of impropriety there, and there is no question of impropriety in this case.
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Were the matters to which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred a few moments ago known to those who advised Mr. Davis? How long before the visit was that advice given? Has the Secretary of State asked Mr. Davis why that advice was ignored? What was his reply, and why did she find it of overriding significance?
Mrs. Bottomley: Much as I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's question, the process of investigating GTech as a constituent part of the bid for the lottery was thoroughly and rigorously endorsed. I would have to refer back to the question by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to reply to the hon. Gentleman's question more thoroughly.
Mr. David Lidington: Despite all the innuendoes that have been levelled by Mr. Davis's critics, no one has come up with a shred of concrete evidence of corruption or malpractice. Is it not despicable that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) should seek to smear an honest man's name in an attempt to bolster his flagging ratings with his party?
Mrs. Bottomley: The easy option is to find a scapegoat and make him or her carry the can to get a round of applause. That is always the Labour party's approach. Labour Members always look for a scalp when dealing with an issue. Some issues are more complex, and many factors are involved. We have looked at all the aspects of this case carefully and thoroughly. It would be unfair and poor judgment to take this incident out of context and say that, in spite of all that has been achieved, the director general should forgo his job.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does not the Secretary of State realise that Mr. Davis made a serious error of judgment and disregarded the advice given to him, in order to save peanuts compared with what the national lottery makes? The public expected him to resign or the Secretary of State to sack him. They now want to know whether he, she or the Government will go first.
Mrs. Bottomley: The incident involved no personal gain to the director general; only the British taxpayer benefited. He also took into account his need to return to work as director general in London as swiftly as possible. I have made it clear that it was not a wise decision, but the idea that it affected his judgment or integrity in any way is nonsense.
Mr. Simon Coombs: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her firm stand, both on her decision and in dealing with questions this afternoon? Does not the director general, Mr. Peter Davis, preside over the most successful lottery in the world, and should not that count in his favour? Can it be doubted that GTech's position in all this is simply that it has developed the most successful lottery technology in the world, which

1541
is widely used by lotteries throughout the world? Are not the Opposition today motivated by the principles of a McCarthyite witch hunt, aimed not so much at Peter Davis as at my right hon. Friend and the Government?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right.
I urgently confess that I misled the House a moment or two ago. I announced that, earlier today, an extra 22 awards were made from the national heritage memorial fund for the lottery. The figure should have been 33, bringing the total to 4,625 awards. I apologise for that factual error.
My hon. Friend mentioned GTech, which is a well-known company involved in lotteries. But that was not the material factor in terms of the Camelot bid. The important factor was whether the group was fit and proper to undertake our national lottery, and whether its bid would maximise the return for good causes. As I have said repeatedly, the scrutiny of whether the group was fit and proper was undertaken very carefully. As for maximising the return for good causes, the result has exceeded expectations, as the House knows only too well.
Mr. John Maxton: As one who voted for the Second Reading of the National Lottery etc. Bill, and who supported the lottery throughout and believes that it is a success, may I tell the Secretary of State that, for that success to continue, the director general of Oflot must be above all suspicion? I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Mr. Davis is not, and that therefore he must go.
Mrs. Bottomley: I know of no one who has said that he is a subject of suspicion. I did not know that that was the issue involved. As far as I am aware, no one has suggested that he has been influenced or biased in exercising his decisions, but that is what the hon. Gentleman implied.
I also take the view that, because of the sensitivity of his job, the director general should act with propriety and be seen to do so on all occasions and that his decisions should not be the subject of misunderstanding. That is why I expressed my opinion that those incidents, which took place several months after the licence was awarded, were unwise. That is why I also sought an assurance from the director general that, in future, he would keep in even closer touch with officials from my Department, and would report back on any such matters.
Mr. Peter Hain: Can the Secretary of State confirm that, at the time that the director general undertook the freebie flights from GTech, the contract for the scratchcards had not yet been awarded, and that he subsequently had a significant say in the awarding of that contract?
Mrs. Bottomley: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, he is correct that that took place before the scratchcard licences were awarded, but after the main on-line licence was awarded. The director general did have a part to play in that matter. His concern is to maximise the return to the good causes, and it is wrong for hon. Members to imply that his judgment was contaminated, particularly in the light of the National Audit Office's endorsement of his approach and process.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: Conservative Members have said that the director general
1542
is not dishonest. I would not say that he is dishonest, but he is very stupid. It is also very stupid for the Secretary of State to say that it was all right for him to take those matters on board after the licence was awarded. How would she feel if chairmen of licensing boards accepted hospitality from public houses for which they had granted licences? She would be the first to condemn local authority people—[Interruption.] I let the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) speak, and he should allow me to speak.
The people out there in our constituencies who are paying for the lottery think that this is a very strange situation. If the right hon. Lady is going to back the director general, they will be asking for her resignation.
Mrs. Bottomley: I made it clear that the director general retains my confidence, because, overall, he is competent to do the job, which he is doing effectively. He made it clear that he accepted the flight so that he could visit more lottery centres in the United States than he would otherwise have been able to do, as they are nowhere near the main airline centres. It was simply his wish to complete the task swiftly, and return to London to get on with his job here.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Does not the Secretary of State realise that the answer that she gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) transformed the nature of these exchanges? It is not just the regulator but she herself who should go. [Laughter.]Conservative Members may well laugh—I suspect that they may soon laugh on the other side of their faces. Throughout these exchanges, the right hon. Lady has repeatedly emphasised the fact that the lottery licence was granted before the regulator took the flights. She misled the House by not acknowledging that—
Madam Speaker: Order. No, no. The right hon. Lady has not misled the House. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that remark, and rephrase it?
Mr. Wilson: I withdraw.
Has the Secretary of State not been in danger of inadvertently giving a false impression by suggesting that no pecuniary benefit was available to GTech in the period subsequent to the gifts and favours being taken, because a hugely lucrative business in scratchcards followed it?
Following on from the question of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), those of us who have followed the matter from the outside know that there were vast questions about the propriety of GTech—
Madam Speaker: Order. This is not how the House should respond to statements—hon. Members must ask questions of the Minister. I have allowed the questions to run for some time, as there is much interest in the subject. I now want the hon. Gentleman to ask a direct question, so that the right hon. Lady can answer it. Two more hon. Members wish to ask questions, and I ask them to have them ready, as I want them to ask them briskly.
Mr. Wilson: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Apart from the scratchcard issue, how have even this Government ended up appointing a lottery regulator whose defence turns out to be that he has been a personal friend of the principals in GTech for 20 years?
Mrs. Bottomley: I have repeated at great length that, in all the circumstances, I have not found the director

1543
general to be no longer worthy to continue in office; I have confidence in his ability to continue to regulate the lottery. I set it out clearly in the letter to him, and I do not think that I can give the House any further help.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is not the Secretary of State aware that, at the meeting between Richard Branson and Peter Davis to discuss the bribery attempt, a note was passed to GTech, not by the Treasury solicitor, as GTech's press release of 11 December states, but by Peter Davis or Oflot? Will the Secretary of State investigate that matter, and investigate what was received in return?
Mrs. Bottomley: I have already announced to the House that Miss Rafferty is establishing an inquiry into the allegations made by Richard Branson against an officer of GTech in an interview broadcast on 11 December, to consider the facts surrounding a meeting between Richard Branson and Mr. Guy Snowden in September 1993, and to report to the director general any bearing those allegations or facts may have on the exercise of his powers under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993.
Mr. George Foulkes: As the Secretary of State said that Mr. Davis took the free flights to save the taxpayer money, will she explain why her officials advised Mr. Davis against taking those free flights?
Mrs. Bottomley: I did not say that he did it "to" save the taxpayer money; I said that the taxpayer was the beneficiary, rather than Mr. Davis personally. I said that he took the flights for operational reasons in order to be able to complete his visits to a great number of lottery centres and return to the UK at the earliest opportunity. Officials, in general terms, advised the director general to be responsible for his travel and hospitality costs, because of the normal rules on such matters. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Let the right hon. Lady answer the questions.
Mrs. Bottomley: The director general, Oflot and the British taxpayer funded the vast sums involved in the visit—for the flights and the basic accommodation. Mr. Davis took the view that, in this particular incident, it would not be appropriate for him to hire a jet independently, and he accepted the offer in order to complete the task faster and return to England. There is no question that the incident affected his judgment, integrity or honesty.
I made it clear, however, that I believed that it was unwise, which is why I asked the director general in the letter to ensure that he keeps in closer touch in future. It is not my judgment that that incident should deprive him of the job that he has so evidently carried out successfully and effectively, to the great benefit of the British people and the good causes that have received extra funds from the lottery.

Business of the House
4.13 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House please give us the details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for the period after the imminent recess—at least I hope that it is imminent—will be as follows:
TUESDAY 9 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 10 JANUARY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Reading of the Security Service Bill.
THURSDAY 11 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Rating (Caravans and Boats) Bill.
Debate on progress on business links on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 12 JANUARY—The House will not be sitting.
More provisionally, the business for the second week back which I expect to include is as follows. On Monday 15 January, there will be the Second Reading of the Finance Bill; on Tuesday 16 January, the first allotted Opposition day, there will be a debate on an Opposition motion, the subject of which will no doubt be decided nearer the time; I am not yet in a position to give details of the business on Wednesday 17 January; on Thursday 18 January I intend to have a debate on the Army on a motion for the Adjournment of the House; and Friday 19 January is the first day for Second Readings of private Members' Bills.
Mrs. Taylor: May I thank the Leader of the House for that information? He knows from business questions last week that we were pleased that he decided to withdraw from debate the regulations that would withdraw benefit from asylum seekers. We advocated the withdrawal of the regulations because we thought it was wrong that such measures should be activated before a debate had taken place in the House. The Leader of the House will be aware that the Select Committee on Social Security is also considering that issue, and I wonder whether he can give an assurance to the House that the debate on those regulations will not take place before we have the benefit of the Committee's report on them.
Is it possible to have an early debate on the conditions in Holloway prison, which so alarmed the new chief inspector of prisons? In particular, it would be useful to have a debate so that Ministers have an opportunity to tell the House how long they have been aware of that appalling situation.
Do the Government intend to publish a White Paper setting out Government policy on the issues to be discussed at the intergovernmental conference of the European Union, which will start at the end of March? That would be very useful, because it is important that the House has ample opportunity to debate such issues before those negotiations and discussions get under way.
Will the Leader of the House ensure that there will be a ministerial statement and report to the House on the Fisheries Council, which starts tomorrow, so that

1545
Members will be able to judge to what extent the Government have taken on board the concerns that led to last night's defeat for the Government?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give an assurance that the Government will not propose a debate on the regulations on benefits for asylum seekers until the intended report is received from the Social Security Select Committee: not least because I think that urgent action is needed, for reasons that have been explained to the House. I do not know when the Select Committee's report might arrive. I repeat what I said last week—the undertakings that the Deputy Prime Minister and I gave should provide an opportunity for the Social Security Select Committee to complete its deliberations. We would welcome sight of the report before any debate takes place in the House.
The hon. Lady left it to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—I make no complaint about that—to deal with this morning's debate. Therefore, she will not have had time to receive a report on it, and still less to study it.
Mrs. Taylor: Yes, I have.
Mr. Newton: If she has been able to see a report, it must have been by mysterious means into which I will not inquire. In that case, she will be aware that I made some observations on the subject of Holloway in my speech this morning, to which I refer her.
On the subject of a White Paper on the IGC, I am not in a position to add to what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in the recent debate, and in other exchanges that have taken place.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would expect to report to the House, in the usual way and at the appropriate time, on the outcome of the Fisheries Council.
Mr. David Congdon: Will my right hon. Friend find time when we return from the recess for a debate on waste in local government so that hon. Members have a chance to consider the £200 million being wasted by Hackney council on paying 100 employees who should be made redundant but for the council's no compulsory redundancy policy?
Mr. Newton: As I have observed on several recent occasions, I am glad to say that there will be further opportunity to debate local government matters. For example, my hon. Friend may be fortunate in catching the eye of the Chair during the debate on the local government finance orders, which normally come before the House towards the end of January or early February.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I support the plea for an urgent report to be made early in the new year on the result of the discussions in the Fisheries Council meeting to be held later this week. The business has yet to be announced for 17 January, and it would certainly be of benefit to some of us who have fishing interests in our constituencies to know what chance there is of a sensible reform of the common fisheries policy at next year's IGC. Does the Leader of the House also accept that there is a need for a debate in Government time on the privatisation of the railways?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to respond with an immediate
1546
acceptance of the latter request in his question, given the amount of discussion that there has been just recently about the railways. However, the franchising process is now going ahead extremely well, so I see some attractions in such a debate. I might even be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman in due course.
On the first half of the hon. Gentleman's question, obviously he can and has supported the representations about the common fisheries policy, and in my characteristically reasonable way, I have taken note of his support for the representations made.
Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend consider trying to give time for a debate on exports, so that we can review the considerable achievements in recent months of British industry in the export market, in particular the engineering industry of the west midlands? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that such a debate would give us the opportunity to expose those Labour party policies that can be found and the damage that they would do to our exporting record?
Mr. Newton: I might venture to suggest to my hon. Friend that the debate that I have announced for Thursday 11 January on progress on business links might provide an opportunity to make some reference to exports because the purpose of those links is to improve all the supporting services to firms, not least small firms, which are contributing greatly to our export performance.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: May we have a debate on child labour laws in Britain and the totally inadequate consultation exercise that the Government are carrying out, which will conclude at the end of January? It is proposed to deregulate further child labour so that children in Britain will be less protected than any of their counterparts in the European Union. It is important that we have a debate on that instead of the Government introducing further deregulation through the back door.
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Lady's request, and she would expect no less. I wonder whether people who raise such issues have contemplated how much unnecessary upset would be caused, for example, if we followed the path that some advocate, which would prevent a large part of the British population from making newspaper rounds, which help the community and those making them, and which seem entirely reasonable to me.
Mr. Michael Stephen: Can my right hon. Friend find time for another debate on legal aid? He will be aware that many of our constituents are concerned that the Lord Chancellor continues to make civil legal aid available to persons from overseas, who have no real and substantial connection with this country. He will be aware that the funds available to the Legal Aid Board are limited. How can we explain to our constituents who are just above the income or capital limit that there is no money available to give them legal aid, but money is available for persons coming from abroad?
Mr. Newton: I would not rule out further discussions on that matter in due course, but I cannot promise them in the first fortnight back after the recess.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I am sorry to hear that the Leader of the House does not have the modern facilities that I have in my office, which enable me to watch what is going on in the Chamber

1547
while I do constituency work. Some weeks ago, he may recall that I asked him for a debate on Ordtech and the result of the Court of Appeal judgment in that case. I am still waiting for an answer, and I note that 17 January is available for such a debate. Should we not have that debate before the Scott inquiry reports at the end of January, so that we all know what has been going on?
Mr. Newton: I shall examine what the hon. Gentleman has said. I must admit that I was still thinking about his comment about the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). I understood that she had other commitments elsewhere; I did not realise that they were with the television. My response was directed at my interpretation of her remarks that she had seen an account of this morning's proceedings in the House. But perhaps she has merely talked to the hon. Member for Perry Barr, who I am sure gave her a very accurate account of events.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Last week I raised with my right hon. Friend the matter of the adverse impact of road construction programme cuts upon business in my constituency. My right hon. Friend referred to the business links debate that is to occur on Thursday 11 January. Would it be appropriate for me to raise during that debate the matter of the adverse impact that those cuts are having upon Macclesfield and its links with the excellent and growing Manchester international airport?
Mr. Newton: That would be for the Chair to decide. As I suspect my hon. Friend knows, the links in the phrase business links refer to the flow of information rather than the flow of goods. I am not sure whether I am allowed to refer to his presence as he is below the Bar of the House, but it must be within the knowledge of the House that the Secretary of State for Transport has heard what my hon. Friend has said. Therefore, I think that we can assume that his remarks have found the right target.
Mr. George Foulkes: Has the Leader of the House considered the request that I made last week for a debate on the textile and carpet industry? Since then, I have received a letter from the British Carpet Manufacturers Association expressing concern about the grant that the French Government are to give to the Beaulieu carpet group in Belgium to establish a plant in northern France and the alleged unfairness of the grant under European Union rules. That is one of many issues that could be considered during such a debate. Many people are concerned about the state of the textile and carpet industry and I think that hon. Members on both sides would welcome an early opportunity to debate the matter.
Mr. Newton: I was not aware of the particular point that the hon. Gentleman raised in his question, but I shall ensure that it is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I keep a little list—if I can put it like that—of matters for debate. I cannot promise that I shall be able to strike the hon. Gentleman's name off that list, but I can promise him that he is still on it.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Could we have a debate on law and order early next year so that we can highlight the way in which the Criminal Justice Acts are
1548
beginning to hit the villains? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the sentence of 27 years' imprisonment passed today on a burglar whose practice was to threaten to poke out a pensioner's eye with a screwdriver? Is that not a disgraceful crime and is it not jolly good to see that such villains are increasingly being dealt with?
Mr. Newton: By happy coincidence, a photocopy of the front page of the Evening Standard happened to fall into my hands on my way into the Chamber, so I am aware of the story. I think that many people will welcome the length of the sentence in that case. As my hon. Friend says, that sentence results from criminal justice legislation passed by the Government: section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I was the only hon. Member present who was unable to participate in this morning's debate—such debates used to have short speeches, but they were often long speeches today. I wished to raise the matter of the democratic deficit in local government, Northern Ireland, this country and the European Union. Would it not be a good idea to have an early debate on that subject, to which the Leader of the House could respond?
Mr. Newton: We have had a number of opportunities in recent weeks to debate matters relating to the European Union, and no doubt there will be more in due course. I felt sorry for the hon. Gentleman this morning: it was unfortunate that he was here for three hours and did not manage to participate in the debate. I had harboured hopes that he would be the only person to wish me a happy Christmas—I shall assume that he meant to do so when he rose this afternoon.
Mr. Simon Coombs: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the recent publication of the Committee on Public Accounts on the Child Support Agency's continuing problems. If, as I suspect, those problems continue to dominate his postbag and surgeries as they do mine, would it be appropriate to have a debate on the Child Support Agency early in the new year?
Mr. Newton: I still have a number of cases in my own surgery. The most recent was last weekend. I acknowledge the point that my hon. Friend makes, and I hope that in return he will acknowledge that the report was based on the agency's operation in its first year—1993–94—which is some considerable time ago. At the very least, we should acknowledge that much has been done since then to improve the accuracy and performance of the agency, although of course my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give careful consideration to the report's recommendations and respond in the usual time in the usual way.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I sat through the fisheries debate yesterday, but was unlucky enough not to be called; does the Leader of the House agree that the ministerial report to the House on the decisions taken by the Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting should form the introduction of a debate on the practical implications of such decisions? Members who represent fishing interests would then have time to assimilate those decisions and their consequences. In addition, such a debate would allow us to put to the Minister the concerns of the fishermen whom we represent.
Mr. Newton: In view of the hon. Gentleman's frustration—which I had not previously realised—

1549
in respect of the first part of yesterday's business, I am glad that he managed to get in several times during the second debate. However, even with my natural desire to please everyone before Christmas, I cannot promise him an immediate further debate on fisheries.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: While wishing my right hon. Friend a happy Christmas, I hope to influence him to have a debate on how we can attract people into public life. Is he aware that the appalling display earlier today, when the Opposition attacked a perfectly honourable person, will discourage anyone from entering public life when they might be prone to such witch hunts?
Mr. Newton: I shall not add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage said on a number of occasions, but the exchange had an unfortunate flavour of wishing to disregard all the considerations of what had actually happened and the judgment as to how the director general was doing his job and, as my right hon. Friend said, of simply finding a scapegoat and taking the easy way out. That is not the way that any of us ought to behave on anything.
Sir Anthony Durant: May we have a debate after Christmas on the Crown Prosecution Service, bearing in mind press reports that the Lord Chancellor is looking at the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service?
Mr. Newton: Of course, I shall add that to my list of issues for consideration. The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill that is currently being discussed in another place will arrive here in due course. As that is concerned with procedures, it might just possibly provide some opportunities, but in any event, as I have said to my hon. Friend, I shall put his request on my little list.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: In view of last night's defeat, would not it be a good idea in the new year—perhaps the Leader of the House could study it over the holidays—for the Government to introduce a system so that we could have a confidence motion once a month, so that the Government could be ready, just in case, for all the subsequent defeats that might happen? In other words, they could programme it in and perhaps they might get their people to turn up more often.
Mr. Newton: That seems a long way from wishing me a happy Christmas. I shall put that thought out of my head for a while.
Madam Speaker: I will wish the right hon. Gentleman a happy Christmas.
Mr. Newton: Thank you Madam Speaker. I reciprocate that wholeheartedly.
Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: It would be a day when I did not get a point of order.
Mr. Fabricant: Has anyone wished you a happy Christmas, Madam Speaker?
Madam Speaker: Yes—the Leader of the House, on behalf, I hope, of the entire House.

BILLS PRESENTED
  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)
  Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Portillo and Sir John Wheeler, presented a Bill to re-enact, with omissions and amendments, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 9 January and to be printed. [Bill 37.]
  SECURITY SERVICE
  Mr. Secretary Howard, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Secretary Forsyth and Mr. David Maclean, presented a Bill to give the Security Service the function of acting in support of the prevention and detection of serious crime, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 9 January and to be printed. [Bill 38.]
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

  IRISH STEEL (STATE AID)
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10836/95, relating to the restructuring of the Irish steel industry; considers that the proposal in the Document is unacceptable as it stands; and judges that any package that provides for aid for Irish Steel could only be agreed if further stringent conditions are attached in the interest of safeguarding employment in the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Wells.]
  Question agreed to

Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
4.34 pm
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill provides an exceptional solution to an exceptional problem. For parts of the Humber Bridge Board's debt due to the Secretary of State, it provides the power to suspend interest payments and to write off debt. It will enable both parties to secure a long-term solution to the problem of managing the debt. Its two clauses implement an undertaking given to Parliament in July 1991 that the Government would, at an early opportunity, promote legislation to provide express powers for the writing off and suspension of parts of the Humber bridge debt.
The Humber bridge was promoted by the local authorities of Humberside through the Humber Bridge Acts of 1959 and 1971. They established the Humber Bridge Board with a preponderance of members from Hull but also with representation from other local authorities which supported the building of the bridge. Those Acts empowered the board to borrow but did not provide express powers for the Secretary of State to pay grant to meet unpaid debt or interest, or otherwise to write off debt or suspend payment of interest on it.
The local authorities of Humberside promoted the Acts of 1959 and 1971 to provide powers for the construction of the bridge—but it still had to be financed. The Government view at that time—1965—was that the bridge was not needed; but in 1966 the Government executed a U-turn. I cannot begin to speculate as to the motives for such a sudden change of policy.
Mr. Toby Jesse!: May I tell my hon. Friend that if I catch the Speaker's eye, I shall seek to explain the reason for the sudden change of policy?
Mr. Watts: We await my hon. Friend's contribution with interest.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Would the Minister be kind enough to tell the House the opinion of Her Majesty's Opposition at the time?
Mr. Watts: I shall certainly come to that. The more cynical among us—perhaps I should say, behind me—might say that it was the looming by-election in Kingston upon Hull, North that tipped the balance in favour of the project; for it was on 18 January 1966, shortly before the election, that the then Secretary of State for Transport—now the Baroness Castle—announced from the hustings that the Humber bridge would be built. The late lamented lain Macleod said at the time that this was not a sensible project. The history of the financial difficulties of the project suggest that he was probably right about that, as about so many other things during his distinguished career in public service.
In 1971, the Government confirmed that they would provide loans for the Humber Bridge Board to finance the costs of constructing the bridge. It opened in 1981, plagued by the industrial disputes that were a feature of the era in which it was built.
Mr. McNamara: Will the Minister be kind enough to say which Government were in power in 1971, and whether any binding contracts had been entered into before June 1970?
Mr. Watts: It was of course the Labour Government in 1965 who said that the bridge was not needed and who executed a U-turn in 1966, promising, for whatever motives, that the bridge would be built. In 1971, a Conservative Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) came to the rescue of the promoters of the scheme by agreeing to provide loans—
Mr. McNamara: Answer the question.
Mr. Watts: When the hon. Gentleman reads the record he will see that I have answered his question—and given him rather more information than he wanted.
Mr. McNamara: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Watts: Not again. I want to make progress. The bridge took nine years to build. How times have changed! The new Dartford bridge was built in just over three years and the new Severn bridge should be built in less than four. In both cases, it is the private sector, not the taxpayer, on which the costs of construction and debt fall. The bridge took a long time to build and the cost was greater than originally planned. Above all, it has carried less traffic than expected. It was built to promote the regeneration of South Humberside but the expected economic growth did not occur.
Sir Anthony Durant: The building of the bridge represents a public scandal of the time. The losses are about £14 million a year. What contribution has been made by Hull city council? Has it paid anything?
Mr. Watts: Local authorities' contributions have not been significant. A substantial amount of toll revenue is generated but it is nowhere near enough to provide the necessary funding. In recent years, the national taxpayer has been contributing £40 million a year as grant in aid pending legislation.
It was always envisaged that toll income would be insufficient to service the debt in the early years. Legislation therefore provided that unpaid interest could be capitalised. That led, however, to an exponential growth in the board's debt, which rose from £151 million in 1981 to £439 million in March 1992.
After tolls were set at their present levels in August 1989, the board formally presented my Department with a case for financial assistance in July 1990. The board undertook to promote a private Bill to index its tolls from the date of the last toll increase in 1989. For their part, the Government undertook to promote a Bill to provide express powers for writing off and suspension of some of the debt. The promise to legislate has enabled the Government, since February 1992, to meet unpaid annual interest charges of about £40 million by grants under the appropriation Acts. It is a temporary expedient and it cannot be allowed to continue much longer. We need a restructuring of the debt that will enable as much of it as possible to be repaid over the maximum 60-year period that legislation provides for repaying the debts.
The bridge board's Bill, by which it sought to index its tolls, was introduced in another place in November 1991. It did not make progress and it was lost at the end of

1553
October 1994. Unfortunately, the board has done nothing in the meantime to increase tolls from their 1989 levels. It is now at last preparing an application to increase tolls under current legislation.
Mr. Stuart Randall: Was not the system of funding wrong or flawed? The interest charges were £15 million a year and revenue from tolls was £10 million. Surely it is common sense that the system was flawed. It was clear that those using the bridge would not provide the necessary finance.
Mr. Watts: The assessment of the project that took place before the bridge was built must have been flawed in many instances. If such a project had been presented to a Conservative Government—I explained this by quoting the remarks of the late Iain Macleod—it would not have been given a green light, as it was given in the circumstances of a by-election in 1966.
We shall be continuing our discussions with the board on its financial position as we prepare to implement legislation, should the House approve the proposed legislation.
Mr. Michael Brown: I shall seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that I might speak in support of the Bill. I am sure that my constituents will welcome the Bill, and they have only two questions—I suspect that that applies to the constituents of all hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. My constituents want to know how much of the debt the Government will write off under the powers of the Bill, and by how much tolls will increase in the event that the board comes before the Department with a request to increase tolls. Those are the two questions that everyone is asking, on both sides of the bridge.
Mr. Watts: The board must decide what level of toll increase it wishes to promote. Once it has made that proposal, there is a period during which those who are affected by the proposed increase can raise objections. If required, there can then be a public inquiry. At the end of such an inquiry, it would fall to my right hon. Friend to decide whether to confirm the order promoted by the bridge board. Because that decision is of a quasi-judicial nature, I cannot anticipate either what level of toll the bridge board might promote or what level of toll my right hon. Friend might be prepared to approve after the proper authorisation procedures have been carried out.
As for the way in which the powers will be exercised, before I can give a clear answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and others who are interested, we must first have further discussions with the bridge board to ascertain what level of debt can reasonably be serviced from tolls and how much it is reasonable to place as a continuing burden on national taxpayers to bail out this disastrous project.
The exercise of powers under the Bill requires an order to be laid before the House with the consent of the Treasury. It would be subject to the usual negative procedure, so there will be an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the way in which the powers are exercised.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I apologise to the Minister for missing the first minute or so of his speech. Will he reflect on the fact that many of my constituents, who live a long way from the bridge in
1554
question, have identified what they perceive as an inconsistency in Government policy? A monopoly has been established in relation to access to the Isle of Skye over the bridge that has just been built, and tolls are very high. When one considers the cumulative sums from the public purse which have been poured into the Humber bridge project for 30 years, the injustice visited on a low-income, fragile part of the UK economy seem even more outrageous. Will the Minister reflect on that fact and perhaps have a word with his Scottish Office colleagues about it?
Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am responsible for railways in Scotland, not roads. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not wish me to deviate too far from the specific issue of the Humber bridge. However, I have no doubt that the people of the city of Hull will have noted the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that they should presumably be burdened with the extra cost of £40 million a year, all in the interests of ensuring equity with his constituents.
Mr. Jessel: Although my hon. Friend referred to putting some of the cost on to the users of the bridge—everyone accepts that they cannot cover all of the interest losses—and, although he said that part of the cost will have to be paid by the taxpayer, does he accept that there is a case for putting even a small part of the cost on to the city of Hull?
Mr. Watts: According to the legislation under which the bridge was promoted, any part of the debt that is not paid from tolls is a charge mainly on the taxpayers of Hull, although two other authorities have a smaller obligation. Clearly, it is not the Government's intention that the whole of that burden should so fall. Whatever the errors of the past, we do not consider it reasonable that such an extra burden—a burden presumably wished on the people of the city of Hull for several decades by their elected representatives—should fall on them.
Equally, I must have regard to what is equitable for national taxpayers. In assessing how the powers should be exercised, we shall therefore have to consider what level of debt cannot possibly be paid from tolls, even on the most optimistic assumptions. We shall then consider what cannot, in the medium term, be so funded and determine a suitable amount to be covered by the suspension of interest payments. There will then remain an amount of debt that we expect to be funded in other ways. That would be through a mixture of tolls and, possibly, burdens by precept; the bridge board has precepting powers. It will be for the bridge board to propose how that funding should he arranged. If it involves a large increase in tolls, as I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, a procedure allows for objections, appeal, public inquiry and, ultimately, a decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I referred earlier to the lack of action by the bridge board to maintain the value of its tolled income. In our continuing discussions with the board on the financial position and how we may implement the proposed legislation, I will hear in mind the fact that the failure of its Bill and the hoard's failure to make use of other procedures that are available to maintain toll increases in line with inflation since August 1989 resulted in the

1555
forgoing of at least £10 million to £11 million of revenue. For an average council tax payer in Hull, that would be, roughly, an additional £37—or 7 per cent. each year.
Clause 1 confers powers on the Secretary of State for Transport to write off sums and suspend payment of interest on sums payable to him by the bridge board. It provides that that power to remit debt should be exercisable by an order, subject to the negative procedure in the House. Before my right hon. Friend can make such an order, Treasury consent is needed.
In seeking to provide a long-term solution to the problem of managing the Humber bridge debt, we shall seek to safeguard the national taxpayer from any unnecessary contributions. It should be clear to the House that the national taxpayer's existing contribution of £40 million a year is already substantial. It will also be our aim to ensure that the local taxpayers of Hull, and Humberside generally, are rid of the threat of an intolerable long-term burden of debt. The bridge board is able to issue precepts to meet deficits in its accounts, but the liability to precept is not spread evenly among the local authorities of Humberside.
Sir Anthony Durant: Who appoints the bridge board? Who are the appointees?
Mr. Watts: It is appointed by the authorities and the successor authorities to those that promoted the bridge in the first place. It is a local authority bridge that is promoted by local authorities and managed by a board on their behalf.
Two small areas—Barton-upon-Humber, which is now part of Glanford, and Haltemprice, which is now part of Beverley—are liable to the current value of an old fourpenny rate. There is, however, unlimited liability for the city of Kingston upon Hull. A precept levied by the board would therefore fall mainly on the council tax payers of Hull. As I have said, if they had to meet current deficits, they would face an additional council tax charge of something in excess of £200 per taxpayer per annum in perpetuity.
Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend should be wearing a red outfit and a white beard today, because he is really playing the role of Father Christmas to the city of Hull, is he not? The city of Hull has the largest share of members of the board. It wanted the bridge more than anybody else. It drove the legislation through the House. There is only a small representation from the old Glanford borough council, Barton-upon-Humber urban district council and Haltemprice urban district council. The vast majority of the liability for the bridge lies in the legislation that Hull city council, more than anybody else, drove before the House. Why is my hon. Friend playing Santa Claus to the city of Hull?
Mr. Watts: I suppose it is because we are not very far from Christmas, and I would rather be in the role for which my hon. Friend suggests that I may be auditioning than the role of Scrooge. I am sure that the people of Hull will have recognised that they should be wary in future of the false Father Christmases who gave them this present, which has turned out to be such a heavy liability.
We have not ruled out precepting, and it could, for example, be a useful safety net to cope with short-term fluctuations and any special items of expenditure for a
1556
limited time. At the end of the day, it is the board's responsibility to decide whether any deficit is best met by precepting or by tolls.
Our objective would be to encourage the bridge board to set and maintain a high but realistic level of tolls; however, it must be borne in mind that, under the current legislation, the Secretary of State has a role in considering toll applications fairly following a public inquiry. As I have said, that role could be prejudiced if he required a specific level of tolls, or if I gave an idea of what I thought that level should be.
At this stage, I cannot be specific about the proportion of debt that would be written off, and the proportion on which interest payments would be suspended. We shall need to discuss that in detail with the Treasury and the bridge board. We do not propose to write off all the debt that is not currently serviceable. Given the long time scale over which debt may be repaid, it is possible that some could be reactivated in the future, so we shall seek to write off only debt that is clearly irrecoverable for ever. We envisage that a proportion of debt not written off but on which interest payments will be suspended will provide a cushion—a safeguard for the national taxpayer against the possibility of writing off now debt that could be serviced in future.
In reaching a decision on the amount of debt owed to the Secretary of State for Transport that can be serviced, we shall have regard to a range of financial projections that reflect different estimates of traffic growth, operating and maintenance costs, inflation and interest rates. In making use of the Bill's provisions, we shall monitor the board's performance very closely.
After the initial discussions, we shall conduct major reviews of the bridge's finances at least every five years. In those reviews, we shall consider whether the existing arrangements for suspending debt need modification—for example, by reactivation of debt that has been suspended, requiring the reactivation of interest payments. My Department and the Humber Bridge Board will have a great deal of work to do to make the best use of the powers conferred by the Bill. I do not think that there should be any doubt about the need for those powers: they give my Department and the bridge board the tools that they need to sort the matter out.
I very much regret that the Bill is needed; but Conservative Administrations have always had to follow Labour Governments with a bucket and shovel.
Mr. McNamara: Will the Minister now answer the question that he refused to answer earlier? Will he confirm that no contracts had been let and no tenders accepted up to June 1970; that those that were accepted were accepted with the full knowledge and consent of the then Conservative Minister of Transport; and that they could not have gone ahead if a Conservative Government had not provided the money? Far from a Conservative Government having to tidy up a Labour mess—if there was a mess, an idea that I do not accept—the arrangement was countenanced and approved by a Conservative Prime Minister and Minister of Transport, and the ordure had the seal of approval.
Mr. Watts: I understand from what the hon. Gentleman has just said that the promise given on 18 January 1966 was an empty promise which the Labour Government of the day had no intention of fulfilling, and certainly did not fulfil until they were reaching the end of their term in office at the time of the 1970 general election.

1557
The need for the Bill is a testament to the failure of the Humber bridge to meet the financial objectives originally set for it. It is a monument to false expectations of traffic growth that would finance the bridge. It may have been a bridge too far, but it was built, and we must now deal—however reluctantly—with the consequences. I commend the Bill to the House.
4.58 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: I do not know whether the Minister shares my sense of intruding on a family reunion, or even an old family feud. I hesitate to talk of the family feud involving the Beverley Hillbillies in the presence of the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran). Who would play the parts of Ma and Pa? I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) would fit the roles. We certainly have a sense of having been here before, although I cannot trace many debates on this subject on the Floor of the House. It seems that we will be here again, because there will be a negative order before the House. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will relish the opportunity to discuss that order, if and when it is finally put before the House.
Before we get into the Bill's nitty-gritty, it is worth putting on record the achievement of building the bridge. Mr. Roger Evans, the bridgemaster and engineer, always quotes it as
"imposing proof of British engineering skill."
It is genuinely a world wonder, with two 533-ft towers, which are set almost two inches out of parallel to allow for the earth's curvature. It is the longest single-span suspension bridge in the world, although that record may soon be challenged by bridges being built elsewhere. I understand that 50 million vehicles have used the bridge since it was built. There are therefore some clear concrete, one might say, things to say about the bridge, which are worth saying to put some perspective on the debate.
The latest review that I have read of the financial position of such crossings was undertaken by the Select Committee on Transport in 1983–84. It said that only three of the 11 major estuarial crossings—the Forth, Tamar and Tay crossings—were in a position to meet their interest payments, capital amortisation and other charges. The other eight crossings failed to generate sufficient income to meet interest charges and were borrowing to meet them, thus leading to a continuing rise in outstanding debt, which amounted to £516 million.
Let us not forget that that was 10 years ago. The Committee added that the Humber bridge accounted for 40 per cent. of the total debt. This is not, therefore, a unique case, although it may be an extreme one, so I concur with the Minister's view that special reasons exist for viewing the Humber bridge in the way we do.
It is worth briefly going over the history; I do so not to provoke any challenge from colleagues who have been more intimately involved in the matter over the years. As a Labour Member of Parliament, I take my full share of the blame for the bridge's initial construction being granted in 1959. I was six years old at the time, and gladly admit to my full part in that decision, with the passing of the Humber Bridge Act 1959 and the creation of the Humber Bridge Board in 1959.
1558
Construction, however, was not begun until 1973, during the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). At that point, the bridge and approach roads cost £98 million to build, but by the time the bridge opened, under another Conservative Government in 1981, the debt had already risen to £150 million as a result of interest charges during construction. I am sure that we are all aware of the high interest and inflation rates of the early 1970s, when Tony Barber was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Construction costs were originally estimated at £29 million. The Humber Bridge Board attributes most of that cost increase not only to high inflation rates during construction, but to the fact that the bridge took nine years to build, instead of the proposed four or five. There were, I understand, technical difficulties, labour relations problems and unusually poor weather.
The bridge's construction was funded, as the Minister has said, by way of loans from the Department of Transport and the Public Works Loans Board, which were to be repaid out of toll income, with the Humber Bridge Board being given powers under section 74 of the Humber Bridge Act to make up any deficit via rate precepts. As I have pointed out with the Select Committee on Transport's review of river crossings, it is unusual, although not unique, for a bridge to be able to pay out such money through toll revenues.
Since the bridge's opening, income from tolls and charges has been more than sufficient to cover the operating and maintenance costs, but has not created a surplus large enough to cover the interest charges. The Secretary of State for Transport and the board entered into an agreement, again referred to by the Minister, on 29 March 1972 to capitalise the interest on borrowed money for 13 years from the opening of the bridge until 1994. That has since been extended to 1999.
At the same time as agreeing that, the then Minister for Roads and Traffic, Mr. Chope, reconfirmed that the Government intended to lift the prospect of a burden of debt falling on local Humberside taxpayers by promoting a Bill to write off or suspend debt, and instituting a five-yearly review period.
The precise amount of debt that will be written off arising from an agreement between the Government and the Humber Bridge Board will be the subject of negotiation—that much we have been told today. The Bill contains no specific amount, and we will need to revisit that when and if a negative instrument is brought before the House.
Mr. Michael Brown: As the hon. Gentleman is speaking in the name of Her Majesty's Opposition, will he say what sort of figure, between zero and £435 million, he thinks the Government should write off?
Mr. Allen: I would be happy to allow the Minister to make that decision while he remains on the Government Front Bench, and perhaps to come to a similar or dissimilar decision when we change places.
The Department of Transport has remitted part of the interest falling due since 1991–92 under the Appropriation Acts to stabilise the debt. The grant to the board was £7.6 million in 1991–92, and provision was made for £43.5 million to be repaid in 1992–93. That has stabilised the debt at around £435 million.

1559
A number of further questions arise from the way in which the Bill has been introduced, which I hope the Minister will note and perhaps, if he speaks again in the debate, be in a position to answer.
First, is the Bill the forerunner of other Bills on other estuarial crossings? The Minister may feel that a number of other crossings merit further consideration, either by Bill or by announcements on further works or debts.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman please tell us what estuarial crossings, anywhere in Britain, arose from a political bribe, for which the electorate must now pick up a bill for £435 million?
Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman should not make such disparaging remarks about the Macmillan Government in 1959 and the Heath Government of 1971, who initially approved the bridge's construction and then approved the moneys to create the bridge. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman seeks to attack distinguished former Conservative Prime Ministers in that way. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. These conversations across the Chamber are interesting, but it would be more useful to have them outside. Let us stick to the debate on the Bill.
Mr. Allen: The second question that I should like to ask the Minister involves the level of tolls. He was a little unkind about the Humber Bridge Board and its attempts to review the tolls level. He criticised it for being slow in making proposals. Will he therefore be a little more forthcoming about whether he would be prepared to support whatever emerged from a public inquiry launched by the Humber Bridge Board, which would review the bridge toll levels being and to be paid?
Mr. Watts: I think that I made it clear that I expect the Humber Bridge Board to make proposals for updating tolls, but, as I also explained, because the decision that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport would have to make following any inquiry is a quasi-judicial one, it is not possible for me, before I have seen the board's proposals, and considered any objections to its proposals, or the public inquiry's recommendations, to give an indication in advance of what level I would think reasonable, or that I would wish my right hon. Friend to consider reasonable.
Mr. Allen: I fully accept the quasi-judicial nature of the decisions that the Minister or the Secretary of State may need to take. Perhaps he would extend that quasi-judicial caution to attacks on the Humber Bridge Board over its efforts to present proposals on tolling. If he does that, perhaps he will be seen to be even-handed in carrying out his quasi-judicial function.
My third question relates to the deregulation of the tolled river crossings. I understand that, in the past year, the Department of Transport issued a consultation document on this matter, and that it has suggested three options. The first is the continuation of the current regulation; the second is partial deregulation, with tolls rising annually to a prescribed limit, under which key groups of users would have a right to object; and the third is full deregulation, with undertakings setting their own
1560
charges. How has that consultation gone, and how will it affect the bridge and the other river crossings in the United Kingdom?
I am sure that my suspicions about privatisation will be quickly allayed by the Minister. Is there any connection whatever between the Bill examining the debts—[Interruption.] Conservative Members seek to cast doubt on whether privatisation could follow. As a former member of the Public Accounts Committee and a mere reader of newspapers, I know that cancellation or elimination of debt was followed by the privatisation of a number of industries. That happened as surely as night follows day.
It is not beyond the wit of the Government to devise ways to pour money into the open pockets of those in the private sector, and they could do that from the most unlikely starting point, which may be the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us that there is no connection, however tenuous or long term, between the Bill and privatisation.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Allen: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and he rather abused the privilege.
My final question is about roads. The Minister and his colleagues were characterised by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) as like Santa Claus. Yesterday, local authorities did not regard the Minister as Santa Claus, because he and his colleagues cut by 17 per cent. the grant to local authorities for transport needs. That cut is in addition to the cut in the Budget settlement for roads. Has the Minister any proposals to enhance the north and south road links to the bridge?
The issue of the Humber bridge comes before us every so often, and I have a feeling that this will not be the last time that we shall discuss its importance. We fully support the Bill, and wish it speedy progress.
5.13 pm
Mr. Toby Jessel: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So far, the debate has been much too low key. There is a serious scandal, in that a bribe by the Labour party for the Hull, North by-election in January 1966 is crystallised in the Bill, so that taxpayers will permanently have to pay for it. That matter should not be allowed to pass without comment. Of course, many waters have flowed since January 1966.
Mr. McNamara: Particularly under the bridge.
Mr. Jessel: Yes—and probably sleaze as well. As a matter of courtesy, I notified the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that I intended to speak in the debate and I am glad to see him here recovered from his flu. I ought to declare a sort of interest, because I was the defeated Conservative candidate in the Hull, North by-election on 25 January 1966. I feel no rancour about that because, had I got in, it is highly likely that I would have been out again by 1974, if not sooner.
My defeat paved the way for me to stand in Twickenham in 1970, and it has been a tremendous honour and privilege to represent that constituency ever

1561
since. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North did me a good turn, because my defeat in that by-election was one of the best things that ever happened to me.
As I have said, this matter cannot pass without comment. I should have liked the Minister to comment with even more force and I shall add some comments of my own. We are supposed to be the guardians of taxpayers' money, but, as a result of that by-election bribe, taxpayers will have to pay several hundred million pounds.
It is not clear exactly how much is to be written off, but let us be in no doubt about what "writing off' means. It does not mean that the loss just disappears: it means that we have given up hope of recovering the money. But the money has gone, and £456 million has so far gone down the drain for this no doubt highly architecturally impressive, but greatly under-used bridge.
That means that £456 million less is available for our health services, education, social security, national defences or other useful purposes. It follows that people who might want to be treated sooner by the national health service, for example, have a direct interest in the fact that several hundred million pounds have been written off as a result of the bribe in that by-election.
The bribe occurred because, in the general election of October 1964, Hull, North, which was a marginal seat, was gained by the Labour party; unfortunately, the newly elected Member, Mr. Solomons, died about 13 months later, in November 1965; the by-election was fixed for two months later, but his death reduced Harold Wilson's majority from three to two; if the by-election had gone the other way, it would have been reduced to one.
At the time, there was enormous interest in the by-election. There were very big public meetings. I remember one that was addressed by the late Lord Home, at which 1,200 people were present in Hull city hall. On 18 January, Mrs. Barbara Castle, the then Transport Minister, pledged to construct the Humber bridge, and that led to the debt which is the subject of the Bill. On page 95 of the Castle memoirs, she wrote:
"Off to Hull to speak in the by-election. Photographers at the station. Standing room only at meetings. I told them categorically they would have their bridge. Speech went down well."
She wrote that in her diary. The day before yesterday, I had it on the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed), who cannot be present, that he was at Mrs. Castle's meeting on 18 January 1966, that she said, "You will get your bridge," and that there were loud cheers. The Minister has already quoted the words of the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time, that great man lain Macleod, who referred to the plan for the Humber bridge as a pre-election bribe. He went on:
"'First one of the junior Transport Ministers said that one was not needed. Then came the by-election. The same junior Minister promptly became much more enthusiastic about a new bridge.
'But the by-election continued to turn … and something more was needed. So Mrs. Castle says in Hull that … there will be a new bridge."'
Mr. Macleod was quoted as saying that in The Times on 22 January 1966.
Anyone could predict—and many people did at the time—that the bridge would never pay. If the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) drove from Nottingham to Hull, regardless of whether he used
1562
the M1 or the A614, he would go along the motorway that skirts the southern side of Doncaster. The shortest way from there to Hull—well, the quickest way—is by using the M62 and not to go south of the Humber and then across the Humber bridge. With a toll, it will be more expensive as well as slower. From looking at the map, one sees that there are no large cities to the south of Hull.
Mr. Elliot Morley: As someone who regularly drives from Scunthorpe, which is not very far from the Humber bridge, to London, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is 177 miles exactly from Scunthorpe to Westminster via the A1. It is 200 miles via the M62 and the M1 . The route is shorter and saves money to go south to London, crossing the bridge at Hull, contrary to what he is saying.
Mr. Jessel: But one would have to pay to go across the bridge. Across Lincolnshire, one would travel a long way along A-class roads, which are not of dual-carriageway standard on the whole. Therefore, although it is a squeak shorter, it is slower. That is why the Humber bridge will never pay. The losses on it are absolutely enormous.
I accept that one cannot put the whole of the cost of the bridge on the people of Hull.
Mr. Michael Brown: Why not?
Mr. Jessel: Because it has escalated with accumulated interest to between £400 million and £500 million, and would cost every man, woman and child in the city of Hull about £2,000. The interest on it is not far short of £200 a year a head. It would therefore be impossible to put all that on the ordinary householders in Hull without it having a large impact on their welfare. The cost is so vast that it is simply too much now for them to pay.
I do not see why, however, beyond what comes in in tolls, the whole of the rest of the cost should be shouldered by the national taxpayers, who are thereby being made to pay for the Labour party's by-election bribe. A token amount ought to be borne by the council tax of Hull city council—perhaps only 1, 2 or 3 per cent. of it—just so that people are reminded of the expense that was incurred in their name. Perhaps the Bill could be amended so that part of the cost was attributable by law to be paid by the Labour party via Transport house. It would thereby have to pay part of the cost of the bribe with which it sought to distort the decision of the electors of Hull.
Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend makes an intriguing suggestion, but I fear that it would probably hybridise the Bill.
Mr. Jessel: Where there's a will, there's a way. It could be done if the House really wanted it to be done. Indeed, I hope to have some support from my hon. Friends in wanting it to happen.
We cannot go on letting Opposition Members bribe their way through elections when the cost of their bribe comes to 12 times the figure of £29 million in the 1960s, as stated by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North. Labour Members should be made to pay a part of the cost of the bridge, and we should remind them of it day in, day out, week in, week out and month in, month out, for the rest of next year, so that the whole country can see what they are up to.
5.23 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am very pleased that the Government are introducing this important Bill. I support the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). Whatever chaff goes from one side of the House to the other, we should realise that we are talking about one of the most stupendous examples of civil engineering in Europe, which is of enormous credit to British builders, designers and workmen. It was built on the most difficult terrain over a very wide estuary.
The building of the bridge was delayed because of problems on the south bank of the river—in a Tory constituency, but I do not hold that against the hon. Member responsible—when the south towers were being built. In addition, it is one of two very important bridges in the area. There are two great examples of civil engineering; the other is the bridge over the River Ouse. It was built on a bog, it has no bottom, it carries the M62 and has no toll at all.
The point that we should be addressing is what is the difference in principle between part of our transport infrastructure—the M62 bridge, a great engineering feat in itself—which carries no toll, and the Humber bridge? That is of the utmost importance.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: On that point—
Mr. McNamara: I shall not give way. I will let the young man chat later.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) said that the bridge was the crystallisation of a bribe. I must make a confession to the House. I did not know on the night that Barbara Castle was going to make that statement. The advice that I gave throughout the campaign had been, "Don't. You don't need to."
In many ways the campaign for the bridge at that time was media-led by the Hull Daily Mail. The demand for the bridge emanated from that newspaper, which had long campaigned for it. It saw a Government whom it felt might be vulnerable on that point, and led a very strong and powerful campaign for the bridge. I salute those at the paper for their effort, especially Charles Levitt, who was political correspondent at the time. Mr. Levitt was in fact—and still is, I understand—a Liberal.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) that it is outrageous that private money had to fund the building of the bridge to Skye. The tolls that are to be levied make it even worse. There should not be any tolls.
The campaign for the Humber bridge was media-led, as I have said. Indeed, I have been since told by those who conducted in-depth polls at the time among groups of people who discussed such things, that the Humber bridge scarcely appeared in the list of priorities of people in the Kingston upon Hull, North constituency who were seeking to re-elect a Labour Member of Parliament.
I turn to the history of the bridge and the myths surrounding it, especially those that have been put forward by the hon. Member for Twickenham. He says that he is
1564
grateful that I beat him and thereby enabled him to get his seat in Twickenham. I do not think that the people of Twickenham are particularly happy about it, since over the years his majority has gone down—he might well be out next time—whereas, on the contrary, mine has gone up and up. The hon. Gentleman said that the bridge crystallised the bribe, but let us consider the situation.
In 1959, a private Member's Bill was introduced with the approval of the then Conservative Government to establish the bridge board. In 1965, the House debated the Humber bridge and some of us listened from the Gallery. The Minister of Transport—the late Stephen Swingler, a very fine man—poured cold water on the idea and wished that my former colleague the late Mr. James Johnson had not introduced it.
We then had a campaign in Hull, which Lady Castle attended. Her words at the meeting in Lambert Street school were:
"When the planning is completed, then you will have your bridge."
I did not attend that meeting because I was at a meeting at Endyke school. In those days, great election meetings were held.
Ian Macleod, to whom the hon. Member for Twickenham referred, was Chancellor of the Exchequer for part of the time when the Conservative Government gave the go-ahead, allowed the contracts and tenders to go out and voted the money, and the noble Lord Peyton was Minister of Transport. They could have stopped the building of the bridge. I understand that the Tories' complaint is that the Conservative Government fulfilled a Labour election promise. I wish that the Tories would keep some of their own promises, too, such as lowering taxation. The issue is that the building of the bridge was agreed then.
Mr. Michael Brown: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say. I do not dispute the fact that the bridge was given the "go-ahead" in 1971 following Lady Castle's commitment in 1966, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that the then Conservative Government made it clear that they were not giving but lending money? I have the copy of Hansard before me that shows that.
Mr. McNamara: Yes, but the building of the bridge could not have gone ahead had the money not been lent. The hon. Gentleman has said far more than the Minister of State was prepared to admit. He dodged the question every time that I asked it, and it is important that the House knows the answer.
The original cost was to be £19 million. By 1973, after two years of Barber and hyperinflation, it had risen to £35 million. It was escalating all the time that the Tories were in power because of their inability to control interest rates and inflation. Those are the reasons for the debt and people should be prepared to accept that. I do not blame the Tories for it completely. I blame them only for winning the 1970 election; otherwise sound finance under the then Mr. Jenkins would have continued. The only thing to his credit is that he was a successful Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Last week, the hon. Member for Twickenham said:
"As to next Wednesday's debate on the Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill, I was the defeated Conservative candidate in the Hull, North by-election in January 1966, nearly 30 years ago."

1565
He went on to ask:
"Will there be time in Wednesday's debate for us to discuss whether the amount—nearly £500 million—should be charged to the Labour party and not to the unfortunate taxpayer, as a consequence of Labour's disgraceful electoral bribe?"—[Official Report, 14 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 1105.]
Everything that the hon. Gentleman said in the House last Thursday and today was incorrect, apart from the fact that he was a defeated Conservative candidate in 1966.
My constituents and the area have benefited from the Humber bridge.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: So have you.
Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman says that I have benefited. All the polls at that time showed that my constituents regarded the Humber bridge as a less important issue in the by-election than the media made it out to be. I do not hesitate in saying that I welcome the bridge and every hon. Member should be proud of it. It has the additional merit of joining Yorkshire with Lincolnshire and thus bringing the opportunity of civilisation to Lincolnshire. We should be happy about that, too.
But for the almighty debt, the bridge has an operating surplus. It can pay its maintenance costs of £1.7 million to £2 million a year and make a profit, but the debt is dragging it down. The debt has arisen because of what has happened over time. I do not seek to blame the debt entirely on the Conservatives; I simply ask them not to shirk their part of the responsibility for what has happened. We can then all join in welcoming the Bill.
Mr. John Hutton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This afternoon, I learned that the Ministry of Defence has decided to award a contract for the design and building of up to three Trafalgar-class submarines to a team led by GEC-Marconi in preference to a bid by Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. in my constituency. The total value of the contract exceeds £2.5 billion.
Involvement in the contract is essential for the future of VSEL and the jobs of thousands of my constituents. The Government's decision today will, at the very least, create unwelcome uncertainty about the future of VSEL, where nearly 10,000 jobs have already been lost—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for the Chair?
Mr. Hutton: The fact that no statement has been made in the House on that major contract is an insult to my constituents and denies me an opportunity to raise my concerns about the contract in the House. Have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, received a request from a Minister of the Crown to make a statement to the House about that major contract decision?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not aware of an intention to make such a statement. This is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is aware that there are other avenues that he can take to air his concerns.
Mr. John Spellar: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?
Mr. Spellar: Yes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have now ruled on that point of order. The hon. Gentleman cannot raise a point of order further to a point of order on which I have ruled. Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Spellar: It is a different aspect of that point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I shall listen to it.
Mr. Spellar: Is it not a great discourtesy to the House and individual Members that, at this late stage, just before the Christmas recess, that announcement has been sneaked out and therefore—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking advantage. I have already ruled on that matter and told the hon. Gentleman so. He assured me that his was a different point of order. It was not. I call Mr. Michael Brown.
5.37 pm
Mr. Michael Brown: We have had an interesting and entertaining afternoon, being reminded what used to go on in politics in the 1960s, when Labour was in power and trying to cling on to power. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) were protagonists in the events of January and February 1966, when I was 14 years old. I recall the night of the sad defeat of my hon. Friend and the election of the hon. Gentleman. I remember staying up and listening to the wireless—we did not have a television in my home in those days—because I was interested in politics and knew that, if Mr. Wilson succeeded in holding that seat, there would probably be a general election and a Labour win. I was anxious that that should not happen. I remember the events from the perspective of a boy still at school. Little did I realise that, 15 years later in 1981, I would welcome Her Majesty the Queen to my constituency when she was the first person to drive over the Humber bridge.
I do not dissent from what the hon. Members for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and for Kingston upon Hull, North said: the bridge is a magnificent sight. I can see it from where I live some eight miles away in Ulceby. It is wonderful. It looks good. And so it jolly well should when we consider how much it has cost for one reason or another.
Let us not get away from the fact that the bridge was not proposed by the Labour Government until a by-election occurred. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham told the House that the first intimation of a Government go-ahead came at the point of a critical by-election. The Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill should indeed be sent as an election expenses bill to the Labour

1567
party, if not to the agent for the Kingston upon Hull, North constituency Labour party. I am prepared to put the burden on Walworth road, rather than the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. McNamara: If the hon. Gentleman is going to send the bill to my agent, we are not certain where it should go, but I am sure that he would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Mr. Brown: In that case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham proposed, there should be a clause suggesting that part of the bill should go to Walworth road. I accept that we would then have a hybrid Bill that would suffer all the difficulties that the Humber Bridge Bill—a private Bill—suffered the year before last.
My hon. Friend the Minister has come here as Santa Claus on behalf of the British taxpayer. My constituents and I will benefit from this wonderful deliverance, which other hon. Members on both sides of the House are going to give us by supporting the Bill. Why should I object to the possibility of up to £435 million of taxpayers' money being spent, which may rule out a bypass in Twickenham, north Kent or anywhere else? I have an interest to declare—that of my constituents. I cannot believe their luck; they are to have the privilege of the Bill.
Mr. Allen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is very generous. Although, like myself, he was probably still a small child in short trousers at the time, can he tell us why the Conservative Government gave a fair wind to the Humber Bridge Act 1959 and to the creation of the board?
Mr. Brown: Yes, I can easily do so. When I was still having to be convinced of the merits of the Bill, I got a copy of the Humber Bridge Act 1959 and I have here all the yellowing pages of the proceedings. It was a private Bill and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, Governments usually do not take sides on private Bills. There was no debate in the House of Commons on any of the Readings, which all occurred after Prayers and before the start of public business.
Presumably, the Government had no problem with the 1959 Act because not a penny piece of taxpayers' money was involved in that Act, which is now on the statute book. I presume that the Macmillan Government took the view that, because section 77 of the Act states that, in the event of any unpaid debt being outstanding to the Secretary of State for Transport, the corporation of the city of Hull and the urban district councils of Beverley and Barton-upon-Humber would pay back every penny, there would be no taxpayers' involvement and, for that reason, they allowed the legislation to go through.
I expect that the hon. Gentleman will want to turn to the Humber Bridge Act 1971, when the Tories were in power again, and ask the same question. Why did they allow the 1971 Act to go through without objecting to it? For the same reason. Because that Act of Parliament also made it absolutely clear that, despite all the powers sought by the Humber Bridge Board, there would not be one penny piece of taxpayers' money for the venture. All the taxpayers' money that was to be lent to the Humber Bridge Board would be repaid to the Secretary of State. That is why neither Conservative Government of 1959 or of 1971 had any objections to those Acts.
1568
It has been patently obvious to those of us who have had anything to do with politics and with the debate surrounding the Humber bridge in the past 10 years and, indeed, since the day it opened—to all of us locally, whether Labour or Conservative Members of Parliament, whether from North Lincolnshire or the East Riding of Yorkshire, or from what will be called Humberside for just three more months until next April—that the traffic that was forecast in the 1960s and 1970s and that justified the repayment of the debt, would not materialise.
If the Minister wants to take full advantage of the legislation that is available to him on the statute book, a mechanism is available. My hon. Friend did not need to come here today. In future, when bodies come to this House—be they local authorities or private organisations—with private legislation and make it clear that there are no financial implications for the taxpayer, we have to be much more careful about the viability of the projects involved.
In 1959 and 1971, the House was clearly somewhat tardy in considering those pieces of private legislation. In the past 10 years, it has been patently obvious to all concerned that none of those provisions could be achieved. If my hon. Friend the Minister wanted to do nothing, he could empower the local authorities, through the Humber Bridge Board, to take the necessary action under those Acts of Parliament, which would bankrupt the city of Hull.
No Labour Member has any cause to be critical of my hon. Friend the Minister. The only people who might be critical are Conservative colleagues who might yesterday have been reflecting with sadness on the announcements relating to capital programmes throughout the country made by the Department of Transport. At the end of the day, my hon. Friend has to take this money out of his Department's budget—with Treasury approval. He is to be congratulated by everyone on Labour Benches. In so far as there is any criticism, it is likely to come from the Conservative Benches.
Locally, we recognise that the bridge is wonderful, but the blunt truth is that there are not the traffic figures to justify it. What concerns me about the possibility of an increase in the tolls is that some of my constituents have to use the bridge, whether they like it or not. If one has a heart attack or a brain tumour in my constituency, one has to go to Hull hospital and one has to use the bridge. We do not have the option of going to Grimsby, Scunthorpe or Lincoln hospitals. If one suffers from certain diseases, the health authority requires one to cross that bridge.
I am concerned that there is no price on the face of the Bill to show the extent to which the Department will wipe off the irrecoverable amounts, because I want to know what the balance will be between toll increases and the amount of debt that the Minister says is irrecoverable. For those of my constituents who have no choice but to use the bridge, the level of the toll is very important. I accept that the Humber Bridge Board has been tardy since 1989, in not seeking to be responsible for making regular increases in line with inflation. Unfortunately, to the ordinary citizen in my constituency faced with paying £1.60, an increase in the toll to £2 or £2.50 will seem a massive hike.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister is not trying to change the system whereby my constituents and I can go to a public inquiry to present our case in the event of

1569
the board increasingly the toll unreasonably. In 1989, I attended the public inquiry and gave evidence on behalf of my constituents.
I acknowledge that the bridge is a convenience for many people, including my constituents who choose to work in Hull rather than in Grimsby, Lincoln or Scunthorpe. They choose to take advantage of the bridge and they gain the benefits of travelling shorter distances and saving time. That is an economic choice that they must make. Those of my constituents who, while the county of Humberside remains, have to go to county hall to transact business, have no option but to use the bridge.
I hope that many of my constituents will not have to use the bridge so often after 1 April, when the local authority boundaries will be changed, Humberside will be expunged as a local government authority and we shall have, instead, North Lincolnshire and North-East Lincolnshire. But at present, some people have no option but to use the bridge and they look to their Member of Parliament to be able to attend the public inquiries to put their case. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister is not seeking to alter that system—at least for now—although, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North said, consultation proposals are being discussed about the future of toll crossings.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North suggested that if all the debt was wiped off, privatisation would be terrible. If I were the shadow Chancellor and somebody said to me, "Is there no debt left on the bridge because of that wonderful Minister whom the Tories had? I understand that you are against privatisation, but I should like to buy and operate that bridge," I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as shadow Chancellor, I would jump at the offer like a shot. There will be no such offer because I do not accept—as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said earlier—that, if the debt is wiped off, the traffic will justify the operation of the bridge. Some sort of support system will always be needed, if not from the general taxpayer, certainly from the local authorities.
The local authorities have a part to play, and the Humber Bridge Board will have to be much more imaginative than it has been. I regret that the Humber Bridge Board has not increased toll traffic using the bridge by introducing a more imaginative discounted ticket scheme. Many of my constituents would be prepared to use the bridge more often if there were discounts on some occasions.
There are leisure opportunities, including the leisure centre, on the north bank. My constituents pay council tax to support the leisure centre, the Hull ice arena—they are shareholders in it—but they do not use it because they have to pay a toll to travel over the bridge. If the board were prepared to introduce a system of discounted tickets at weekends to encourage greater use of the bridge, it could generate more income. The board is trapped in a local authority style and has not shown imagination in trying to make more of the circumstances.
The bridge exists; in retrospect, if the Governments of either 1966 or 1971 had known what the future would bring in terms of the national motorway network, neither of them would have gone ahead with such a proposal. If there were no Humber bridge today, I cannot believe that either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the shadow
1570
Chancellor would go ahead with such a proposal. But the bridge exists and, short of knocking it down, we can do nothing but make something of it.
We obviously have to do something about the problem of increasing debt. I am aware that my constituents benefit to a considerable extent from the revenues of the rest of the taxpayers. The bridge is surrounded by far too much politics and does not have enough to do with the local economy. I accept that there has been some economic investment around the area, both north and south, which might have been partly due to the good communications in the area generally. But I do not believe that when expanding industries come to my constituency, as dozens of them do, they want to locate their factories there because of the Humber bridge. They locate their factories in my constituency because of the national motorway network, the airport, the skilled labour, the good industrial relations and for a host of other reasons. The bridge is certainly part of the local infrastructure and will be there for ever; we cannot let it fall into disrepair.
The Humber Bridge Board must recognise that it has failed in its attempts to increase the tolls in a sensible way, in line with inflation. If we are not careful, we shall face a gigantic increase in tolls that will cost some of my constituents far too much. I press my hon. Friend the Minister—if not today, when the order comes before the House—to say precisely how much of the £435 million will be irrecoverable. I appreciate that he cannot tell me today.
I also want to press my hon. Friend the Minister and the board on the precise toll figure that we can expect. We could fall into a terrible trap: if the toll is increased too much, many of my constituents who have the opportunity not to use the bridge will decide not to work in Hull as it is not worth their while because of the costs of travelling over the bridge. They may decide that it is better for them to take a job with lower wages in Lincoln, Scunthorpe or Grimsby, because after they have paid their return tolls, they may have spent £40 or £50 a week. We could find ourselves in a spiral of decline and the debt could begin to increase again.
The Government and the Humber Bridge Board must be careful: if they decide to let the local user pay as much as possible and to milk the local user with no option but to use the bridge, they may find that local users—other than those poor people who have no choice but to use Hull hospital—will make alternative arrangements. The Government and the board must be wary of a dramatic leap in the toll rate.
We are now just four or five days from Christmas and my hon. Friend the Minister has come here as Santa Claus. If I did not represent Brigg and Cleethorpes as a Conservative Member, but represented another constituency elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and if I had not been able to obtain a bypass for my constituents, I would probably vote against the Bill. However, I shall certainly support the Bill today.
5.57 pm
Mr. Stuart Randall: Much of today's Second Reading debate has involved the history of the Humber bridge. As we are near Christmas, I shall let the House into a little secret: at the back end of 1981, when I was selected to represent Kingston upon Hull, West, I was given some advice before I attended the selection meeting. I was told to mention the Humber bridge because the people of the area were proud of it. I do not think that that tip swung

1571
the contest my way—I won it with a great landslide—but I record the incident as it reveals people's attitude towards the Humber bridge then.
I shall not stray too far back into the history except to say that, before the 1966 by-election in Kingston upon Hull, North, there had been much discussion for many years about modernising the Humber crossing. It would be outrageous for the House even to suggest that we—a major industrial country—should have retained a ferry crossing at one of our most important estuaries.
After the boundary changes, my new constituency border will probably be within a mile of the Humber bridge. The area that I represent—I say this as a worried person—has a lot of economic and social deprivation, and we need to modernise. We need a mechanism to improve the development of the area and to gain economically and socially.
The bridge itself is a fine piece of work. I have always regarded the Minister as a competent person, but I will not follow the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) in describing him as Father Christmas. We do not know whether he will be Father Christmas, because we do not know the figures. Until we know, we shall not be able to respond to the very uncharacteristic comments by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) that the cost should be dumped on to the people of Hull. That kind of comment is not very becoming just before Christmas.
Funding is at the heart of the matter. The project escalated in price because it was advanced, there were problems with subsidence on the south side of the river, and there were changes in the specification. However, the funding of the project was based on loans, at a time of high inflation and when interest rates were very high. The system of funding for that magnificent project was not viable. There was no possibility, in the economic circumstances that prevailed at that time, that the project could be viable.
I welcome the Bill in principle, because I believe that it will offload much of the debt that is interest-rate linked and will enable the books to be balanced. That is just plain common sense. The Bill will be good for Hull, as long as there is no massive offloading of the financial problems on to the people of Kingston upon Hull, West, which will include Hessle under the boundary changes.
The escalation in cost was horrific. My figures show that in 1970, the cost was £19 million; that rose to £35 million; to £67 million; to £98 million; and finally to £151 million. Those figures are horrific, but we had huge inflation rates at the time—11 per cent. for a long time. We were also capitalising the debt, which resulted in the loan rising as it has.
Traffic levels have been acceptable. Some people say that the bridge is not used, and hon. Members have said that today. That is absurd. The bridge is used extensively. The problem of financial viability is not related directly to the traffic. The mismatch between the debt arising from the interest rates and the income from the tolls is so great that it is impossible to solve the problem from the tolls. The Minister's speech alluded to that.
The main problem has been the Government's inaction. It is clear that the funding arrangements were not viable, and I regret that we have not taken action sooner. There
1572
has been a regrettable amount of procrastination. I also regret that the Humber Bridge Board was not aware that the Bill was going to be published. The board had no forewarning of the Bill, and in May it decided to increase the tolls by 32.5 per cent. to try to balance the books.
I wish to ask the Minister about privatisation. There is rumour whizzing around that the Bill is part of a devious scheme to prepare the ground, and to get rid of the debt so that the project can be become viable and ready for privatisation. I would also like to know more about the deregulation. At the moment, the bridge board has powers, but are there plans to change the system of regulation to total deregulation? Specifically, is there a plan to allow the tolls to be changed at any time rather than annually? An answer to that would be helpful.
I have focused on viability, and the failure to get to grips with the financial arrangements. The debt is now running at the stupid and absurd figure of £439 million. That is the latest figure I have. It is unacceptable to allow that to continue. As I said earlier, the interest charges on the long-term money have gone up by £50 million per annum. The toll income is about £10 million, of which about £1.75 million is used in operational costs. We are a long way from achieving balance in the books, so I welcome in principle the idea that at last we shall wipe out some of the debt.
We must make the Humber bridge operate viably, because that is important for economic regeneration. We do not want high tolls, because they stifle use, and that is wrong. Many man hours and years have been spent tackling the problem of debt, and nobody likes that. I hope that, when my constituents ask me whether the Minister will be a Father Christmas, I can say that I think he will. However, we need to see the impact on the council tax payers in Hull. I hope that the Bill will be good news.
6.8 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Earlier this afternoon, at the request of the Labour Opposition, we spent 42 minutes on allegations of sleaze against a public official—the director general of Oflot, Peter Davis. He was accused because he had tried to save the taxpayer the cost of his travelling expenses on official business. There was a busy House then, but look at the House now. This debate is about perhaps the biggest political sleaze scandal of all time.
We are being asked to write off £435 million because of a political and electoral bribe by the Labour party some 30 years ago. Let us be clear what that was about. In the other place, when he was replying for the Labour Government, Lord Lindgren said about the Humber bridge:
"at the present time our limited resources do not allow us to give construction of such a bridge the highest priority."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 November 1965: Vol. 270, c. 1136]
Yet two months later, the then Minister, Mrs. Barbara Castle, made it clear in her diaries, which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) so aptly quoted, that the Labour Government intended to offer a clear electoral bribe. She wrote in her diary:
"Off to Hull to speak in the by-election: photographers at station, standing room only at meetings. I told them categorically that, as soon as the development plan was decided for Humberside, they would have their bridge. Speeches went down well."
I bet they did.

1573
I have been absolutely amazed, and perhaps have felt a tinge of admiration, at the brass face of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who has been the beneficiary of what is perhaps the biggest political bribe in history. The cost of it is far more than his own weight in gold. The taxpayers have paid for that gold. The hon. Gentleman has stood up today, however, and said it was quite wrong to set tolls on the bridge in the first place. We are passing on to the taxpayer a debt of £435 million, but he now wants to pass on even more debt. He is about to get up and tell us how much the debt would be if no tolls had been set.
Mr. McNamara: I just want to ask the hon. Gentleman what proportion of the development costs of Concorde were written off in order to make it a suitable object for Lord King and privatisation. What about the debts of British Steel, British Rail and all the other debts that have been wiped out to enable the hon. Gentleman and his friends in the City to line their pockets from privatisations?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to stop this once and for all. It serves no useful purpose in a debate to exchange insulting remarks across the Chamber. Responsible and good debate can well do without insulting personal remarks, whoever they come from and whoever they are aimed at. I hope that we will not hear any more insults.
Mr. Arnold: I do not recall a by-election at Heathrow, east or west or north. I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not even try to quantify the cost to the taxpayer had no tolls been set for 30 years. Now we are being asked to pass on to the taxpayer a debt of £435 million.
I noticed earlier that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North accused Peter Davis of sleaze because his wife and the wife of an American business man had been friends for 20 years. The hon. Gentleman has been friends with the bridge for 30 years because it started his political career.
The brass face of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North is exceeded only by the contemptuous dismissal of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who has not even bothered to turn up. He is usually ready to throw around wild allegations of sleaze, but when the Labour party is on the receiving end of such allegations, he is not here. Perhaps that is a commentary on how any future Labour Government would deal with difficult questions.
Was the bridge an electoral bribe or was it not? The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North denied that the project had any electoral impact, but the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) well and truly let the cat out of the bag when he said that at his first election to the western division of Hull his agent said, "Don't forget to mention the bridge. It will go down awfully well."
Mr. Randall: It is important for me to clarify the matter. I was advised that the people of our area are very proud of the bridge. That is perfectly reasonable. That pride has nothing to do with bribery.
Mr. Arnold: If they are delighted with the bridge, obviously they are delighted with the people who ran up the bill, which everyone is now having to settle, including my constituents in Kent.
1574
The people of north-west Kent particularly resent paying that bill because for many years our roads by the two Dartford tunnels were clogged up every morning. We waited and we waited, but the Labour Government never gave us a Dartford bridge to solve our problems. Perhaps it was because we did not have a by-election in the immediate vicinity. We had to wait for a Conservative Government to introduce a scheme to raise private investment to build a far more beautiful bridge than the Humber bridge, the Queen Elizabeth II bridge on the Thames. My constituents resent paying a proportion of the Humber bridge debt.
When my hon. Friend the Minister finally works out on whom the enormous debt will land, I hope he ensures that the city of Hull jolly well pays a considerable proportion of it. Let the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, who was a beneficiary of the bridge, explain that to the people of Hull.
I must confess that I felt a certain amount of irritation throughout my hon. Friend the Minister's speech. I sometimes think the Government commit the cardinal sin of being too responsible. They work out the accounts of our country far too responsibly. If a bill is run up, and is then to be written off, I would prefer it if my hon. Friend came to the Dispatch Box, put the Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill on it and said to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, "I propose this formally, and I expect the people who incurred the debt of £435 million to stand at the Dispatch Box and justify why we should impose that enormous debt on the people of this country."
Mr. Watts: I am not quite ready to change places with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).
Mr. Arnold: That was not my point. As a Minister, my hon. Friend had to draft the Bill—he acted responsibly—but the Opposition incurred the debt for the British public and they should come to the Dispatch Box to justify it.
The speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the Opposition spokesman, was uncharacteristically subdued, as well it might be. He was quite happy to shelter under the skirts of the Minister and let my hon. Friend bear the weight of explaining the Bill's purpose.
Who were the beneficiaries of the Humber bridge project? The answer is the Labour party. Where is it today? There is not a single Labour Member here other than those from the immediate vicinity of the bridge, and what a lot of apologies we have heard from them.
Our taxpayers have been treated with contempt. One does not need to raise one's eyes particularly high to notice that the press do not seem to give a damn about the taxpayer either.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was right when he said that the £435 million is coming out of the capital programme of the Department of Transport. Many of us were in the Chamber yesterday to discover what will become of our capital programmes, and the allocations for them were far lower than we might otherwise have hoped. My constituents in Gravesham did not get their Northfleet bypass. I can blame the Labour-Liberal council for making that a secondary priority, but—
Mr. Allen: It is because the Government grant is down 17 per cent.
Mr. Arnold: I note that sedentary intervention from the Opposition spokesman. I wonder whether the

1575
hon. Gentleman knows that 17 per cent. is part of the impact of swallowing £435 million in one go. Has he quantified that? It is disgraceful that because of the Labour party's political sleaze taxpayers across the country will have to foot a bill of £435 million.
Mr. Allen: Let me just reply to the hon. Gentleman's tirade. If he continues to support ever-larger tax cuts in the basic rate of income tax—taxes are increased in other areas—he must accept that that money must be found from somewhere. Yesterday's announcement of a 17 per cent. reduction in local transport projects, which are funded by central Government, must be found from some source. Of course the hon. Gentleman cannot disguise that fact. He cannot have his cake and eat it. If he votes for reductions in income tax, I am afraid that he must realise that they need to be paid for.
Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The problem may have been solved, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) says that he had sat down.
Mr. Allen: No, he gave way.
Mr. Arnold: No, I did not.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair was under the impression that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) had given way. However, the Chair was deceived as the hon. Gentleman had sat down.
6.19 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: During this very interesting debate we have explored the history of the Humber bridge and people's attitudes to it. However, the hon. Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) are on very dangerous ground when they comment on the cost of the Humber bridge. In response, we can easily ask: what about the poll tax and the £3 billion that was wasted on it? Will that cost be borne by the Conservative party?
If the same rules applied to local government, Conservative Members would face surcharges for the poll tax and for selling public assets at below their book value as election bribes. They would he surcharged for the give-away Budgets in the 1980s, which caused tremendous damage to industry and to this country's economy. Conservative Members are in no position to talk about the Humber bridge. The hon. Member for Gravesham talked about brass necks, but we have seen brass cheek from Conservative Members in this debate.
Let us return to the issue of the Humber bridge and the importance of it. To be fair, hon. Members on both sides of the House mentioned the tremendous engineering achievement that the bridge represents and to the pride that local people take in it. The bridge is a wonderful showcase for British engineering and the engineering industry has benefited from that experience. It has gone on to build bridges abroad, which has had a beneficial impact on our exports and on British Steel, in which I have an interest.
There is also the question of need. I have no doubt that the Humber bridge meets a vital infrastructure need in Humberside. Without the bridge, Humberside's economic
1576
development would have been constrained. I remember what it was like before the bridge was built. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) referred to the ferry service. Although it was a very inefficient service, I used it regularly. As a student, I did teaching practice in Cleethorpes in the winter—the digs in Cleethorpes were very cheap in winter—and I would catch the ferry every Monday morning. In those days, the journey across the Humber was a long and complicated affair, but many people made the journey even then. Many of them hoped that the ferry would run aground in the middle of the river, as it often did, so that the bar would be open for a few hours before the ferry eventually reached Barton-upon-Humber.
The construction of the bridge reduced the 100-mile journey between Grimsby and Hull to a convenient, short crossing and it allowed the economy to develop on both sides of the Humber. I am surprised that hon. Members who have spoken in the debate—particularly the Minister for Railways and Roads—did not refer to the haulage industry and the importance of the Humber bridge to it. The introduction of tolls has had a major impact on the haulage industry. Has the Minister met representatives of the Road Haulage Association recently? I have met them to discuss their concerns about the impact of tolls on their members in my constituency.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) mentioned the impact of the Humber bridge on his constituency. We have very good communications and an airport in the area, but when I talk to people in South Humberside, including some very large investors, they all emphasise the fact that the Humber bridge provides access to the deep-water ports of Hull and the daily roll-on, roll-off ferries to Holland. That is very important to many local businesses. The Humber bridge is a vital part of the local infrastructure.
There is no denying that the Humber bridge has not been able to cover its debt. It was never going to, and in that respect the Government have recognised the inevitable and introduced the Bill to deal with that debt. Labour Members welcome the legislation as a recognition of the real situation, as the problem can by solved only by writing off the debt in that way.
As to the cost of the Humber bridge, I draw the House's attention to the cost of other road developments, which will not be recovered. One development that springs to mind is the recent Limehouse link construction in north London. The construction of the road link tunnel cost £360 million and it cost a further £89.2 million to relocate people whose houses were demolished to make way for the link. The Limehouse link—a road of only 1.8 km—cost the taxpayer a total of £449.2 million.
Tonight we are talking about a total debt of £435 million for the Humber bridge. The cost of the Limehouse link at only 1.8 km is far more than the debt that we are talking about in this debate. The Humber bridge will continue to contribute towards its cost through its tolls, while the Limehouse link will have no such tolls and is part of the national road network.
Many of my constituents are confused by that logic. They ask why such a big fuss is made about the Humber bridge when the motorway network—including the Limehouse link—is simply regarded as part of infrastructure investment in this country, although it is just as costly. Let us put the debate into perspective. Yes, we

1577
are writing off debt on the Humber bridge; I believe that we are correct to do so. The Humber bridge is an important piece of infrastructure and its cost pales into insignificance when compared with other major road and communications infrastructure investments in this country.
I echo some of the comments of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes regarding the people of Humberside. My constituents have no choice but to use the bridge regularly, particularly when travelling to Hull royal infirmary. The infirmary provides medical treatment that is not available in any other part of the region. The only other hospital is at Cottingham. When people are hospitalised at the infirmary, their relatives must travel across the Humber bridge regularly and the costs can be very high. People who live and work on different sides of the Humber must also bear that cost.
I was such a person. When I was selected to contest the Glanford and Scunthorpe seat in 1985, I travelled across the bridge daily. My family moved to Winterton and I travelled to work in Hull each day. My wife and I had to pay the toll daily, and sometimes twice a day.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Limehouse link. A proportion of the cost of that link was paid for by the developers of Canary wharf. Will he inform the House what contribution he believes the city of Hull should make to the cost of the Humber bridge?
Mr. Morley: I have read the Public Accounts Committee's report on the Limehouse link and it does not mention any contribution by developers towards its cost. It says that the link was commissioned by the London Docklands development corporation, which was established as a non-executive body by the Department of the Environment. As far as I know, the bulk of the money came from taxpayers. Even if there was a contribution from the private sector, it was still a major investment by the public sector. There is no toll on that road and none is expected to be introduced. Many people who use the Limehouse link to travel to work in the City are in a much better position to pay tolls than many of my constituents in Glanford and Scunthorpe—or those in Brigg and Cleethorpes, for that matter. We should put the matter in perspective.
I commuted to work via the Humber bridge for some years; I made that choice. I once remarked to the former chairman of the bridge board, Councillor Alex Clarke, that I had crossed the bridge so many times that I must have paid for part of it. I asked whether my name could be written on it and he replied that, given the escalation in debt, in all my daily journeys I may have paid for only one rivet in the bridge. He said that I could put my name on that if I wanted to. That puts in perspective the escalation of debt, which is dealt with under the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will give some assurances about future tolls. It is not good enough for him to say that it is purely a matter for the bridge board. We all know that tolls will be determined by how much debt the Government are prepared to write off under the powers that they are taking in the Bill. The private Bill that the Government were blackmailing the bridge board to introduce would have proposed that no public inquiries be held. I am glad that there is no such suggestion now as local people have a right to make representations about toll increases.
1578
It was also clear from the discussions that the Government wanted that private Bill to include the automatic index-linking of tolls. That would put an intolerable burden on people who use the bridge because they have no choice. Some people have to use the bridge as a direct result of Government policy—for example, the location of health care facilities. They have no option but to cross the bridge and pay the tolls. There must be some consideration for such people's needs and the impact on them.
There must also be consideration for local businesses—the Minister failed to mention them in his opening remarks—and the impact of tolls on lorry companies and local distribution businesses with bases on both sides of the bridge. A sharp increase in tolls would put an intolerable burden on their profitability. That has to be taken into account.
The Minister said that he could not tell the House what the tolls would be, but it would be useful if he gave us an assurance that whatever the increase was, it would be within reasonable limits—perhaps the level of inflation. I would be interested to hear the Minister's opinions on that.
The Minister has been described as a Father Christmas figure as he is writing off the debt. If we have no idea of what future tolls will be, he will not be a Father Christmas figure but the ghost of Christmas yet to come and we should remember that that ghost foreshadowed some unpleasant consequences and implications. There will be unpleasant implications in the Bill unless the Minister ensures that any future increase in tolls is reasonable for the people whom it will hit.
6.32 pm
Mr. Watts: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) asked me about further Bills in respect of other crossings. I have no such proposals. There are only two other bridges, the Tyne and the Mersey, where there is any debt owed to the Government and in both those cases that debt is now being repaid by the setting of appropriate toll levels by the bridge operators.
In respect of the proposal to deregulate tolls, the consultation period has finished. We are now considering the responses to consultation. I am not in a position today to state what our reaction will be, but I hope to make an announcement at the earliest opportunity when we have finished our consideration. I can confirm, however, that the Humber bridge was included in the consultation and I expect that it will be included within any powers that we might take in any such legislation.
Privatisation is not an objective of the Bill. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) made a very good case for privatisation as a longer-term solution to the problem, that is not in any way connected with the Bill, which relates to the undertaking given by one of my predecessors in 1991.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North also asked me about improvements to the road links to the bridge. At present, we have no such proposals. I really could not begin to improve upon the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), which brought great pleasure to both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) questioned some of the timings to which I referred. I understand that the final decision to build the

1579
bridge was taken in 1969 and my source of information for that is a publication by the bridge board, which would have no particular reason to give false information. Loans were agreed in May 1971 and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes explained why the Government of the day were not concerned about that because the responsibility for repaying the loans rested firmly and squarely with the local authorities that promoted the bridge.
It was a bit rich for the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North to mention sound finance and to criticise my noble friend Lord Barber. His memory conveniently slipped over 1976, when we experienced some of the highest levels of inflation Britain has ever known. If, as he said—of course I accept what he said on this point—the promise to build the bridge was not necessary to secure his election as the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, it was even more a waste of money. Although I have no doubt that at the time we would have liked to see my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham representing Kingston upon Hull, North, he has told us that he is well satisfied with his continuing election in perpetuity in Twickenham. Nobody on either side of the House bears any malice towards the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, who is a distinguished Member of the House, and who has added to its variety.
I owe my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes a debt of gratitude, as he has given me another new alibi. When Members ask me why they cannot have their bypass in future, I shall say that all the money has been expended on the Humber bridge. He also stressed—as he has on many occasions—as did the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), the importance of the bridge to his constituents, who require access to a hospital located on the north side of the river.
My hon. Friend may know that when I had a meeting with the bridge board on my birthday on 19 April this year, we discussed the burden of tolls on those needing to go to hospital for treatment. I told those on the board that if they wished to put forward a workable scheme for a concession to such essential users, I would look at it sympathetically as part of the package of proposals.
Mr. James Cran: I have no difficulty with increasing tolls because they have not increased since 1989. The question is by how much. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was absolutely right to stress those special categories, but we shall want to encourage usage of the bridge. My hon. Friend the Minister said that tolls must be high but realistic. However, those two conditions may be mutually exclusive. All I want to hear from him tonight is that he is not leading the board by the snout and telling it to do what he wishes. If he does that, it will simply put a very large increase to the public inquiry and we shall all have to give our views on it.
Mr. Watts: I would not seek, nor would the board promote, a level of tolls that would reduce the traffic and the revenue. That would be counter-productive. As I have said before, it is for the board to promote a new toll tariff and then for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to determine it when the other procedures have been completed.
1580
In view of the assurance from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) that the bridge did not assist his election to this House, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes will not try to send him a bill for part of the cost.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to have some of the arguments the wrong way round. He seemed worried that I might be trying to offload a problem on to local taxpayers. On the contrary: the purpose of this generous legislation is to take some of the burden off them. The local authorities promoted the legislation authorising the bridge in such a way as to put the whole burden—£435 million as it now is—firmly on local taxpayers, chiefly those of Hull. So the hon. Gentleman must not reverse the argument; he must accept that the burden arose in the first place because of the way that the project was taken forward. I am taking powers that will enable the Government to relieve the local taxpayer of some of the burden. The precise amount of write-off and suspension will have to be determined and then contained in the order that I shall put before the House in due course.
On the whole, the constituents of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West ought to view me as Father Christmas; but he will recognise that Father Christmas does not always give children everything they want. It is not, as he suggested, a lack of action on the part of the Government that has allowed the problem to accumulate. The board has procrastinated by not coming up with proposals to maintain the levels of its tolls. Certainly, it tried to introduce a Bill, but if it had acted sensibly, it would have promoted an increase in tolls using the procedures currently available to it. It would also have promoted a Bill to provide for a more efficacious method of keeping the value of the tolls up to date in future. The board should not have sat back and waited for a private Bill to be taken through the House.
I remind the House that the Bill failed because not a single hon. Member was prepared to pick it up and sponsor it, even though it went through the other place—
Mr. Morley: Quite right.
Mr. Watts: But the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West has suggested that the Government are responsible for the board's inability to maintain its toll charges.
Mr. Michael Brown: I plead guilty, and I do so publicly along with the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). I objected to the Humber Bridge Board seeking to use private legislation to deal with its problems. A clause in the Bill would have enabled the board to abdicate responsibility for setting tolls; it handed over to the Secretary of State unlimited powers over future tolls. I had to have regard to the fact that one day there might be a Labour Secretary of State who might misuse those powers.
Mr. Watts: I was not necessarily criticising my hon. Friend—only Opposition Members who suggested that the Government failed to help bring about a solution. If Opposition Members had wished to do so, they could have sponsored the Bill on behalf of their local authorities.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe almost led us astray today by saying that £3 billion was wasted on the poll tax. He will know that any such figure represented the increase in revenue support grant from

1581
central Government to local government. If he really thinks the money should not have been spent, he is advocating a reduction in central Government support for local government by that amount. I am sure that he will want to reconsider; it would be a most inconvenient proposition for Labour Front Benchers.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the impact of tolls on road haulage. The current toll for the largest heavy goods vehicle is £10.90. He will know, from the excellent information provided by the bridge board, that on the journey from Hull to Grimsby using the bridge involves a saving of 47.9 miles. Most hauliers would consider the toll good value for money, given that the alternative would involve more fuel and more time for the driver.
Comparisons with other crossings and links on the trunk road network are invalid. I remind the House that the bridge was promoted by local authorities to serve a local purpose. Once a local authority has done such a thing and accepted that the financial responsibility for it should rest with its local taxpayers, it is a bit rich to compare the bridge with crossings on other parts of the trunk road network promoted by my Department to serve national strategic needs.
Mr. Morley: I mentioned the Limehouse link earlier. No private sector contribution was forthcoming for it, and the Public Accounts Committee criticised the Department of the Environment—the funding agency—for that, recognising that the link benefited the private developers of Canary wharf who contributed nothing. So there was an even poorer return for the money put into that link, which amounted to more than the cost of the Humber bridge. Surely in any case the Minister must recognise that the bridge is part of our national infrastructure network.
Mr. Watts: One's perception of the value of that link depends on the value one places on the redevelopment of docklands. Some of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends who represent parts of east London might take a rather different view.
For all the reasons adduced in this debate, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Bates.]
Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill

  HUMBER BRIDGE (DEBTS) [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the Secretary of State to provide that sums which would otherwise be payable to him by the Humber Bridge Board shall not be so payable.—[Mr. Bates.]
  Question agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [19 December]; reported, without amendment; not amended, considered; read the Third time and passed.

  PETITION

    War Medals (Replacement)
    6.48 pm
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of my constituent, Mr. J. Conn. It concerns the fact that he and other pensioners like him who have had their medals stolen or who have lost them by misadventure are asking the Ministry of Defence to take that into account and to make efforts to replace the medals. I think that a worthy cause, particularly on the 50th anniversary of the end of the war in which Mr. Conn and many others saw service. That is why they would like the medals they won in the war to be replaced. This is not a big matter, but I hope that the Ministry of Defence will take account of it—as I know that many hon. Members will.
    The petition ends:
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Ministry of Defence to consider the plight of Mr. Conn and others in a similar situation and endeavour to replace these medals.
    Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    I beg leave to present the petition.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Textile Effluent
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  6.49 pm
  Mr. David Tredinnick: I am grateful to have secured the debate. It will be the last debate today and, therefore, of the pre-Christmas part of the Session.
  I wish to highlight a serious threat to the dye-works in Hinckley in my constituency, the threat to Brookside Dyers, Atkins, Fludes, Halls and Sketchley. It is a threat to 500 jobs in the industry in Hinckley and a threat to thousands of other jobs in the related hosiery, knitwear and textile industries. I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight that threat there and at other towns in the county and in the region.
  In February 1990, at a meeting called at the request of Severn Trent Water Ltd., the dyeing and finishing sector committee of the Knitting Industries Federation Ltd., KIF, was told for the first time that the then newly formed National Rivers Authority intended to introduce consents on the discharge of dye colour in textile effluent received at certain sewage treatment works. The treatment works at Hinckley, Loughborough, Wigston, Wanlip and Pinxton were all identified as problem areas.
  It was explained by Severn Trent Water that the procedures in place at the works to which I have referred were ineffective in removing dye colour, which was passing through the treatment process into rivers. Surprisingly, STW stated that it was not prepared to offer any solution but laid the responsibility for the removal of the colour firmly on the shoulders of individual dischargers.
  It was not until June 1992 that the NRA's proposed colour consents were revealed, with the declaration that these would be introduced by 1 January 1994 at the latest. The consents amounted to a gin-clear discharge for 100 per cent. of the time. I always thought that gin had a blue tinge and was not exactly clear, but we had better not pursue that line this evening.
  The proposal to implement gin-clear discharge—that is discharge without any coloration—would have had a catastrophic impact on the industry then, and would have one now unless STW took the necessary action. Fortunately, at the time, the KIF sprung into action. I congratulate it on what it has done. It appointed an environment committee. It rapidly established, following a worldwide trawl, that there were no known solutions at end of pipe that would be viable for those compelled to discharge into sewers. The committee stressed the non-toxic nature of the effluent at the levels of dilution involved, together with the major threat to jobs in the east midlands.
  There was clearly a need for a formal tripartite action group—it is known as the TAG—between the KIF, STW and the NRA. That group was set up in January 1993. General meetings of dyers were held at Leicester and Mansfield, at which the NRA and STW gave audio-visual presentations. These did nothing to allay the sector's fears.
  By the end of March 1993 it became clear that the TAG had become deadlocked. That was principally because of the NRA's insistence on maintaining its so-called gin-clear consents for 100 per cent. of the time. That gave
  1584
  STW an excuse for not accepting the responsibility for removing dye colour at its treatment works, although it was much better placed to carry out the job more economically, efficiently and effectively than any of the dye-works.
  The KIF took the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The meeting took place in July 1993, with support from the union, the National Union of Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades and the all-party knitting industry lobby at Westminster. Meanwhile, the support of the influential Chemical Industries Association Ltd. dye users group was enlisted along with the Textile Finishers Association in Manchester. It was agreed with the then Minister that the TAG should have high-level talks with senior officials at the Department of Trade and Industry to arrive at a workable solution through mediation.
  Trials were agreed. It was not until October 1993 that the long-awaited but elusive dividend which had been sought was achieved. Severn Trent finally agreed to undertake, on a trial basis, to remove the colour at selected sewage treatment works. A joint action plan was submitted to the NRA with the following central aims: the pursuit of practical colour removal at selected treatment works, the examination of dye house discharge management procedures, the formulation of best practice for dye house operations and the establishment of further research development programmes. But the breakthrough became shortlived.
  The NRA's response to the JAP of continuing insistence on the gin-clear consent for 100 per cent. of the time, compounded by the introduction of the unacceptable peg-in-the-ground concept—you are probably as confused as I was, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I first came across the concept, but broadly speaking it means no increase in capacity for existing dye-works—caused STW to revert to its original and, I suggest, unacceptable policy of passing the problem back along the pipe to the dischargers.
  Simultaneously, the KIF, as part of its responsibilities under the JAP, initiated—this was with the assistance of an expert, Dr. Skelly—the publication of a water and effluent management manual. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and his Department for a contribution of £10,000. The total cost was £30,000. The manual, which included individual case studies by the products sector, set out best practice for dye house operations. Copies were distributed to the member dye houses in May 1994.
  What is the NRA's response to the JAP? By the end of March 1994 it had become clear that although the NRA would not become a party to the JAP, it was prepared, provided all parties proceeded with their respective commitments, to postpone the introduction of its colour consents until 1 January 1996. More time had been bought for the industry, and that was important.
  During this period, or breathing space, a significant number of dischargers, such as those in my constituency, continued their search for suitable technologies to remove the colour in association with a variety of water equipment suppliers. They were not idly standing by but taking action. Many of the pilot rigs installed proved effective in removing the colour. However, the associated costs of bulk applications, in terms either of capital or of revenue, proved prohibitively expensive in the absence of

  1585
  an ability to recycle a significant volume of the effluent. Only through recycling could meaningful payback be achieved.
  The KIF therefore decided, with the co-operation of four member dye houses, to make an application to the Department, under the Government's Link programme, for a 50 per cent. grant towards a £2.5 million project. The very size of that figure indicates the enormous costs that dye houses face in responding to the problem. Unfortunately, the Department rejected the application in June 1995 on the ground that it was oriented towards near-market applied research rather than pure research. However, I have to thank the Minister because I understand that, in the past few days, £8,000 has been made available, and several companies will be able to install new equipment and work on recycling as a result.
  What about this year? Severn Trent commenced bulk trials on part of the effluent flow at the Wanlip sewage treatment works in Leicester. The Wanlip works is the biggest of the works that I am talking about this evening and, depending on how one classifies dischargers, there are 30 to 40 whose discharge is sent there. It is therefore a very important works. I understand that the trials have proved successful although the seasonality and long-term prospects have still to be tested. Further trials at Pinxton, where there is a sole discharger with a dedicated sewer, have so far failed to produce satisfactory results.
  Severn Trent claims, however, that it has not been possible to carry out trials at the other peripheral treatment works at Hinckley—which is the principal subject of my debate—or Loughborough because of the intermittent absence of perceptible colour in the effluent. That was no doubt influenced by the fashion colours for the spring-summer 1995 season. My hon. Friend the Minister may not study such matters in great detail, but the colours were neutral and pastel shades, which meant that it was difficult to test for dye. Severn Trent's declared intention to pursue trials at Wigston have apparently been similarly frustrated.
  In January this year, the halfway point in the NRA's two-year postponement of the introduction of colour consents—a postponement for which, as I have already said, the industry is grateful—the Knitting Industries Federation called for a mid-term review to be carried out by itself, Severn Trent and the NRA, again under the chairmanship of the DTI. That chairmanship was provided by the Department's textiles and retailing division. The mood of the industry is very much one of gratitude to the Department for taking that interest and for chairing the review so effectively. I thank the Minister on behalf of the Knitting Industries Federation and other parties.
  Four meetings took place throughout the year, the last of which was held on 1 December in Nottingham. During that process, the KIF successfully demonstrated, among other things, that the NRA's proposed colour consents were flawed, firstly because the gin-clear approach was unnecessarily excessive, having regard to the inherent background colour in the affected rivers. In other words, there is a great deal of coloration in the rivers anyway. Secondly, the so-called "100 per cent. of the time" requirement was prohibitive, given the untested nature of the colour-removal treatment at sewage treatment works over an extended period.
  Fortunately, modified and less stringent wavelength criteria were finally accepted by the NRA which, at the same time, agreed to adopt a phased percentile approach
  1586
  with associated look-up tables starting with 90 per cent. compliance—rather than 100 per cent. compliance—from 1 January next year; 95 per cent. compliance with effect from 1 January 1997; and, with effect from 1 January 1998, 95 per cent. compliance but including an upper-tier absorbency limit for each wavelength. At that point, the upper tiers will be absolute and must not be exceeded.
  The NRA then served the modified consents on Severn Trent on 1 October, covering the treatment works at Hinckley in my constituency, and the ones at Loughborough, Pinxton, Wanlip and Wigston, by giving the statutory three months' notice in advance of their introduction on 1 January next year. In turn, Severn Trent—in compliance with statutory requirements—served consents on all the dischargers in each of the consented catchment areas on 1 November.
  Severn Trent claims that it is not possible to pass the percentile approach to dischargers end of pipe, except perhaps to a single discharger into a dedicated sewer. In the process, Severn Trent declared to dischargers in the Wanlip catchment area its preparedness to remove the colour at the sewage treatment works at a cost of between 20p and 30p per cubic metre, always provided that there was a sufficient level of take-up by the dischargers; I can tell my hon. Friend that there almost certainly will be.
  However, Severn Trent has not offered the dischargers into the peripheral sewage treatment works, such as that at Hinckley, the facility of removing the colour from their effluent. That is grossly unfair and wholly unreasonable. Bearing in mind where the colour saga began in 1990, and taking into account the KIF's prolonged and determined campaign in the subsequent 70 months, the outcome at the large Wanlip catchment area in Leicester might be considered satisfactory. In contrast, as no facilities are being offered by Severn Trent to remove the colour at the designated peripheral sewage treatment works such as that in Hinckley, the position of the dyers that I cited earlier is as grave as ever.
  The absence of an even-handed approach by Severn Trent across the affected area is regrettably divisive and threatens the future of those who discharge into the designated peripheral treatment works, not only at Hinckley but at Loughborough, Pinxton and Wigston. The unavoidable next step is for those dischargers in question to enter an appeal to Ofwat.
  The KIF's five years of campaigning and lobbying has achieved significant and meaningful progress. At the outset, Severn Trent refused to accept responsibility for removing colour at the affected sewage treatment works. Meanwhile, the NRA stuck rigidly to its excessive and, I would suggest, ridiculous gin-clear standards for 100 per cent. of the time. The KIF campaign initially persuaded the NRA to postpone the introduction of colour consents for two years until 1 January 1996. Thereafter, the NRA was further persuaded to modify the severity of its original consent proposals and at the same time to adopt a phased percentile approach. That is jargon which means that it allowed some failures, thus making it much easier for dischargers to meet the requirements.
  Following succesful trials at Wanlip, Severn Trent has in turn been persuaded to accept the responsibility for removing colour at that works but at a cost of 20p to 30p per cubic metre, assuming that there is sufficient take-up. As I said, I am fairly sure that there will be.

  1587
  Meanwhile, the collective research efforts of many members for end-of-pipe solutions at an estimated cost of £1 million have resulted in considerable progress being made in identifying suitable combination technologies for colour removal, albeit largely unproven throughout the cycle. At the moment, there is no technology in the world to cope with the specific problem. In any event, the cost of bulk installation would be around £300,000 per firm. I should like my hon. Friend to bear that figure in mind.
  If dye-works at Hinckley in my constituency are going to have to pay £300,000 each, one does not have to be psychic to work out the impact on their competitiveness. If they are forced to pay such an amount, I envisage the thriving dye industry at Hinckley facing serious difficulties. It would affect not only Hinckley but the other centres to which I have referred, such as at Loughborough and Wigston. A very serious cost factor is involved, and I encourage my hon. Friend to look carefully at the possibility of making further money available for research, perhaps to Severn Trent, for the peripheral works that are necessary.
  The absence of colours in the flows, apart from intermittently during the summer months, which was due to the fashion colours—the light colours—to which I referred, has prevented Severn Trent from carrying out any trials. It stated that, despite the works being included in the original joint action plan in late 1993, it is not in a position to offer colour removal facilities at those sewage treatment works from 1 January 1996, when the consents are due to become operative. Thereafter, Severn Trent seems to be of the opinion that the associated costs would be excessive at those works, always assuming that suitable technologies were available. It claims that it does not follow that the system established at Wanlip would be suitable elsewhere.
  If Severn Trent, with its massive resources, thinks that the costs will be excessive, how does it think that Halls, in my constituency, Atkins or any of the other dye houses to which I referred, are supposed to continue trading? Severn Trent has advised that it will not be appealing against the NRA's colour consents, but meanwhile has imposed consents on each of the dischargers—passing the buck, one might say. Those consents are not identical to those that the NRA has imposed, and Severn Trent argues that it is not possible to pass the percentile approach up the pipe to individual dischargers, with the possible exception of Pinxton, where there is only one discharger.
  According to Ofwat, its target time scale for deciding appeals is 18 weeks from the date when the further mediation between Severn Trent and the dischargers breaks down—I think that it probably will break down. In practice, though, the time scale is within the gift of Severn Trent. For those discharging at Loughborough, Hinckley, Pinxton and Wigston, where no colour-removing facility is being offered by Severn Trent, there is no choice but to enter appeals not later than 31 December. The central thrust of the appeals, subject to obtaining sound legal advice, would be that the discharger's costs are more than those of Severn Trent to treat the discharge to the same environmental standard at its works.
  I know that the KIF is perfectly prepared to co-ordinate such appeals, with the assistance of an experienced environmental law practice; I have had discussions with
  1588
  it on that point. I hope that it does not get as far as that, and that is one reason why I raised the issue this evening. My understanding is that, under paragraph 6 of schedule 10 to the Water Resources Act 1991, the Secretary of State for the Environment has the power to direct the NRA to revoke a discharge consent or impose or modify any conditions of the consent if it appears appropriate to him to do so, in consequence of any representations or objections made to him. It appears, however, from the general context in which that provision is set, that its purpose is to enable the Secretary of State to impose stricter requirements—I certainly do not argue that that is what we want from my hon. Friend tonight—and not to relieve the burden. The KIF has been advised that that power is capable of being interpreted in such a way as to allow a relaxation, even a direction quashing the NRA's consents. I ask my hon. Friend a specific question—I know that this is a complicated matter. Will he give an undertaking that he will at least consider what action he can take directly to alleviate the problem, and not, as seems to be the current policy with Severn Trent, pass the problem down the pipe, as we say?
  In five days, the KIF has raised enough money for legal costs, including counsel's opinion, to address the issue at Hinckley, Loughborough, Wigston and Pinxton, on the Erewash. I understand that, when an appeal is entered, consent is immediately set aside. If it has to get the consents set aside—it cannot comply with them anyway by 1 January next year, for all the reasons that I have given—and an appeal is entered, we shall be in a state of suspended animation. We shall have to look at ways to break that. Severn Trent could have appealed against the NRA consents to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but it took a policy decision not to do so. Why did it not appeal? Why did it not get on and do something about it? I think that the answer is that it thought that if it left the problem alone, it would not have to address it and that it would end up at the discharger's door.
  I hope very much that in the first stage of the appeals procedure, which now looks to be an inevitability, action will be taken to get the relevant parties—the NRA, Severn Trent and the dischargers—together for sensible discussions. I know that the KIF intends to set up consultative meetings between those key groups. The mediation process could take weeks or months. The length of the negotiations is under the control of Severn Trent. If it got beyond the preliminary appeals procedure, to what is the appeals procedure proper, the consents would not be quashed, but Severn Trent would be forced to remove the colour at reasonable cost. It could have undertaken trials in 1994, but it did not. In 1995, it has a problem because the fashion colours are light.
  This is a complicated business. It is not an issue on which people can easily hold their attention, precisely because it is so detailed. One of the complexities of the problem is that the dye discharged is not of a constant nature; the chemicals in it are not constant. That means that there are changes daily. We need not just one process to clean the dye that is in the discharge but several, and that raises some big issues. If the end users, for example the dye-works at Hinckley, are supposed to deal with the problem themselves—never mind the enormous costs, at £300,000 per dye-works—there are environmental issues, too, because with such constantly changing chemicals, they will need a chemist to get it right. It would be much safer for Severn Trent to take the issue and solve the

  1589
  problem collectively in the peripheral treatment works. It is absurd to expect individual dye-works to introduce very complicated processes at vast expense.
  It is also grossly unfair on my region, because specific problems relate to rivers. The River Soar in Leicestershire is a slow-flowing river, unlike many others, so disposal of effluent takes longer. That is why there is pressure. Never mind Sketchley brook at Hinckley, into which most of the Hinckley dye-works discharges. The quality of receiving water, to use the jargon, in the area is worse than in the rest of the country, where the problem does not exist. It behoves Severn Trent to face up to its responsibilities.
  I must compliment my hon. Friend and his Department on the participation of the textile and retail division in presiding over the tripartite talks set up by the review committee. That really has helped, and I understand that it has led to a satisfactory solution at Wanlip, where there are between 30 and 40 dischargers. However, other dyers in Leicestershire—not least the five in Hinckley to which I have referred—face a tremendously difficult time, with 1 January, when the consents come in, just around the corner.
  I have referred to the enormous costs that those dyers face, and I have mentioned the environmental worries. I plead with my hon. Friend the Minister to make every effort to make the mediation stage of appeal a success—to persuade Severn Trent to accept the responsibility, which it is morally obliged to accept, to upgrade the peripheral treatment works at Hinckley and Loughborough, and the others that I have listed. If my hon. Friend can do that, he will have served the House well.
  I look to my hon. Friend to press for a sensible negotiated settlement that will protect not only the environment but jobs in Hinckley's dye houses, which are vital to the town, the county and the country.
  7.21 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) for raising such an important subject. I know that he is very concerned about the health of the textile industry, which, as he rightly said, is important to many of his constituents. He has certainly demonstrated that concern tonight, along with his mastery of the technical details of a complicated subject. He has used that knowledge to give the House a penetrating analysis of the problems facing the textile industry in his constituency, and in other parts of Leicestershire and the midlands.
  My hon. Friend has outlined some of the issues that face the textile industry in its efforts to meet the standards required for the discharge to water of effluent coloured by dyestuffs. The issue also involves problems for the National Rivers Authority and the water companies in the meeting of their objectives, as the House will have gathered. As I have said, the matter is complicated and sensitive, and I do not wish to upset the delicate balance that has been reached in discussions among the parties so far; nor can I comment in any detail on issues that may affect individual cases, for fear of prejudicing any appeals to the Secretary of State by those who feel aggrieved.
  I do, however, wish to outline the position, and the reasons why the NRA considers it necessary to control
  1590
  the discharge of dye colour by textile companies. We are all familiar with the high quality of the knitwear goods produced in Leicester and surrounding areas, and with the attractive range of colours and patterns that are available nowadays. Of course, once dyes have been applied, any surplus must discharged from the premises in waste water.
  In matters of this sort, there is a danger that the issues will be exaggerated. It would be wrong to characterise this issue in terms either of an over-zealous regulator making life difficult for British industry to no worthwhile purpose, or of a lurid picture of rivers flowing purple and red and devoid of life. Neither of those characterisations would be accurate.
  Generally, dyestuffs are non-toxic pollutants. However, in this case it is not a question of interference for no good reason. Although dyestuffs are not toxic, the discolouration of rivers caused by uncontrolled discharge of dyestuffs is of legitimate aesthetic concern, and a source of pollution. There is understandable public concern about visibly coloured water, or rivers suddenly changing colour. That concern, and the need to control such pollution, is at the heart of the wide and diverse range of uses to which we put our rivers.
  Rivers are major features of our landscape. When they are used for the discharge of waste, it must be on a sustainable basis. They are used not only as sources of water for a wide range of industrial purposes, but as sources of drinking water. They support valuable ecosystems, which must be protected. Just as important, they are an invaluable recreational asset, particularly for the angling community.
  For those reasons, we must manage our rivers efficiently, and ensure that they are able to meet the needs of all who wish to use them. The NRA exists to carry out that management, and has a statutory duty to ensure that pollution is controlled. There is, of course, public concern about pollution, and the NRA is properly responsive to that concern.
  Under the Water Resources Act 1991, it is an offence to cause or knowingly permit polluting matter to enter a water course; however, acting under and in accordance with a discharge consent provides a defence against such charges. Thus, both discharges made from a manufacturing plant and those made via a sewage treatment works require consents, and the NRA is able to impose requirements in respect of the discharge that protect the local aquatic environment and the key users of those waters.
  As for dyestuffs, I understand that, for some time, the NRA has been keen to introduce conditions into consents to control the discharge of coloured waste that meet environmental needs, while ensuring that the consent conditions that they set are achievable. For a variety of reasons, progress has been slow.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I asked my hon. Friend to find out whether his Department has direct powers to intervene, and whether, if the Secretary of State has such powers, he would at least consider using them.
  Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend has issued a powerful plea. As he implied, he knows of the rights of appeal that exist, and is aware that some of the matters to which he referred are within the province of the regulators, and are involved in the relationship between regulators and

  1591
  dischargers. I will respond to that powerful plea in due course, but before I do so, I feel that I should set out the background, and the reasons why regulation is required.
  As I said, progress has been slow, but discussions have continued. This year, discussions between the Government, the NRA, water companies and industry representatives have made good progress on standards and their implementation from 1 January 1996. The objective is to ensure that discolouration caused by dyestuffs is not visible to the naked eye. I noted my hon. Friend's comments on that.
  I believe that the NRA has worked to ensure that attention is paid to the needs of industry, as well as fulfilling its statutory duty to protect our rivers. At the same time, industry is aware that this source of pollution must be controlled, and that it will be necessary to contribute to the cost of reducing discolouration: it is a well-established principle, applying widely across the environmental field, that the polluter pays.
  The sewerage undertakers have also been included in the dialogue. When discharges are being made to sewer, a consent is required from the sewerage undertaker, who must ensure that discharges are such as to enable effective treatment to take place to remove pollutants, and—when the effluent is finally treated and released into the river—for NRA requirements to be met in respect of the discharge from the treatment works that they operate.
  As I understand it, the National Rivers Authority has come up with proposals that have secured a good measure of agreement. Acceptable standards that will achieve the desired aesthetic effects, but that are not overly stringent, will be progressively introduced from 1 January, and compliance will be assessed on a basis established with some flexibility.
  That provides the conditions for the textile industry to rise to the challenge and, to meet pollution reduction targets, to work on means of reducing discolouring emissions. One of the most promising may be to recycle waste water within the plant, which would have the benefit of allowing installation costs to be offset against other savings. The complex process of dyeing and treatment of residues might be re-examined with a view to minimising waste.
  I congratulate the regulators and the industry on progress so far, but I do not underestimate the difficulties that must be resolved in an industry that, for historical reasons, is based on old infrastructure. The ability to invest and to modernise has been affected by global competition, and there have been job losses and poor profitability. The industry has gone through difficult times.
  That combination of factors lies at the root of many of the environmental concerns that the industry faces. The National Rivers Authority is aware of those difficulties, and has aimed to recognise the problems and to reach a sensible agreement that will not jeopardise the industry's future.
  Many of the factors that I have outlined affecting the manufacturers' economic position will concern manufacturers in my hon. Friend's constituency, especially in relation to the dischargers to the six peripheral treatment
  1592
  plants to which he drew attention. I am sure that he will share my pleasure that good progress has been made on discharges to the treatment plants at Wanlip, which will help 30 to 40 dischargers. As he rightly says, however, issues remain at the six peripheral works.
  My hon. Friend has made a strong case on those dischargers and those plants. In response to his plea for an undertaking, as I have said, there are some restrictions on my position on this matter. I must be aware of matters that properly lie within regulators' province and of any possible appeal rights, but he has rightly outlined the interests that my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry have taken in the matter so far, which will be maintained. We recognise the importance of securing an agreement, if possible, on this important subject, which affects, as he has said, so many of his constituents who are employed by these manufacturers.
  It would be for the House's benefit if I briefly repeated the background of assistance that has been given by the Department of Trade and Industry and by the Department of the Environment, which my hon. Friend fairly and fully outlined. That assistance has been in the form of funding for a manual of best practice through a £10,000 grant, mediation between parties, recycling support—which is important and which, as my hon. Friend has said, has been valued by industry—and a continued role in meetings between the parties. In all those respects, the Government have been seeking to assist the industry, and will of course continue to do so in the same way.
  It is worth emphasising that the benefits go further than just to the industry, important though that is. There are other benefits for the environment and for industry in environmentally friendly processes. They are a hallmark of an efficient and competitive industry. Consumers of the end product are increasingly seeking reassurance that the process of manufacture has not damaged the environment, and green technology can therefore help in the marketplace.
  The textile industry is no exception; it cannot afford to fall behind. New technology and investment may be necessary to meet environmental standards, but development of that technology should be of long-term benefit to the industry that develops it. It is part of the process of change and adaptation, which also benefits the environment. I emphasise that.
  There are signs that that is already happening. The NRA annual report for 1994–95, published earlier this year, showed that, overall, there has been a considerable improvement in the quality of our rivers and canals in the past few years. More specifically, there has been a net improvement of 26 per cent. in the length of rivers and canals, between 1990 and 1994, achieving good environmental standards.
  Next year, the NRA will be publishing its quinquennial report on river quality in 1990–95. In part, that is a result of a joint approach by the NRA with industry in developing workable standards that meet the environment's needs and safeguard industrial output.
  I think that that is an appropriate point on which to draw my remarks to a conclusion. Against that background, I reiterate the need for continuing, sensible dialogue to resolve the remaining difficulties. The NRA has a duty to protect our water environment from pollution, from whatever source. A timetable has been

  1593
  drawn up for implementation of the NRA consent conditions, and, in turn, conditions laid down by water companies.
  I therefore congratulate all concerned on the way in which they have, in recent times, approached this problem, with a genuine desire to cater for one another's particular needs. I am pleased to note the progress that
  1594
  has been made so far. It is in all our interests to ensure that river pollution is minimised. The NRA has been working towards that, and I hope that the opportunity to move forward will produce the desired results.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Eight o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Collection Centres
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the approved collection centres in England and Wales as defined by the Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) Regulations 1995; [3861]

  (2) if he will list the approved collection centres in Scotland as defined by the Animals and Animal Products (Imports and Export) Regulations 1995. [3852]

  Mrs. Browning
  The following premises in Great Britain are approved collection centres, as defined in the Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) Regulations 1995:

  England and Wales

  Chelford Market, Chelford Agricultural Centre, Cheshire.

  Lichfield Auction Centre, Fradley Park, Lichfield, Staffs (approved for cattle only).

  New Lairage, Borderway Market, Rosehill Estate, Carlisle, Cumbria.

  Penrith Auction Mart., Agriculture Hall, Penrith, Cheshire.

  Scotland

  Glenfield Auction Market, Paisley

  John Swan and Sons Ltd., Newmarket Road, Edinburgh

  John Swan and Sons Ltd., Newton St. Boswells, Roxburgh.

  Livestock Auction Marts Ltd., Central Auction Mart, Kildean, Stirling.

  RMR Lairage Co., Eloradanin, Lochmaben, Lockerbie, Dumfries and Galloway.

  Royal Highland Agricultural Society, Ingleston, Newbridge, Midlothian.

  United Auctions Ltd., Perth Agricultural Centre, East Huntingtower, Perth.

  Wallet's Marts plc., New Market Street, Castle Douglas, Kirkcudbrightshire.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is his estimate of the total cost for himself and other departmental Ministers for each year since 1991–92, with an estimate for 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; [6388]

  (2) what is his estimate of running his departmental office, and that of his predecessor, for each year since 1990–91 with an estimate for the current year, broken down into (a) telephone bills, (b) total staff costs, (c) press and communications, (d) entertainment, (e) alcoholic
  1164
  drinks, (f) non-alcoholic drinks, (g) stationery, (h) office refurbishment and (i) other. [6387]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministers' and top management programme budget provides for the salaries of Ministers. the permanent secretary, the special adviser and the costs of operating private offices, a parliamentary branch. a Ministers' correspondence unit and an appointments section. The appointments section has formed part of this programme only since October 1994. The total cost of this programme for the financial years readily available was as follows:

  Year

  £million

  1992–93

  1.5

  1993–94

  1.7

  1994–95

  1.7

  The estimated expenditure for the current financial year is £1.8 million. The costs of travel and subsistence for Ministers, the permanent secretary, the special adviser and their staff is estimated to be £130,000 for the current financial year. The budget does not cover other advisers, nor does it distinguish between overseas and domestic travel.

  The cost of providing Government cars and drivers to Ministers in the Department in the current financial year is estimated to be £229,000 for this financial year.

  There is no specific budget for ministerial security costs. Expenditure on telephones and office refurbishment in each of the years 1990–91 is included in the running cost expenditure of the Department, which is published in the annual report.

  Total staff costs for the programme—which includes the offices described—is estimated to he £1 million in the current financial year. Press and communications costs relating specifically to Ministers cannot be separately identified.

  Entertainment, alcoholic drinks and non-alcoholic drinks are included in the hospitality budget. The estimate for the current year for this budget item is £25.000. Stationery costs for the whole of the programme are also estimated to he £25,000.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what advice has been given to procurement staff on the implications of purchasing from small and medium enterprises. [6615]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: Advice and guidance to procurement staff is contained in the departmental procurement and procedures manual. which is currently being brought up to date to take account of the information and direction given in the central unit for procurement guidance notes and the White Paper "Setting New Standards", Cm. 2840. On current plans, the manual will he re-issued no later than end of January 1996.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what work his Department has done to develop best practice in the publication of departmental
  1165
  procurement guidance material relevant to small and medium enterprises' needs. [6613]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]The Department has recently made a contribution towards the DTI's booklet on "Tendering for Government Business", which is aimed at enterprises of all sizes. In addition, we are producing a booklet entitled "Selling to MAFF", which is intended to provide guidance to any enterprise who wishes to provide us with goods and services. The booklet is in final draft and on current plan will be released in January 1996.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings his Department has had since May 1995 with organisations representing small firms to review tendering procedures. [6614]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]Since May 1995, MAFF procurement staff have not met any organisations representing small firms to review the tendering procedures. However, the director of purchasing and supply is due to meet the sheltered employment procurement and consultancy service in January 1996. In addition, a suppliers' conference is being considered for 1996.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the outcome of his Department's review of measures taken to facilitate small firm's access to appropriate areas of Government procurement in the light of best practice. [6672]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]It is the Ministry's policy that procurement should be based on value for money. Goods and services should be acquired by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. The form of competition should be appropriate to the value and complexity of the goods or services to be acquired.

  In following such a policy, opportunities for small firms to gain access to areas of MAFF procurement are readily created. In choosing its suppliers, the Ministry makes every attempt to judge suppliers on eligibility, economic and financial standing and technical capacity.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1994–95. [6496]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]The combined departmental non-pay running cost and the departmental capital outturns for the Ministry and its agencies for the year 1994–95 were £231,963,000.

  Departmental Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what is the amount owed to those businesses whose invoices were not paid within 30 days or within agreed contractual arrangements for 1994–95. [6514]
  1166
  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]All invoices, authorised and submitted for payment in respect of 1994–95 have been paid; there are no amounts owed to businesses in respect of these invoices for 1994–95.

  EC Fruit and Vegetable Regime
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the European Commission to amend the EC fruit and vegetable regime intervention system in order to allow apples available through intervention to be purchased at a commercial rate by cider makers and other manufacturers with any monetary difference made up by the Intervention Board. [6885]

  Mr. Boswell
  None. The EC fruit and vegetable regime is currently being reformed. Our efforts have been, and will continue to be, aimed at securing a complete end to the withdrawal—intervention—system. This will allow the price of fruit to be set by the market alone.

  EU Processing and Marketing Grant
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated net saving to his Department from ending the participation in the EU processing and marketing grant. [7380]

  Mr. Boswell
  The estimated net savings during the next three financial years are as follows:

  Year

  £

  1996–97

  1,270,000

  1997–98

  4,006,000

  1998–99

  8,061,000

  Spending Reductions
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from which budget heading will come the savings necessary in order for his Department to meet the spending reductions indicated for the next three years in the public expenditure survey 1995 outcome public expenditure plan for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. [7381]

  Mr. Boswell
  The necessary savings have been found across a wide range of the Department's activities, involving most of the 80 programmes which cover all of the Department's work.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Stormont Estate
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what portions of the Stormont estate have been built over or taken out of their natural state since 1 January 1985; what was the size and purpose of each action and the total proportion of the estate so lost: and what further areas are proposed for either new-build or return to nature. [5457]

  Mr. Moss
  Since 1 January 1985. the following portions of the Stormont estate have been built over or taken out of their natural state:
  1167

  Size (hectares)

  Purpose of Action

  1. 0.08

  Construction of car park.

  2. 1.11

  Intended for construction of building. Now in use as a site for temporary decant buildings.

  3. 0.65

  Originally designated as a site for a building but has been returned to grass and tree saplings.

  4. 0.36

  Construction of car park.

  5. 0.05

  Access road.

  6. 0.19

  Construction of car park.

  7. 0.07

  Extension of existing car park.

  8. 0.14

  Hard standing and small car park.

  9. 0.55

  Provision of plastic playing pitch.

  3.20

  This represents 2.5 per cent. of the whole estate.

  It is not envisaged that any further areas will be used for new-build or will be converted into wooded or grassed areas. At present, some areas normally grassed over are in use, on a temporary basis, either by contractors engaged in the refurbishment work to Parliament Buildings or for temporary accommodation for staff displaced by refurbishment work to Parliament Buildings, Castle Buildings and Stormont house. Those areas will be reinstated at the end of the contracts.

  Education and Library Boards (Property)
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what requirements are placed on the education and library boards by his Department in respect of the undertaking of property condition surveys; [6056]

  (2) if the Department of Education in Northern Ireland will undertake a review of existing property management organisational arrangements across the education and library boards; [6027]

  (3) how the Department of Education in Northern Ireland monitors whether the education and library boards

  £million

  Education and Library Board

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Planned

  1994–95 Response

  Total

  Belfast

  4.9

  5.7

  6.1

  5.4

  2.7

  2.7

  5.4

  North-eastern

  5.7

  5.7

  5.9

  5.8

  2.7

  2.5

  5.2

  South-eastern

  4.4

  4.3

  4.8

  5.1

  3.3

  2.4

  5.7

  Southern

  4.5

  5.1

  4.6

  5.0

  3.2

  2.3

  5.5

  Western

  5.0

  3.5

  3.7

  3.8

  2.4

  2.0

  4.4

  Total

  24.5

  24.3

  25.1

  25.1

  26.2

  Councillors Road, Carrickfergus
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the defect to the road surface at Councillors road, Carrickfergus which was repaired on 14 April, was first notified to the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) road service, as requiring repair, prior to notification of the accident which occurred on 13 April. [7365]

  Mr. Moss
  The defect in question was first reported to the Department's roads service on 14 April 1995.
  1168
  have internal systems in place which ensure adequately that maintenance funding is applied properly and used to good effect; [6052]

  (4) if DENI will be reviewing its existing arrangements in respect of the number of its branches dealing with estate management; [6054]

  (5) what was the recurrent expenditure on the repair and maintenance of the education and library boards' estates during 1994–95 (a) in total; and (b) by hoard: and on what was spent; [6028]

  (6) what mechanisms exists to facilitate the centralisation of estate management functions by the education and library boards; [6053]

  (7) what proposals (a) DENI; and (b) education and library boards have to review the level of funding allocated to repair and maintenance of board property; [6051]

  (8) how much of the maintenance expenditure has been spent on day-to-day maintenance; and how much on planned work in each of the education and library boards in the last five years. [6055]

  Mr. Ancram
  These questions all relate to issues covered by the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland, "Education and Library Boards: Maintenance of Board Property", which was published on 7 December 1995. In these circumstances it is appropriate for me to amplify only material contained in the report itself.

  Expenditure by the education and library boards on maintenance over the last five years is set out in the table. This relates to a wide range of maintenance work on controlled and maintained schools, further education colleges and other board property—this included electrical re-wiring, boiler and mechanical replacements, re-roofing, window replacement, painting, ground maintenance, energy efficiency measures, re-pointing of brickwork and concrete repairs. The division of expenditure between plan end and response maintenance is not readily available other than for 1994–95.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money was spent in Northern Ireland(a) on set-aside payments under the arable area scheme; and (b) total arable area payments; in 1994–95. [7190]

  Mr. Ancram
  In Northern Ireland in 1994–95, £509,736.33 was spent on set-aside under the arable area payments scheme; and £5,604,643.53 was spent in total under the arable area payments scheme.
  1169
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money is forecast to be spent in Northern Ireland in(a) set-aside payments under the arable area scheme; and (b) total arable area payments in 1995–96. [7191]

  Mr. Ancram
  In Northern Ireland in 1995–96, £556,110 is forecast to be spent on set-aside under the arable area payments scheme; and £8,222,180 is forecast to be spent in total under the arable area payments scheme.

  Housing (Negative Equity)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the percentage of house buyers in each of the past five years experiencing negative equity in Northern Ireland. [7250]

  Mr. Moss
  There is no reported negative equity in Northern Ireland at present, nor has there been in the past five years.

  Inward Investments
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many visits were made by industrialists in connection with potential inward investment projects to each district council area in Northern Ireland from 1 April to 30 November; and how many of these were repeat visits. [7343]

  Mr. Ancram
  During the period between 1 April 1995 and 30 November 1995, the Industrial Development Board arranged 200 visits to Northern Ireland by industrialists in connection with potential inward investment projects. Some 156 were first-time visits and 44 were repeat visits.

  A breakdown of the visits by district council area is as follows:

  District Council

  Total visits

  Repeat visits

  Antrim

  9

  2

  Ards

  1

  —

  Armagh

  —

  —

  Ballymena

  1

  1

  Ballymoney

  —

  —

  Banbridge

  2

  —

  Belfast

  94

  14

  Carrick

  4

  1

  Castlerragh

  2

  —

  Coleraine

  —

  —

  Cookstown

  7

  3

  Craigavon

  6

  1

  Derry

  6

  1

  Down

  1

  —

  Dungannon

  3

  2

  Fermanagh

  4

  2

  Larne

  2

  —

  Limavady

  1

  1

  Lisburn

  15

  3

  Magherafelt

  2

  2

  Moyle

  —

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  14

  4

  Newtownabbey

  14

  3

  North Down

  9

  2

  Omagh

  1

  1

  Strabane

  2

  1

  Total

  200

  44

DEFENCE

  Porton Down
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many scientific papers have been published between April 1991 and the present day under the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment technical papers series; and how many of these papers were produced as unclassified papers; [7302]

  (2) when the Porton technical papers series was first produced by the chemical defence establishment at Porton Down. [7303]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  These matters are for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DERA, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter front John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 20 December 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when the Porton Technical Paper series was first produced by the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down and how many papers have been produced between April 1991 and the present day under the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) Technical paper series and how many of these were produced as unclassified papers have been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which includes CBDE as one of its divisions. I am replying to both questions in this letter.The first Porton Technical Paper has a publication date of 1947.Since the change of name to the CBDE Technical Paper series in 1991 a total of 179 papers have been published. 90 of which were produced as unclassified documents.I hope this information is helpful.
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which countries outside Britain the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down has carried out tests and studies involving service personnel. [7296]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone. dated 20 December 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking in which countries outside Britain the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) at Porton Down has carried out tests and studies involving service personnel has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which includes CBDE as one of its divisions.Trials of equipment developed at Porton Down involving service personnel have taken place in many countries and on many occasions over the 80 year history of CBDE. These include an assessment of the difficulties of using respirators in the Khyber Pass in the 1920s. assessment of protective equipment in India in 1930s and assessment of protective clothing in Australia during the Second World War. It would involve disproportionate costs to try to identify all the studies which have been undertaken in various pans of the world as part of the development of equipment by CBDE to ensure the safe and effective protection of the United Kingdom's Armed Forces.I hope this information is helpful.

  Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the members of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee; for what reasons these individuals have been chosen to serve; if the committee will be able(a) to review experiments before they are carried out and (b) to veto or modify such experiments; which establishments this committee will review; what access to information and data this committee will have and if members of the committee have to sign the Official Secrets Act; how many members of the committee have either previously (i) served on a committee connected to the work of the chemical and biological defence establishment, (ii) worked at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment or (iii) been in receipt of an extramural contract from the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment; and if (1) the whole or (2) parts of the committee's annual report to his Department's chief scientific officer will be available to the public or hon. Members. [7304]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The terms of reference of this committee were placed in the Library of the House, as reported on 17 July 1995,Official Report, column 971. There is some further work to be done concerning membership and detailed committee procedures. I expect to make an announcement soon.

  Chauffeur-driven Cars
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of chauffeur-driven cars used by his Department was in each of the past five years. [5860]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  For that information which is readily available, however, I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 11 July 1995, Official Report, column 534, the letter which my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State sent to the hon. Member for Darlington on 20 July 1995 and my letter of 28 November 1995 to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones).

  A copy of both letters have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received regarding a ban on the production of land mines in the United Kingdom. [7330]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A number of representations have been received regarding the production of anti-personnel mines.

  Chemical Weapons (Papers)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what papers concerning Britain's decision to abandon production of chemical weapons have been opened to the public at the Public Record Office under the open government initiative. [7300]
  1172
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Since records released to the Public Record Office under the open government initiative are not organised by subject matter, we can not identify which relate to Her Majesty's Government's decision to abandon production of chemical weapons without disproportionate cost.

  Buy American Act
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the United States Government on the implications for the United Kingdom defence industry of "Buy American" clauses inserted in the most recent Department of Defence budget. [7140]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The provisions of the Buy American Act are waived for UK defence equipment in accordance with the US-UK defence co-operation memorandum of understanding signed in January 1995. Frequent representations are made at all levels to the US Administration and Congress to convey Her Majesty's Government's concern that such provisions damage the prospects for defence co-operation between the US and its allies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence expects to raise the matter when he visits Washington in January.

  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what fees or liabilities have been incurred to date in the course of the marketing of the Royal Naval college site in Greenwich. [7144]

  Mr. Soames
  The costs to date of exploring interest in the future use for the Royal Naval college, Greenwich amount to £55,590 plus VAT, exclusive of in-house staff resources. An additional sum will he payable to the Government Property Lawyers on receipt of the invoice.

  British Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities used for the incineration of clothing, furniture and other combustible material radioactivity contaminated as a result of British nuclear tests in the Pacific and Australia have been monitored since 1965; and what arrangements arc in place to assess the levels of radioactivity at the site. [7145]

  Mr. Soames
  Christmas island sites were monitored in 1981 by the New Zealand Department of Health and do not require further monitoring as it was found that no site on the island presented a health risk. In Australia the nuclear test sites are subject to frequent monitoring by Australian organisations. No contaminated equipment or material was returned to the United Kingdom for incineration, therefore, no monitoring for this type of contamination is required.

  Naval Stores, Portsmouth
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the value of naval spares stored in his Department's Portsmouth naval depot; what are the main categories of spares held at the depot; what condition these spares are currently in; how many lorries per week are bringing spares to the depot; from
  1173
  what bases these spares are being brought; and if he will make a statement. [7189]

  Mr. Soames
  The current value of naval stores held at the RN stores depot in Portsmouth naval base is £758 million.

  The main categories of stores held are marine engineering equipment, electrical and electronic material and general stores which are not applicable to specific ships or equipment.

  Stock is categorised as either serviceable, current value £638 million, or repairable, current value £120 million. The repairable stocks are subject to regular critical review by commodity managers and are either retained to meet anticipated service needs or disposed of through existing sales agreements.

  An average of 18 lorries per week are bringing stores to the Portsmouth depot from RN stores depots at Devonport, Eaglescliffe, Exeter and Rosyth.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated time necessary to make(a) fresh nuclear fuel and (b) irradiated fuel into a bomb. [7282]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It is not our practice to release information about the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [6711]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]The Ministry of Defence has had an organisation of this kind, now known as the Defence Suppliers Service, in place since 1986.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice has been given to procurement staff on the implications of purchasing from small and medium enterprises. [6642]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]The advice given to procurement staff is that they should ensure that they achieve value for money for the Department. That objective is best served through broadly based competition. The Ministry of Defence promotes competition by regularly publishing details of its contract opportunities and by explaining to companies of all sizes, but particularly small and medium enterprises, how they should set about exploiting those opportunities.

  Joint Advanced Strike Technology Programme
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he had made in negotiating a memorandum of understanding with the United States for co-operation in the joint advanced strike technology programme; and if he will make a statement. [7806]
  1174
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Negotiations with the United States Department of Defence have been successfully concluded with the signature today of a memorandum of understanding on arrangements for United Kingdom participation in the JAST programme. A copy of the MOU will be placed in the Library of the House. The proposed JAST advanced short take-off and vertical landing aircraft offers a potential future carrier-borne aircraft to replace the Royal Navy's Sea Harrier in the second decade of the next century. Arrangements set out in the MOU provide significant opportunities for British industry in the JAST programme.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his Department's projects which currently involve the private finance initiative. [5380]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 13 December 1995]In addition to the one approved PFI project mentioned in an earlier reply on 7 November 1995,Official Report, column 666, MOD has a portfolio of "Pathfinder" projects which will be tested for the suitability of PFI. Of these, a number are already in the procurement process and may, subject to value-for-money considerations, result in the delivery of a privately financed solution.
  The pathfinders include the provision of training and support services for the Naval Recruitment and Training Agency; telecommunications services for the defence fixed telecommunications system; the revitalisation of water and sewerage works at Tidworth garrison; the refurbishment of MOD's main building in Whitehall; provision of vehicles for the defence support vehicle fleet; and the provision of a visitors' centre for the Royal Navy at Devonport.

  MOD is committed to the use of PFI and will consider a PFI solution, alongside other options, wherever it needs to consider using its own capital resources. It also remains MOD policy to obtain best value for money in its procurement activity and a PFI solution will he adopted if it demonstrates best value for money against other options.

PRIME MINISTER

  Organised Crime
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans the Intelligence and Security Committee has to produce a report on the proposed involvement of the Security Service in the work against organised crime. [7768]

  The Prime Minister
  I can confirm that I have recently received an ad-hoc report on "Security Service Work Against Organised Crime" from the Intelligence and Security Committee. After consultation I have concluded that the report does not contain any matter whose publication would he prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Secret Intelligence Service, the Security Service or Government Communications Headquarters. and I have presented the report to Parliament today. Copies are also being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Ukraine
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his talks with President Kuchma of Ukraine on(a) co-operation on nuclear power matters, (b) co-operation on space matters and (c) future joint use of Baikenor expertise. [7061]

  The Prime Minister
  During my meeting with president Kuchma of Ukraine, I informed him that the United Kingdom looked forward to the signing in the near future of a G7-Ukraine memorandum of understanding regarding the closure, by the year 2000, of the remaining reactors at Chernobyl. The memorandum sets out a comprehensive programme of co-operation to support Ukraine's decision on closure within the framework of wider energy sector reform and investment. I stressed the Government's firm support for this programme. I did not discuss with President Kuchma co-operation on space matters or the joint use of the Baikenor launching site in Kazakhstan.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Prime Minister what advice has been given to procurement staff on the implications of purchasing from small and medium enterprises; [6648]

  (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' need. [6646]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: Guidance is included in the Cabinet Office's draft procurement manual, which is due to be issued shortly to supplement existing Treasury guidelines. The Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency has provided guidance to its staff on the treatment of small and medium enterprises by means of legal and commercial practice notices.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Burma
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out his Department's policy in relation to aid to Burma; and if he will give the amount of British Government aid given in each of the last three years and the purpose to which it is being put. [7057]

  Mr. Hanley
  Apart from some residual commitments, United Kingdom bilateral aid to Burma is available only for humanitarian support. This policy has been agreed with our EU partners and is kept under review. Total UK bilateral aid in each of the last three years was:

  1992–93: £79,000

  1993–94: £195,000

  1994–95: £350,000.

  The support given consisted of relief for displaced people, including education programmes; emergency aid following floods, fires and an outbreak of dengue fever; payment of pensions for former colonial servants;
  1176
  assistance through the United Nations drugs control programme; and minor payments arising from projects now completed.

  The United Kingdom also provided approximately £400,000 as our contribution to the European Community aid programme of £2.4 million in the five-year period from 1989 to 1993.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give figures in constant prices for grant in aid for St. Helena for the last 10 years for which figures are available; and what factors underlie the trends in these figures. [7072]

  Mr. Hanley
  The figures are:

  £ thousand

  Cash prices

  1995–96 prices

  1987–881

  2,300

  3,378

  1988–89

  3,542

  4,876

  1989–90

  3,904

  5,023

  1990–91

  3,477

  4,142

  1991–92

  3,414

  3,839

  1992–93

  3,479

  3,748

  1993–94

  3,495

  3,659

  1994–95

  3,225

  3,314

  1995–96

  3,560

  3,560

  1Earlier figures are not available on a consistent basis.

  UK grant in aid to St. Helena finances the difference between government budgetary recurrent expenditure and locally generated revenue. This varies between years due to a wide range of factors which can affect either the expenditure or the revenue side of the budget. It is a long-term aim to maximise the proportion of budgetary expenditure which is locally financed.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent nationality was a factor in appointing a chief education officer in St. Helena. [7073]

  Mr. Hanley
  In July 1995 the St. Helena Government requested recruitment of a technical co-operation officer to fill the vacant post of chief education officer, in the absence of any sufficiently qualified St. Helenians who were available to take up the post. The recruitment process is under way. As for all other ODA-recruited posts, applicants are required to he either nationals of the European Economic Area or Commonwealth citizens who have an established right of abode and right to work in the United Kingdom.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total cost of the budgetary aid mission to St. Helena to negotiate grant in aid support. [7074]

  Mr. Hanley
  The cost is expected to he approximately £17,000.

  International Committee of the Red Cross
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the Overseas Development Administration has provided to the International Committee of the Red Cross to assist with its projected end of year deficit. [8017]
  1177
  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has recently agreed a new contribution of £2 million to help alleviate this problem, due in part to the increased costs of the ICRC's work in the former Yugoslavia and the Africa great lakes region. As a result of this and other donors' responses the ICRC end of year financial situation is much better than projected earlier.

  China
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have been held at(a) the International Monetary Fund and (b) the World bank concerning child and prison labour in China; and if he will make a statement. [6021]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: We understand that an investigation by the World bank of alleged linkages between World bank-financed projects and child and prison labour in China is nearing completion. Management will report its findings to the board of directors. The matter has not been discussed in the IMF, which has no financial programme in China.

TRANSPORT

  Passenger Rail Franchises
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the award of the franchises for the first passenger rail services will be announced. [5950]

  Sir George Young
  The franchising director has announced the award of the first three passenger rail franchises. The South West Trains franchise has been won by Stagecoach Holdings plc. The Great Western franchise has been won by Great Western Holdings Ltd., a management and employee team backed by First Bus, 3i Intermediate Capital Group and the Royal Bank of Scotland. The London, Tilbury and Southend franchise has been won by Enterprise Rail Ltd., a management and employee team backed by 3i and Gresham Trust.

  All three franchises are committing themselves to significant improvements in services and have imaginative plans for developing their businesses. I look forward to the first franchised services operating in the new year and to passengers experiencing for themselves the benefits which privatisation will bring to the railway.

  A41
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of average daily traffic flows and average peak hour traffic flows along the A41 at Aston Clinton, Buckinghamshire; and if he will make a statement. [7134]

  Mr. Watts
  The estimated average daily flow along the A41 at Aston Clinton, Buckinghamshire for 1995 was 24,700 vehicles and the average peak hour flow was 2,300 vehicles.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the percentage increase in average daily traffic flows and average peak hour traffic flows on the A41 at Aston Clinton, Buckinghamshire, since the opening of the Berkhamstead-King's Langley bypass:1178
  how these figures compare with his Department's original estimates; and if he will make a statement. [7133]

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

  Letter from Laurie Haynes to Mr. David Lidington. dated 20 December 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, what is the percentage increase in average daily traffic flows and average peak hour traffic flows on the A41 at Aston Clinton. Buckinghamshire. since the opening of the Berkhamstead-King's Langley Bypass; how these figures compare with his Department's original estimates: and if he will make a statement.There have ben increases of approximately 19% and 20% in the annual average daily traffic flows and peak hour traffic flows respectively on the A41 at Aston Clinton since the opening of the Berkhamstead-King's Langley Bypass. This is broadly in line with our original estimates.

  Roads (Withdrawn and Deferred Schemes)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each road scheme which has been withdrawn from the road programme(a) the sums expended by interested parties in developing the proposals, (b) the stage which the scheme had reached, (c) the reasons for the withdrawal, (d) the latest annual accident figures for the roads affected by the scheme and (e) the current volumes of traffic recorded on roads affected by the scheme. [6457]

  Mr. Watts
  I have set out the schemes which are shown in the November 1995 review as being withdrawn together with the stage that each scheme had reached.

  During the review, careful consideration was given to allocating the limited road construction resources to where the need is greatest. Clearly, some schemes have a greater call on the available resources than others and it is now clear that resources were no longer available to allow all the 1994 roads review schemes to proceed in the foreseeable future.

  Information relating to sums expended and to the accident and traffic figures above is currently being collated and I will write to the hon. Member separately as soon as it is available.

  Route

  Scheme title

  Stage reached

  M1

  J31-32 Widening D4', Rotherham MB

  Programme entry

  M5

  J17-21 Widening (Stage 2), Avon

  Programme entry

  M23

  J9-9A Imp, West Sussex

  Programme entry

  M25

  J10-12 Widening D4', Surrey

  Programme entry

  M25

  J16-17 Widening D4',

  Programme entry Buckinghamshire. Hertfordshire

  M25

  J17-19 Widening D4'.

  Programme entry Hertfordshire

  M25

  J19-21A Widening D4',

  Programme entry Hertfordshire

  M62

  J12-18 Relief Road. Salford MB.

  Preferred route Bury MB announcement

  A2

  Kidbrooke Park Road. Interchange

  Programme entry Imp. LB Greenwich

  A3

  Hook Interchange Imp. LB

  Programme entry Kingston

  A3

  A245-A3100 Imp. Surrey

  Programme entry

  A3

  Stoke Road—Hogs Back Imp.

  Programme entry Surrey

  1179

  Route

  Scheme title

  Stage reached

  A5

  Wofshead—Weirbrook Imp, Shropshire

  Programme entry

  A5

  Milton Keynes Bypass South Roundabout GSJ, Buckinghamshire

  Programme entry

  A5

  Hockcliffe Bypass, Bedfordshire

  Programme entry

  A10

  Setchey and West Winch Bypass, Norfolk

  Programme entry

  A10

  Stretham Bypass, Cambridgeshire

  Programme entry

  A10

  Landbeach Imp, Cambridgeshire

  Programme entry

  A10

  Hay Lanc—Buntingford Imp, Hertfordshire

  Programme entry

  A10

  M25—Hoddesdon Imp, Hertfordshire

  Preferred route announcement

  A12

  Kessingland—Pleasurewood Imp, Suffolk

  Programme entry

  A12

  Blythburgh Bypass, Suffolk

  Programme entry

  Al2

  Chelmsford Bypass Widening, Essex

  Programme entry

  A12

  Gallows Corner Imp, LB Havering

  Programme entry

  Al7

  Sutton Bridge—Kings Lynn Imp, Norfolk

  Programme entry

  A17

  Sutterton—Long Sutton Imp, Lincolnshire

  Programme entry

  A17

  Leadenham—Sleasford Imp, Lincolnshire

  Preferred route announcement

  A19

  Thornanby Bypass, North Yorkshire

  Preferred route announcement

  A19

  Shipton By Beningborough Bypass, North Yorkshire

  Preferred route announcement

  A21

  Lamberhurst Bypass—Chingley Wood Imp, Kent

  Public inquiry

  A21

  Flimwell—Robertsbridge Imp, Kent, East Sussex

  Programme entry

  A26

  Beddingham—Itford Farm Diversion, East Sussex

  Public consultation

  A30

  Carland Cross—Zelah Imp, Cornwall

  Programme entry

  A31

  Ringwood—Ashley Heath Imp, Hampshire, Dorset

  Programme entry

  A31

  Sturt Lane—Red Post Imp, Dorset

  Programme entry

  A35

  Stinsford—Cuckoo Lane Imp, Dorset

  Programme entry

  A35

  Winterbourne Abbas Bypass, Dorset

  Programme entry

  A35

  Wilmington Bypass, Devon

  Programme entry

  A40

  Witney Bypass—Sturt Farm Imp, Oxfordshire

  Public inquiry

  A40

  Witney Bypass—Cassington Dualling, Oxfordshire

  Public inquiry

  A46

  Evesham—M5 Imp, Hereford and Worcester, Gloucestershire

  Preferred route announcement

  A47

  Guyhirn—Wisbech Imp, Cambridgeshire

  Programme entry

  A47

  Peterborough—West of Thorney Imp, Cambridgeshire

  Programme entry

  A47

  Sutton—West of Thorney Imp, Cambridgeshire

  Programme entry

  A49

  Weaverham—Lower Whitley Imp, Cheshire

  Programme entry

  A51

  Duddon and Clotton Bypass, Cheshire

  Public consultation

  A59

  Bank Hall Diversion, Lancashire

  Public consultation

  A64

  York—Malton Bypass Imp, North Yorkshire

  Preferred route announcement

  A64

  Malton—Seamer Bypass, North Yorkshire

  Preferred route announcement

  A65

  Moss Side—Lupton Imp, Cumbria

  Programme entry

  A65

  Hornsbarrow Diversion, Cumbria

  Programme entry

  A65

  Ilkley Bypass, Bradford, North Yorkshire

  Preferred route announcement

  Al27

  M25—Rayleigh Weir Imp, Essex

  Public consultation

  A140

  Dickleburgh—Norwich Imp, Norfolk

  Programme entry

  A140

  Long Stratton Bypass, Norfolk

  Programme entry

  1180

  Route

  Scheme title

  Stage reached

  A140

  Beacon Hill—Scole Imp, Suffolk

  Programme entry

  A140

  Stoneham Bypass, Suffolk

  Programme entry

  A205/

  Burnt Ash Hill Junction Imp, LB

  Programme entry

  A221

  Lewisham

  A339

  Black Dam GSJ, Hampshire

  Programme entry

  A406

  Popes Lane—Western Avenue Imp, LB Ealing

  Public inquiry

  A417

  M5-A40 Elmbridge Court Imp, Gloucestershire

  Programme entry

  A417

  Nettleton—Crickley Hill Imp, Gloucestershire

  Programme entry

  A418

  West of Aylesbury—Wing Imp, Buckinghamshire

  Programme entry

  A418

  Wing Bypass, Buckinghamshire

  Programme entry

  A420

  Cumnor Hill—Kingston Bagpuize Imp, Oxfordshire

  Programme entry

  A420

  Southmoor—A419 Imp, Oxfordshire, Wiltshire

  Programme entry

  A421

  Bedford—M1 J13 Imp, Bedfordshire

  Programme entry

  A428

  Eaton Socon—Caxton Common Imp, Cambridgeshire

  Programme entry

  A458

  Woolaston Cross—Buttington Cross Imp, Shropshire

  Programme entry

  A483

  Pant—Llanymynech Bypass, Shropshire

  Public consultation

  A550

  A5117—Ledsham, Cheshire

  Public inquiry

  A550

  Ledsham—M53 Imp, Cheshire

  Preferred route announcement

  A570

  Scarisbrick and Pinfold Bypass, Lancashire

  Public consultation

  A595

  Carlisle Southern Bypass, Cumbria

  Preferred route announcement

  A616/

  Salters Brook—Stonebridge Imp,

  Programme entry

  A628

  Barnsley MB, Sheffield MB

  A650

  Saltaire Relief Road, Bradford MB

  Programme entry

  A1079

  Shiptonthorpe Bypass, Humberside

  Preferred route announcement

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each road scheme which has been deferred to the long-term list(a) the reason for that deferral, (b) the latest annual accident figures for the roads affected by the scheme and (c) the current volumes of traffic affected by the scheme. [6456]

  Mr. Watts
  I have set out the schemes in preparation which are now included in the longer-term category of "Managing the trunk road programme November 1995". During the review, careful consideration was given to allocating the limited road construction resources where the need is greatest. While these longer-term schemes have been retained in the road programme, they are not as pressing as certain others. Consequently, funds cannot be allocated to take them forward in the immediate future. All preparation work on these schemes will be stopped by the end of this financial year 1995–96.

  Information relating to the accident and traffic figures is currently being collated and I will write to the hon. Member separately as soon as it is available

  Scheme title

  Route

  A1(M)

  Leeming—Scotch Corner, North Yorkshire

  A1(M)

  Dishforth—Leeming, North Yorkshire

  A1(M)

  Tuxford—Blyth, Nottinghamshire

  A1(M)

  Newark—Tuxford, Nottinghamshire

  A1(M)

  Stamford—Newark, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire

  1181

  Scheme title

  Route

  Al(M)

  Stamford Bypass, Cambridgeshire, Leicestershire

  A1(M)

  Peterborough—Stamford, Cambridgeshire

  A1(M)

  Baldock—Alconbury, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire

  A1(M)

  J9—10 Widening, Hertfordshire

  A1(M)

  J4—6 Widening, Hertfordshire

  A1(M)

  J1—4 Widening, Hertfordshire

  A6(M)

  Stockport North/South Bypass, Stockport MB

  A2

  Lydden—Dover Imp, Kent

  A5

  Nesscliffe Bypass, Shropshire

  A5

  Weeford—Fazeley Imp, Staffordshire

  A5

  Dunstable Eastern Bypass, Bedfordshire

  A6

  Disley and High Lane Bypass, Stockport MB, Cheshire, Derbyshire

  A6

  Kibworth Bypass, Leicestershire

  A6

  Bedford Western Bypass A6—A428 Link, Bedfordshire

  A6

  Bedford Western Bypass A428—A421 Link, Bedfordshire

  A10

  Wadesmill High Cross—Colliers End Bypass, Hertfordshire

  Al2

  Wrentham Bypass, Suffolk

  Al2

  Yoxford Bypass, Suffolk

  Al2

  Wickham Market—Saxmundham Imp, Suffolk

  Al2

  Martlesham—Wickham Market Imp, Suffolk

  Al2

  Hatfield Peverel—Marks Tey Imp, Essex

  Al2

  M25 J28—Chelmsford Imp, Essex

  A21

  Kippings Cross—Lamberhurst Imp, Kent

  A23

  Coulsden Inner Relief Road, LB Croydon

  A23

  Handcross—Warninglid Imp, West Sussex

  A27

  Arundel Bypass, West Sussex

  A30

  Temple—Higher Carblake Imp, Cornwall

  A30

  Zelah—Chiverton Imp, Cornwall

  A30

  St. Erth—Newtown Imp, Cornwall

  A35

  Chideock/Morcombelake Bypass, Dorset

  A36

  Beckington—East of Bath Imp, Avon

  A36

  Wylye—Codford Imp, Wiltshire

  A38

  Stoketon Cross—Trerulefoot, Cornwall

  A38

  Dobwalls—Bodmin Imp, Cornwall

  A46

  Alcester—Stratford Imp, Warwickshire

  A47

  Acle Straight Imp, Norfolk

  A47

  Blofield Acle Imp, Norfolk

  A47

  North Tuddenham—Easton Imp, Norfolk

  A47

  Little Fransham Bypass, Norfolk

  A47

  Middleton and East Winch Bypass, Norfolk

  A47

  Wisbech Bypass A1101 Junction Imp, Norfolk

  A47

  Tilney—Kings Lynn Imp and A47/A17 GSJ, Norfolk

  A49/A51

  Calverley—Tiverton Bypass, Cheshire

  A51

  Littleton Bypass, Cheshire

  A52

  Saxondale—Grantham Imp, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire

  A52

  Radcliffe on Trent Bypass, Nottinghamshire

  A65

  Coniston Cold Bypass, North Yorkshire

  A69

  Warwick Bridge Bypass, North Yorkshire

  A102

  Blackwall 3rd Crossing, LB Greenwich, LB Tower Hamlets (candidate for private funding)

  Al20

  Braintree—Marks Tey Imp, Essex

  A259

  Dymchurch—M20 J 11 Imp, Kent

  A259

  St. Mary's Bay and Dymchurch Bypass, Kent

  A259

  New Romney Bypass, Kent

  A259

  Rye Bypass, East Sussex

  A259

  Winchelsea Bypass, East Sussex

  A259

  Guestling Thorn and Icklesham Bypass, East Sussex

  A380

  Kingskerswell Bypass, Devon

  A406

  East London River Crossing, LB Greenwich, LB Newham

  A419

  Blunsdon Bypass, Wiltshire

  A428

  Great Barford Bypass, Bedfordshire

  A435

  Studley Bypass, Warwickshire, Hereford and Worcester

  A449/A456

  Kidderminster, Blakedown and Hagley Bypass, Straffordshire, Hereford and Worcester

  A523

  Poynton—Macclesfield Imp. Cheshire

  1182

  Scheme title

  Route

  A590

  Ulverston—Dalton Bypass, Cumbria

  A650

  Shipley Eastern Bypass, Bradford

  A5225

  Wigan—Westhoughton Bypass, Bolton, Wigan

  Route

  Scheme title

  —

  Western Orbital Route, Hereford and Worcester, Staffordshire1

  M1

  J28–31 Widening, Derbyshire, Rotherham MB

  M1

  J25–28 Imp (Phase 2: Widening), Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire

  M1

  J21A–23A Widening (Phase 2), Leicestershire

  M1

  J21–21A Widening (Phase 2), Leicestershire

  M1

  J19–21 Widening, Leicestershire

  M1

  J15–19 Widening, Northamptonshire, Leicestershire

  M3

  J2–3 Widening, Surrey

  M3

  J3–4 Widening, Surrey

  M4

  J8/9–10 Widening, Berkshire

  M4

  J10–12 Widening, Berkshire

  M4

  J12–15 Widening, Berkshire, Wiltshire

  M4

  J18–20 Widening, and M5 J15–J17 Widening, Avon

  M5

  J29–30 Imp, Devon

  M6

  J19–20 Widening, Cheshire

  M6

  J2–4 Widening, Warwickshire, Coventry MB, Solihull MB

  M6

  M1-J2 Widening, Leicestershire, Warwickshire

  M11

  J9–14 Widening, Cambridgeshire, Essex

  M20

  J3–5 Widening, Kent

  M23

  J9–10 Widening, Surrey, W Sussex

  M25

  J3–5 Widening, Kent

  M25

  J5–7 Widening, Kent, Surrey

  M25

  J19–23 Widening, Hertfordshire

  M25

  J23–26 Widening, Hertfordshire, Essex

  M25

  J26–28 Widening, Essex

  M25

  J30–31 Imp, Essex

  M27

  J11–12 Widening, Hampshire

  M27

  J4–11 Widening, Hampshire

  M40

  J3–4 Widening and J4 Imp, Buckinghamshire

  M42

  J1–3A Widening, Warwickshire, Hereford and Worcester

  M62

  J1–24 Widening, Rochdale MB, Calderdale MB, Kirklees MB

  M62

  J18–21 Widening, Rochdale MB

  M62

  J6–7 Widening, Knowsley MB

  —

  M4-A4 Link Hounslow, LB Ealing, LB Hounslow

  1Scheme to be reviewed for possible smaller scale solution.

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising
  Mr. Macshane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the annual budget of the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising; and how much of that total has been spent to date (i) in the current financial year and (ii) for each year since the office's inception, on legal fees. [7264]

  Mr. Watts
  The information on the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising is as follows:

  Financial year

  Annual budget (thousand)

  Expenditure on legal fees

  1993–94

  2,443

  827

  1994–95

  1,799,631

  5,059

  1995–96

  1,620,604

  4,164

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the Office of Passenger Rail
  1183
  Franchising's total expenditure, in the most recent available year, on (a) car allowances and (b) chauffeur-driven cars. [7327]

  Mr. Watts
  In 1994–95 the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising spent:

  (a) £1.070 travel on private cars;

  (h) £46.254 on chauffeur-driven cars;

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to encourage the staff of the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising to use British Rail services in their duties; and if he will make a statement. [7329]

  Mr. Watts
  The franchising director encourages his staff to use the most cost-effective mode of transport available when travelling in the course of their duties.

  Chauffeur-driven Cars
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total number of his Department's Ministers and staff entitled to the use of a chauffeur-driven car in each of the last five years. [7262]

  Million passengers

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Heathrow

  Terminal 1

  12.43

  12.36

  13.87

  15.41

  16.46

  17.99

  17.34

  19.13

  20.03

  21.36

  Terminal 2

  7.97

  7.21

  7.24

  7.70

  8.22

  8.21

  7.23

  7.41

  7.64

  8.22

  Terminal 3

  10.88

  6.93

  6.49

  6.98

  7.13

  7.86

  7.52

  8.87

  9.88

  10.79

  Terminal 4

  1—

  4.80

  7.12

  7.42

  7.78

  8.57

  8.14

  9.53

  10.03

  10.97

  Manchester

  Terminal 1

  6.06

  7.53

  8.56

  9.15

  10.07

  10.16

  10.15

  11.69

  9.13

  9.35

  Terminal 2

  2—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.72

  4.99

  1Terminal opened April 1986.

  2Terminal opened March 1993.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of the airports at(a) Heathrow and (b) Manchester international airport. [7016]

  Mr. Norris
  For Heathrow the Department publishes an aircraft noise exposure index in the form of annual noise exposure contours using Leq—equivalent continuous sound level, 16 hour dBA. Similar information about Manchester is available from the airport authorities. It is the responsibility of airport operators or developers to undertake appropriate environmental impact assessments of any major new developments proposed at airports.

  Eccles-Stratford Quays Metrolink Extension
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (i) what progress has been made with the Greater Manchester transport authority's application for European regional development fund funding for the Metrolink extension to Eccles via Stratford quays; [7162]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that ERDF funding is available to the Salford quays and Eccles Metrolink. [7163]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: I can give no assurances and no guarantees. The Greater
  1184
  Mr. Norris
  Between 1990 and 1994, five Ministers and the permanent secretary were entitled to a chauffeur-driven car.

  Since July 1994, four Ministers and the permanent secretary have been entitled to a chauffeur-driven car.

  Heathrow and Manchester Airports
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of(a) passenger and (b) freight capacity is being used currently at Heathrow and Manchester international airport. [7015]

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for BAA plc and Manchester Airport plc, respectively.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passengers used each of the terminals at(a) Heathrow and (b) Manchester international airport in the last 10 years. [7014]

  Mr. Norris
  I understand from BAA plc and Manchester Airport plc respectively, that the information requested is as follows:

  Manchester transport authority's application for ERDF funding is being considered by colleagues at the Department of the Environment. I understand that the application will be submitted to the Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Cheshire monitoring committee in the new year.

  Roads (Complex Schemes)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which road schemes are now being reassessed as complex schemes following the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment report; and how many complex schemes are(a) motorway widenings, (b) bypasses, (c) estuarial crossings and (d) new roads. [6677]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Dr. Tony Wright, dated 20 December 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport which road schemes are being assessed as complex following the report by the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment on "Trunk Roads And The Generation Of Traffic".Schemes are being assessed at the appropriate stage in their development. To date 12 schemes have been provisionally assessed as "Complex". These are:1185 Motorway Widenings

  M1 Junctions 6A-10

  M1 Junctions 10-15

  M1 Junctions 15-16

  By-passes

  A1 Gateshead Western Bypass

  A6 Clapham Bypass

  Estuarial Crossings

  None

  New Road

  Birmingham Western Orbital Route

  On line Widening or Junction Improvements

  Al3 Ironbridge—Canning Town Improvement

  A13/A112 Prince Regent Lane Junction Improvement

  A13/1117 Junction Improvement

  A27 Worthing—Lancing Improvement

  A46 Alcester—Stratford Improvement

  A249 Iwade—Queenborough Improvement

  M6
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to extend motorway lighting on the M6 from its present point close to the M1 to junction 3. [7137]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. James Pawsey, dated 20 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about M6 motorway lighting between the M1/M6 Interchange and Junction 3.There are no plans to light the M6 between these junctions.As you would expect, the key test in any appraisal of lighting need is the performance, from a safety point of view, of the road during the hours of darkness. Having examined the overnight safety record for this section of motorway over the last three years, we cannot justify extending the existing lighting provision to this area. Any proposal to go forward in this way would not be an effective use of funds and would certainly be at the expense of other much-needed lighting schemes elsewhere.However, all sections of the motorway and trunk road network are the subject of periodic review and factors could emerge at some stage in the future which may be significant and be such to justify the Agency taking a fresh look at the lighting need.In the meantime, I am sorry I cannot be more helpful.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 28 November,Official Report, column 549, what increases in charges were made by the Government car service in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement regarding the reasons for the increase in spending on these services over the last five years. [7328]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government car service charges are as follows:

  Date

  Financial year

  Increase (percentage)

  —

  1990–91

  —

  1st July 1990

  1991–92

  12.0

  1st January 1991

  10.0

  1186

  Date

  Financial year

  Increase (percentage)

  1st April 1992

  1992–93

  16.5

  1st April 1993

  1993–94

  2.5

  1st April 1994

  1994–95

  1.0

  VAT rates changed from 15 per cent. to 17.5 per cent. on 1 April 1991.

  Road Accidents (Summer Time)
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department will estimate the change in(a) road accident fatalities, (b) serious injuries and (c) total casualties that would have occurred in 1994, based on the figures published in "Road Accidents GB", if Great Britain had adopted double summer time. [4509]

  Mr. Norris
  Figures based on 1992 for a change at the end of October were given in a reply on 20 May 1994,Official Report, column 958. The Transport Research Laboratory calculates that updating these figures to take account of changes in casualty numbers since then results in a forecast that approximately 2,080 casualties of all severities would have been saved in 1994, including 110 deaths and 590 serious injuries. These estimates are based on an analysis of accidents in the period 1968 to 1971 when summer time continued throughout the year, compared with years when it did not, and take account of subsequent changes in accident patterns and vehicle usage. Estimates published in "Summertime: A consultation document" in 1989 were obtained using the same method applied to the year 1987. These are GB estimates and cannot be taken to show what might happen in any particular region of the country where special circumstances may exist.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chauffeur-driven Cars
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost of chauffeur-driven cars used by his Department was in each of the past five years. [5865]

  Mr. Hanley
  The cost of chauffeur-driven cars used by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office over the last five years was as follows:

  Government Car Service contracts

  1990–91: £248,546

  1991–92: £268,332

  1992–93: £370,656

  1993–94: £383,188

  1994–95: £383,188.

  The figures above represent the cost of agreed hours of usage and do not include VAT. The Government car service says that it has not been possible to calculate the charges for additional hours.

  In addition, the cost of chauffeur-driven cars provided from the FCO car pool during the 1994–95 was £86,266. Prior to this date no separate breakdown of figures was recorded.
  1187
  Information on expenditure by overseas posts on chauffeur-driven cars is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the total cost for himself and other departmental Ministers for each year since 1991–92, with an estimate for 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. [6402]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested will take some time to compile; I will write to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimate of the cost of running his departmental office, and that of his predecessor, for each year since 1990–91 with 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. [6401]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested will take some time to compile; I will write to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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 in respect of(a) the diplomatic wing and (b) the Overseas Development Administration. [6655]

  Mr. Hanley
  Diplomatic wing purchasing forms relating to suppliers now also identify the size of companies by number of employees; FCO and ODA contact points have been included in the DTI booklet "Tendering for Government Contracts". FCO procurement literature on access for small firms to departmental business has been sent to the central unit on procurement at HM Treasury.

  FCO departmental guidance on purchasing has been updated to reflect present Government policy on small and medium enterprises. The ODA is revising its own "Guide to Aid Procedures" to reflect present policy. All newcomers to purchasing attending the FCO introductory course on purchasing and supply—which is run in conjunction with the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply—are shown the DTI film "Thinking Big, Buy Small" Copies of the booklet with the same title are being ordered for distribution to purchasing staff.

  FCO model tender documentation ensures that appropriate contacts are identified and made available to deal with the procedural and technical issues relating to the contract.

  China
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the United Kingdom Government plan to take against the Chinese Government as a result of their gaoling of Wei Jingsheng; and if he will make a statement. [7209]

  Mr. Hanley
  We and our European Union partners have raised with the Chinese authorities our deep concern about the detention, trial and imprisonment of Wei Jingsheng. We look to the Chinese to show clemency and allow his early release.

  On 14 December, the Spanish presidency, on behalf of the EU, issued a statement in Madrid and Brussels, calling for Wei Jingsheng's unconditional release. A copy of the statement has been placed in the Library.

  High Commissions
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 12 December,Official Report, columns 577-79, if he will make a statement on the function of British high commissions; and what were the costs of the sub-leases for the residences in list B, the date on which they were taken out and the date of expiry. [7058]

  Mr. Hanley
  The function of British high commissions is to promote UK interests in Commonwealth countries and to provide the full range of diplomatic, commercial and consular services of an overseas post.

  The details requested for the relevant high commissioners' residences are shown on the list.

  Location

  Lease premium £

  Lease Commenced

  Lease Ends

  Accra

  Nil

  1 November 1956

  21 August 2019

  Banjul

  7,500

  1 January 1965

  31 December 2063

  Canberra

  Nil

  1 July 1951

  30 June 2060

  Dhaka

  39,230

  13 June 1978

  12 June 2077

  Honiara

  76,212

  1 November 1970

  31 October 2020

  Islamabad

  158,915

  30 November 1962

  in perpetuity

  Kampala

  17,500

  1 February 1962

  31 January 2061

  Lusaka

  14,000

  1 July 1975

  30 June 2075

  Nuku'alofa Port

  Nil

  1 November 1951

  31 October 2001

  Moresby

  17,000

  2 August 1973

  1 August 2073

  Vila

  125,000

  30 July 1980

  29 July 2030

  Embassies and Consulates
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the average cost of operation for United Kingdom(a) embassies and (b) consulates worldwide for each of the past five years; and if he will provide a breakdown by FCO geographical department. [7270]

  Mr. Hanley
  This information could not be produced in the format requested without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Information on the FCO's overseas expenditure can be found in the FCO's departmental reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Mykola-Zelyukin
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the migration and visa correspondence unit received a letter on behalf of Mr. Pawlo-Trtiakow in regard to his relative Mr. Mykola-Zelyukin; when it replied; and what factors determined the length of the interval. [7376]

  Mr. Hanley
  The hon. Member's letters of 3 October and 15 November, addressed to the entry clearance section at Kiev, were received in the migration and visa correspondence unit on 28 November. Having in the interim obtained information from Kiev, the unit replied to the hon. Member on 7 December about the outcome of the application.

  GCHQ
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the conditions of service of staff employed at GCHQ. [7741]

  Mr. Rifkind
  The conditions of service of staff employed at GCHQ are set out in the GCHQ staff handbook. Following advice from the director of GCHQ and, in agreement with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, I have today agreed that they should he amended.

  The Government's purpose in introducing new conditions of service in 1984 was to protect national security by ensuring continuous operations at GCHQ.

  This required that GCHQ's activities and operations should be protected from industrial disruption, whether in pursuit of national or local disputes; and should be protected from any risk arising from a conflict of loyalty of the staff; that negotiations on departmental issues should be carried out by departmental staff representatives answerable only to the staff of GCHQ; and that, for national security reasons, GCHQ staff should not have access to industrial tribunals. These objectives have been secured. The amendments I am now making will not affect them or the Government's original purpose, which remains unchanged.

  The Government have always accepted that staff at GCHQ should have the right to join a staff association which would represent their interests in negotiations over pay, conditions of service and a wide range of other issues. Since 1985 staff have been represented by the Government Communications Staff Federation; this arrangement has worked well, and a good working relationship has been developed between GCHQ management and the GCSF. The GCSF has been recognised by the certification officer for trade unions and employers associations as a trade union.

  However, certain details of the arrangement whereby the staff federation must be approved by the director of GCHQ, and his power to veto membership of its by staff, have caused the GCSF some difficulty in gaining a certificate of independence.

  In response to representations from the GCSF, the Government have considered how the conditions of service might be amended, consistent with the needs of
  1190
  national security, to remove this obstacle. The amendments which I have agreed today should do this. They reflect the Government's desire to recognise and to maintain the good working relationship which has been developed between GCHQ management and GCSF. For reasons of national security, staff at GCHQ will continue to be restricted to membership of a body whose officers and representatives are appointed from, and answerable only to, GCHQ staff. Their conditions of service will continue to exclude any form of industrial action. Within this framework, I have agreed to the director's recommendations that his power of approval, and his power of veto over membership of a staff association, should be withdrawn. He will instead exercise the right that every employer has, to choose to recognise for purposes of negotiation and staff representation only one union, and that one remains GCSF.

  Through these changes, I have carried forward the Government's policy of protecting national security, while also protecting to the maximum extent possible the employment rights of the staff of GCHQ on whose diligence, professionalism and commitment the nation depends.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Attorney-General what estimate he has made of the savings to public funds from allowing the CPS rights of audience in Crown courts. [7229]

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor and designated judges have not yet reached a final decision on whether Crown prosecutors should have rights of audience in the higher courts and, if so, to what extent. Pending such decisions, there are too many variables to make a reliable estimate.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Exhibitions
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the famine decade to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [7386]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 29 January to Friday 2 February 1996.

WALES

  Council Tax
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what revenue was raised from council tax in Wales for the last available three years; and what is his estimate of revenue for(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [5954]
  1191
  Mr. Hague
  The amounts Welsh local authorities expected to raise from council tax when setting the tax and their annual budgets were:

  £325.3 million for 1993–94;

  £354.4 million for 1994–95 and

  £394.2 million for 1995–96.

  If authorities budget in line with the spending plans announced on 13 December 1995, council tax revenue for 1996–97 would he £380.5 million. However, it will be for individual authorities to determine their own budgets for the year. Estimates for 1997–98 are not yet available.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he intends to issue guidance to new unitary authorities with regard to arrangements for staff who will be employed by more than one authority following reorganisation. [5412]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to issue such guidance,. It is for local authorities to advise their employees on matters relating to their employment and to comply with relevant employment legislation.

  Reservoirs (Business Rates)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the reservoirs in Wales which have a rateable value accorded to them together with the business rate or other rates paid on account of each. [7041]

  Mr. Hague
  At 1 April 1995 the following seven reservoirs were the subject of separate entries in the rating list. Other reservoirs in Wales form part of larger hereditaments in either the cental or local rating lists and, as a consequence, have no separate rateable values. The rate yield is calculated by multiplying the rateable value listed by the Welsh poundage for 1995–96 of 39p.

  Entry

  Rateable value £

  Reservoir, pipeline and appurtenances BSC Waltwood Reservoir, Bishton

  395,000

  Reservoir and premises Port Talbot Steelworks

  300,000

  Reservoir Blag-y-Cwm, Ebbw Vale

  62,000

  Reservoir Waun-y-Pound and Rhyd-y-blew, Ebbw Vale

  12,000

  Reservoir and appurtenances Rhose Lan Reservoir, Cwm Bargoed, Merthyr Tydfil

  13,000

  Reservoir and premises BSC, Rhymney Bridge, Rhymney, Gwent

  21,300

  Reservoir Jepsons Road, Rhymney Common, Gwent

  4,400

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money was spent in Wales in(a) set-aside payments under the arable area payments scheme and (b) total arable area payments in 1994–95. [7194]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1994–95 payments in Wales under the arable area payments scheme amounted to(a) £1,104,525 for set-aside payments and (b) £7,923,953 in total.
  1192
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money is forecast to be spent in Wales in(a) set-aside payments under the arable area payments scheme and (b) total area payments in 1995–96. [7195]

  Mr. Jones
  The forecast expenditure in 1995–96 in Wales under the arable area payments scheme is(a) £1.1 million for set-aside and (b) £10 million in total.

  Council House Funding
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new money he has made available to local authorities in Wales for the modernisation of aging council house stock. [6469]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has made available £48.2 million for capital works to council housing in 1996–97.

  Interreg II Programme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for(a) each county (b) Wales, the amount of money expressed in pounds sterling paid or committed under the Interreg programme for each available year since its inception. [7039]

  Mr. Hague
  Nil. The Wales-Ireland II programme was officially launched by the two member states on 25 November 1995. Wales has been allocated approximately £11.4 million of EC grant—at current exchange rates—for implementation of the programme. Applications for funding are currently being considered.

  Negative Equity
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage of home buyers in each of the past five years experiencing negative equity in Wales. [7249]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Estimates of the percentage of home buyers experiencing negative equity in Wales in each of the past five years are as follows:

  1990: 1 per cent.

  1991: 2 per cent.

  1992: 3 per cent.

  1993: 3 per cent.

  1994: 2 per cent.

  These estimates are prepared by the Department of the Environment on the basis of a house price index. The estimates are sensitive to the assumptions made and are intended to provide only a broad indication of the level of negative equity.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police (Grants)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is, for each police authority in England and Wales,(a) the revenue grant that he proposes to make in 1996–97 and the revenue grant offered for 1995–96 and for each of the previous five years, together

  1193
  with (b) the actual figure of revenue grant paid where it is different from the figure offered and (c) any supplementary revenue grant offered or paid in any year. [7273]

  Mr. Maclean
  For allocations to each police authority in 1995–96, and proposed allocations for 1996–97, I refer to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend on 30 November, columns 891–92 to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon). Details of allocations of Home Office specific grant paid in 1995–96 are set out in the "Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1995–96". Details of proposed allocations for 1996–97 are set out in the draft "Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1996–97". Copies of both are in the Library.

  Information on Home Office specific grant advanced to police authorities, and actual grant paid, is set out in the Table. No supplementary revenue grant was offered or paid.

  £million

  Police authority

  Advances 1990–91

  Grant paid in respect of 1990–91

  Avon and Somerset

  50.52

  52.20

  Bedfordshire

  23.63

  24.46

  Cambridgeshire

  28.77

  28.41

  Cheshire

  39.36

  40.62

  Cleveland

  31.41

  32.21

  Cumbria

  24.85

  26.37

  Derbyshire

  30.63

  31.24

  Devon and Cornwall

  51.04

  53.89

  Dorset

  23.63

  25.00

  Durham

  21.20

  22.93

  Essex

  50.16

  53.40

  Gloucestershire

  18.66

  20.52

  Hampshire

  54.08

  56.69

  Hertfordshire

  29.24

  29.96

  Humberside

  34.37

  35.55

  Kent

  51.53

  55.60

  Lancashire

  51.89

  55.15

  Leicestershire

  31.73

  31.25

  Lincolnshire

  20.24

  21.21

  Norfolk

  22.99

  24.54

  Northamptonshire

  20.01

  20.44

  North Yorkshire

  23.40

  24.17

  Nottinghamshire

  36.57

  38.61

  Staffordshire

  35.11

  37.88

  Suffolk

  20.78

  21.93

  Surrey

  26.90

  29.13

  Sussex

  43.79

  47.43

  Thames Valley

  64.03

  68.40

  Warwickshire

  17.76

  18.40

  West Mercia

  33.86

  35.04

  Wiltshire

  18.93

  20.85

  Greater Manchester

  110.91

  116.56

  Merseryside

  78.73

  81.96

  Northumbria

  58.99

  61.90

  South Yorkshire

  48.21

  48.34

  West Midlands

  106.70

  116.92

  West Yorkshire

  91.28

  92.40

  City of London

  25.14

  25.43

  Metropolitan

  610.23

  622.94

  Dyfed-Powys

  15.17

  15.75

  Gwent

  15.88

  16.98

  North Wales

  22.60

  22.81

  South Wales

  50.60

  54.19

  1194

  £ million

  Police authority

  Advances 1991–92

  Grant paid in respect of 1991–92

  Avon and Somerset

  57.44

  56.87

  Bedfordshire

  19.98

  19.97

  Cambridgeshire

  23.81

  24.03

  Cheshire

  35.05

  34.15

  Cleveland

  28.20

  27.95

  Cumbria

  22.42

  22.99

  Derbyshire

  34.38

  33.68

  Devon and Cornwall

  59.02

  59.89

  Dorset

  27.51

  26.52

  Durham

  25.23

  24.78

  Essex

  58.76

  58.93

  Gloucestershire

  22.58

  22.75

  Hampshire

  62.37

  63.73

  Hertfordshire

  32.96

  32.06

  Humberside

  39.11

  39.47

  Kent

  61.17

  65.65

  Lancashire

  60.68

  62.23

  Leicestershire

  34.38

  34.27

  Lincolnshire

  23.34

  24.09

  Norfolk

  27.00

  27.59

  Northamptonshire

  22.49

  23.20

  North Yorkshire

  26.60

  26.36

  Nottinghamshire

  42.49

  42.14

  Staffordshire

  41.68

  41.90

  Suffolk

  24.13

  24.52

  Surrey

  32.06

  32.34

  Sussex

  52.18

  54.15

  Thames Valley

  75.32

  76.20

  Warwickshire

  21.69

  20.32

  West Mercia

  38.56

  39.39

  Wiltshire

  22.94

  23.57

  Greater Manchester

  128.25

  126.89

  Merseyside

  89.89

  91.23

  Northumbria

  68.24

  67.74

  South Yorkshire

  53.19

  52.61

  West Midlands

  128.65

  127.92

  West Yorkshire

  101.68

  100.59

  City of London

  20.80

  20.82

  Metropolitan

  677.97

  696.59

  Dyfed-Powys

  17.21

  17.93

  Gwent

  18.59

  18.71

  North Wales

  24.94

  25.86

  South Wales

  59.25

  60.45

  £ million

  Police authority

  Advances 1992–93

  Grant paid in respect of 1992–93

  Avon and Somerset

  61.52

  63.40

  Bedfordshire

  21.40

  22.55

  Cambridgeshire

  25.46

  25.51

  Cheshire

  37.49

  37.21

  Cleveland

  30.99

  30.50

  Cumbria

  24.02

  25.25

  Derbyshire

  36.82

  38.65

  Devon and Cornwall

  63.98

  65.42

  Dorset

  29.47

  28.38

  Durham

  27.03

  27.15

  Essex

  62.93

  64.17

  Gloucestershire

  24.18

  24.51

  Hampshire

  66.81

  69.07

  Hertfordshire

  35.31

  34.95

  Humberside

  41.89

  42.90

  Kent

  66.58

  70.23

  Lancashire

  65.00

  65.62

  Leicestershire

  36.83

  37.12

  Lincolnshire

  25.00

  26.04

  1195

  £ million

  Police authority

  Advances 1992–93

  Grant paid in respect of 1992–93

  Norfolk

  29.13

  30.13

  Northamptonshire

  25.39

  25.81

  North Yorkshire

  28.59

  29.81

  Nottinghamshire

  45.51

  45.64

  Staffordshire

  44.64

  44.75

  Suffolk

  25.85

  25.87

  Surrey

  34.68

  36.15

  Sussex

  57.93

  58.71

  Thames Valley

  82.46

  81.86

  Warwickshire

  21.69

  21.67

  West Mercia

  41.34

  42.16

  Wiltshire

  24.57

  26.21

  Greater Manchester

  142.04

  138.82

  Merseyside

  96.59

  96.53

  Northumbria

  72.95

  69.63

  South Yorkshire

  58.82

  59.95

  West Midlands

  139.07

  144.98

  West Yorkshire

  108.90

  106.45

  City of London

  22.92

  22.57

  Metropolitan

  734.80

  756.06

  Dyfed-Powys

  19.69

  19.84

  Gwent

  19.79

  19.87

  North Wales

  27.67

  28.58

  South Wales

  63.99

  64.92

  £ million

  Police authority

  Advances 1993–94

  Grant paid in respect of 1993–94

  Avon and Somerset

  64.47

  67.53

  Bedfordshire

  23.63

  24.46

  Cambridgeshire

  28.77

  28.41

  Cheshire

  39.36

  40.62

  Cleveland

  31.41

  32.21

  Cumbria

  24.85

  26.37

  Derbyshire

  39.53

  39.89

  Devon and Cornwall

  68.39

  69.69

  Dorset

  29.78

  29.36

  Durham

  27.65

  29.10

  Essex

  66.40

  68.62

  Gloucestershire

  26.09

  25.65

  Hampshire

  69.84

  73.01

  Hertfordshire

  36.27

  36.99

  Humberside

  44.09

  45.36

  Kent

  74.12

  72.93

  Lancashire

  68.79

  70.76

  Leicestershire

  38.09

  38.68

  Lincolnshire

  26.60

  27.60

  Norfolk

  31.13

  31.71

  Northamptonshire

  27.31

  27.24

  North Yorkshire

  31.07

  31.35

  Nottinghamshire

  48.49

  48.74

  Staffordshire

  45.68

  47.98

  Suffolk

  26.67

  27.77

  Surrey

  37.18

  38.07

  Sussex

  61.92

  61.04

  Thames Valley

  88.15

  88.71

  Warwickshire

  23.37

  23.50

  West Mercia

  44.19

  45.71

  Wiltshire

  27.75

  27.31

  Greater Manchester

  151.84

  150.97

  Merseyside

  98.68

  103.27

  Northumbria

  77.36

  78.99

  South Yorkshire

  62.88

  63.56

  West Midlands

  148.67

  149.06

  West Yorkshire

  114.53

  111.80

  City of London

  25.14

  25.43

  1196

  £ million

  Police authority

  Advances 1993–94

  Grant paid in respect of 1993–94

  Metropolitan

  773.71

  787.90

  Dyfed-Powys

  20.64

  21.17

  Gwent

  20.06

  21.12

  North Wales

  29.38

  29.68

  South Wales

  66.47

  66.75

  £ million

  Police authority

  Advances 1994–95

  Grant paid in respect of 1994–95

  Avon and Somerset

  67.90

  70.85

  Bedfordshire

  25.37

  25.98

  Cambridgeshire

  29.46

  29.27

  Cheshire

  41.42

  42.20

  Cleveland

  34.46

  33.36

  Cumbria

  26.92

  27.11

  Derbyshire

  41.68

  42.29

  Devon and Cornwall

  69.47

  71.08

  Dorset

  31.13

  31.75

  Durham

  29.88

  29.82

  Essex

  70.31

  72.72

  Gloucestershire

  26.94

  27.68

  Hampshire

  74.97

  77.82

  Hertfordshire

  38.36

  39.78

  Humberside

  46.23

  46.20

  Kent

  77.52

  77.15

  Lancashire

  72.20

  72.21

  Leicestershire

  38.59

  40.65

  Lincolnshire

  29.03

  29.42

  Norfolk

  32.16

  33.83

  Northamptonshire

  28.21

  29.66

  North Yorkshire

  31.77

  31.49

  Nottinghamshire

  52.98

  52.29

  Staffordshire

  48.84

  50.21

  Suffolk

  27.84

  28.59

  Surrey

  41.34

  42.61

  Sussex

  63.12

  65.19

  Thames Valley

  95.76

  95.01

  Warwickshire

  23.62

  24.66

  West Mercia

  46.48

  48.82

  Wiltshire

  30.78

  29.99

  Greater Manchester

  158.65

  158.93

  Merseyside

  106.88

  107.02

  Northumbria

  82.54

  86.18

  South Yorkshire

  69.23

  67.08

  West Midlands

  154.46

  154.70

  West Yorkshire

  115.71

  116.67

  City of London

  26.75

  26.36

  Metropolitan

  795.96

  816.37

  Dyfed-Powys

  21.53

  22.63

  Gwent

  21.60

  21.90

  North Wales

  31.22

  31.19

  South Wales

  66.87

  66.90

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is, for each police authority in England and Wales,(a) the capital grant that he proposes to make in 1996–97 and the capital grant offered for 1995–96 and for each of the previous five years, together with (b) the actual figure of capital grant paid where that is different from the figure offered and (c) any supplementary capital grant offered or paid in any year for special or designated purposes. [7274]
  1197
  Mr. Maclean
  Details of capital grant proposed for allocation to each police authority in 1996–97 and allocated in each of the previous six years are given in the table. Figures for proposed allocations in years prior

  Capital grant allocated to police authorities in England and Wales 1990–91 to 1996–971

  £million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–962

  1996–973

  Avon and Somerset

  3.953

  3.845

  3.110

  3.862

  5.283

  5.144

  2.122

  Bedfordshire

  0.143

  0.375

  0.773

  0.806

  0.735

  0.944

  1.167

  Cambridgeshire

  0.338

  0.806

  1.200

  1.625

  1.092

  0.812

  0.629

  Cheshire

  0.656

  1.234

  1.234

  1.429

  1.139

  1.154

  0.961

  City of London

  0.322

  0.416

  0.454

  0.756

  1.222

  0.505

  0.421

  Cleveland

  0.460

  0.573

  0.880

  0.885

  0.889

  0.888

  0.740

  Cumbria

  0.579

  0.673

  0.771

  0.885

  0.794

  0.702

  0.585

  Derbyshire

  0.402

  0.929

  1.371

  2.314

  1.891

  1.156

  1.122

  Devon and Cornwall

  1.087

  2.056

  3.511

  3.745

  2.143

  2.262

  1.907

  Dorset

  0.606

  1.362

  2.355

  2.026

  1.355

  0.797

  0.666

  Durham

  0.328

  1.249

  1.559

  2.172

  1.280

  0.853

  0.870

  Dyfed Powys

  0.298

  0.999

  1.163

  1.653

  0.737

  0.606

  0.477

  Essex

  1.100

  1.584

  3.055

  2.937

  3.144

  3.895

  3.728

  Gloucestershire

  0.701

  0.942

  0.866

  1.180

  0.971

  1.136

  1.015

  Greater Manchester

  2.754

  4.180

  4.747

  5.817

  5.762

  4.802

  4.286

  Gwent

  1.602

  1.897

  1.998

  1.049

  1.092

  1.200

  0.680

  Hampshire

  1.039

  1.917

  2.064

  2.489

  2.267

  2.524

  2.911

  Hertfordshire

  0.809

  1.076

  1.044

  1.052

  0.996

  1.079

  1.375

  Humberside

  0.799

  1.679

  1.448

  1.434

  1.269

  1.350

  1.593

  Kent

  0.654

  1.614

  2.222

  2.134

  1.880

  2.736

  3.338

  Lancashire

  1.431

  1.551

  3.039

  2.459

  3.412

  2.557

  1.699

  Leicestershire

  2.847

  1.866

  1.601

  1.809

  1.561

  2.837

  1.982

  Lincolnshire

  0.707

  0.865

  1.329

  1.902

  1.071

  1.589

  1.465

  Merseyside

  1.194

  2.708

  2.784

  2.925

  3.504

  3.558

  3.245

  Norfolk

  0.150

  0.681

  0.934

  1.124

  1.046

  0.950

  1.283

  Northamptonshire

  0.435

  0.972

  1.186

  1.270

  0.961

  0.762

  0.876

  Northumbria

  3.505

  2.484

  3.074

  3.838

  5.324

  5.844

  4.334

  North Wales

  0.406

  0.851

  0.825

  1.328

  0.861

  1.235

  1.079

  North Yorkshire

  0.446

  0.945

  0.836

  0.836

  1.032

  0.841

  1.092

  Nottinghamshire

  1.261

  1.771

  3.371

  3.354

  3.016

  2.610

  3.042

  South Wales

  0.627

  1.743

  2.263

  2.516

  3.352

  4.197

  3.573

  South Yorkshire

  1.939

  1.798

  2.416

  2.097

  3.270

  2.840

  2.791

  Staffordshire

  1.502

  1.378

  2.018

  2.099

  1.686

  1.821

  1.788

  Suffolk

  0.381

  1.175

  0.869

  0.843

  0.729

  0.732

  0.609

  Surrey

  1.621

  1.448

  1.565

  1.844

  1.920

  2.546

  3.021

  Sussex

  1.968

  3.051

  2.553

  2.104

  1.948

  3.886

  3.746

  Thames Valley

  3.096

  2.389

  2.822

  2.571

  3.203

  3.425

  3.485

  Warwickshire

  0.307

  0.795

  1.052

  1.291

  1.535

  0.971

  0.521

  West Mercia

  3.747

  2.247

  3.659

  4.586

  2.513

  1.893

  2.036

  West Midlands

  4.940

  5.452

  4.667

  5.573

  6.419

  5.889

  4.570

  West Yorkshire

  4.020

  6.798

  7.221

  4.090

  3.590

  4.449

  3.918

  Wiltshire

  0.572

  0.665

  0.761

  1.838

  2.326

  1.441

  0.747

  Metropolitan Police

  28.507

  34.214

  32.968

  36.327

  34.383

  33.723

  27.749

  84.239

  107.253

  119.638

  128.874

  124.603

  125.141

  109.244

  1 Excludes grant paid to lead forces for regional crime squads.2 Position as at 19 December 1995. £1.365 million still to be allocated for purchase of building sites.

  3 Position as at 19 December 1995. £5.006 million still be to allocated for purchase of building sites and central funding for air support.

  London Fire Stations
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average number of on ground calls for each category(a) A, (b) B, (c) C, and (d) D fire station in London for (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94 and (iii) 1994–95 and (iv) for the latest period available; [6925]

  (2) what (a) percentage and (b) number of incidents in London were attended by each London fire station within the recommended attendance standards in (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94, (iii) 1994–95 and (iv) the latest period available; and how this breaks down by risk category. [6924]
  1198
  to 1996–97, and for additional sums paid in year, are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  UK Passport Agency
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which consultancy firms have been employed in market testing the UK Passport Agency; how much each has been paid; and which offices they are considering for contracting out. [7212]

  Mr Kirkhope
  No consultancy firms have been employed in market testing the UK Passport Agency. There are no plans for contracting out passport offices.
  1199
  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if staff in the Belfast UK Passport Agency office will be permitted to submit in-house bids for any areas which are under consideration for contracting out. [7210]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  If any areas of work in the Belfast passport office are considered suitable for contracting out it would not be appropriate for staff to submit in-house bids.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff(a) are currently employed in the UK Passport Agency Offices and (b) were employed 12 months ago. [7211]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The UK employs a mixture of permanent staff and seasonal staff. The latter are either retained on part-year appointments or as casual employees. The number of seasonal staff in post varies according to demand for passports, which is abnormally high at present in anticipation of the abolition of the British visitor's passport from 1 January 1996. The information requested is as follows:

  Permanent

  Part year

  Casual

  30 November 1995

  1,213.5

  123.5

  155.5

  30 November 1994

  1,269.5

  36

  21

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many consultants have been employed to consider the contracting out of the UK Passport Agency Belfast Office; with what terms of reference; over what time period; to consider what functions of the agency; and how many staff were involved on each occasion. [7153]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The UK Passport Agency has no plans to contract out the Belfast Office.

  Civil Servants (Asylum Cases)
  Mr. Mellor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civil servants were employed to deal with asylum cases on(a) 1 October 1980, (b) 1 October 1985, (c) 1 October 1990 and (d) 1 October 1995. [6944]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The numbers of civil servants employed to deal solely with asylum cases—screening, determination and appeals—were as follows:

  1 October 1980: 30

  1 October 1985: 48

  1 October 1990: 91

  1 October 1995: 596

  Prisoners (Shopping Visits)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what shopping visits were made by prison officers for prison inmates detained in prisons in England and Wales during the week of 5 December. [6458]

  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.
  1200
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 20 December 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about shopping trips by prison officers for prison inmates.No shopping trips by prison officers were made during the week of 5 December. This is in line with the Home Secretary's announcement in December 1994 that the practice of prison officers going shopping at the behest of prisoners had stopped.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [6400]

  Mr. Howard
  The estimated cost for myself and my departmental Ministers for the current year and for 1993–94 and 1994–95 are as follows:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Overseas travel/accommodation

  38,892

  40,441

  70,000

  Car and chauffeuring costs

  228,424

  228,424

  232,669

  Domestic travel/accommodation

  29,524

  41,000

  56,000

  The figures for car and chauffeuring costs are inclusive of value added tax.

  Ministerial security costs, which include the cost of chauffeuring myself, are not collected in the format requested. Part is included in the running cost expenditure of my Department which is published in the annual report, annexe 3, and part is covered by the Metropolitan police.

  Figures for 1991–92 and 1992–93 can be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisoners (Education Provisions)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the minimum education provisions per prisoner per week in(a) Prison Service and (b) privately run prisons; what safeguards exist to ensure that these provisions are met; and if he will make it his policy not to reduce the minimum education provision during (i) 1995 and (ii) 1996 in respect of (1) the Prison Service and (2) privately run prisons. [6029]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 20 December 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about education provisions in Prison Service and privately run prisons.Statutory minima for education (which apply both to directly and privately managed establishments) are set out in Rule 35(2) of the Young Offender Institution Rules 1988, which states that young

  1201
  offenders under seventeen years old are required to attend classes for at least fifteen hours within the normal working week, and Rule 29(2) of the Prison Rules 1964, which states that evening classes must he provided.The Prison Service Code of Operating Standards stipulate that establishments should provide an education programme, including vocational training courses, based on a needs assessment and that classes should, subject to local needs, be provided in the morning and afternoon, five days a week for fifty weeks in the year, and in the evenings five days a week for forty two weeks of the year. A system of standards audit has recently been put in place to monitor compliance with the code of operating standards, including those relating to education.Within this framework governors are responsible for determining the level and nature of provision, having regard to the relevant Service-wide plans and policies, and to the resources available.The Service's strategic plan for 1995–98 includes a strategic priority of improving the quality, relevance, and delivery of regime activities and to this end the 1995–96 business plan includes a commitment to implement a core education curriculum which will be common to all establishments.Delivery of adequate education programmes is assured through the normal line management process of the Prison Service, supported by standards audit and specialist advice from the central education and training advisory service. In the case of privately operated prisons, and of Manchester prison, which operates under a service level agreement, this is underpinned by specific requirements in the contracts and service level agreement.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what meetings his Department has had since May 1995 with organisations representing small firms to review tendering procedures. [6626]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: The Treasury central unit on procurement arranged a meeting with the Confederation of British Industry small firms panel, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Forum of Private Business in September 1995 to review tendering procedures. Representatives of some individual Departments attended; the Home Office will consider any recommendations which are made.

  Home Office tendering procedures are subject to periodic review. Measures which may assist small firms include the use of simple written requests for quotations, rather than formal tenders, for lower value purchases of goods and services, and increased delegated powers to managers to buy locally.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice has been given to procurement staff on the implications for purchasing from small to medium enterprises. [6627]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: Procurement staff are advised that the size of a company is relevant to the selection of tenderers only in so far as it affects its capability to meet our requirements. Once that capability is established, there is no discrimination between small, medium or large companies. Contracts are awarded to firms which best meet our value for money criteria, which will include skills, efficiency, experience, price, delivery and quality. Small and large firms should be equally capable of meeting these criteria.
  1202
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (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; [6625]

  (2) 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; [6716]

  (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. [6662]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answers 18 and 19 December 1995]: Although we have undertaken no formal review of measures to facilitate small firms' access to appropriate areas of procurement, the inherently devolved nature of Home Office procurement provides an excellent opportunity for small firms to establish local contact. The Home Office procurement unit has a number of staff with special responsibility for policy in relation to small to medium enterprises and for ensuring that those wishing to supply the Home Office receive all the necessary support and information. In response to the Government White Paper, "Setting New Standards", the Home Office will shortly be publishing a small business contact point in a revised booklet for new suppliers. This will contain additional information of interest to small to medium enterprises. In addition, the Home Office procurement manual, widely circulated throughout the Home Office, contains guidance on purchasing from small firms.

  Prisoner Transfers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been moved from prisons in England and Wales to prisons in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland since September 1994; and if he will make a statement. [6831]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: Since September 1994, 22 prisoners have been transferred from England and Wales to prisons in Northern Ireland. Ratification of the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons by the Republic of Ireland came into force on 1 November 1995. To date, no prisoners have been repatriated to the Republic.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Services Ombudsman
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if he will conduct an inquiry into the actions of Chambers and Co. solicitors of Brighouse, west Yorkshire, in relation to the case of Mrs. Daphne Turner of Huddersfield and the recommendations of the legal services ombudsman; [7417]

  (2) what powers he has to ensure that compensation recommended by the legal services ombudsman is paid. [7317]
  1203
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The office of the legal services ombudsman is statutorily independent from the Government and I have no powers to intervene in individual cases. The ombudsman's powers to make recommendations in his reports are set out in section 23 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. Should any persons fail to comply with a recommendation, they are required to publicise that failure. Should they not do so, the ombudsman may publicise the matter.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if he will review legislation establishing the legal services ombudsman, with particular reference to circumstances in which solicitors fail to carry out his recommendations; [7315]

  (2) if he will meet the Law Society to discuss cases in which solicitors ignore recommendations from the legal services ombudsman for compensation. [7318]

  Mr. Evans
  My Department will carry out its quinquennial review of the office of the legal services ombudsman next year. I do not see any need for an earlier review of this aspect of the legislation or for a discussion on it with the Law Society.

  Child Witnesses (Judicial Training)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received(a) regarding the need for more training for judges in handling child witnesses, particularly in cases of alleged child abuses, and (b) suggesting the exclusion of certain judges from sitting on cases involving child witnesses particularly in cases of child abuse. [7173]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  In the past year, the Lord Chancellor received one representation specifically on judicial training in handling child witnesses, from the shadow Minister for children and the family. Other representations primarily on other matters may also refer to judicial training, but to collate information on these would incur disproportionate cost. Two representations to exclude certain judges from sitting in such cases were considered by the Lord Chancellor in the same period, one of which was made by the hon. Member. To collate the information requested over an extended period of time would incur disproportionate cost.

  Magistrates (Ethnic Minorities)
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many members of the magistracy in England and Wales were from an ethnic minority in(a) 1989 and (b) 1995; and what in each year was the total number of magistrates. [7625]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No figures are currently available for the total number of magistrates who are from an ethnic minority. In England and Wales, excluding the Duchy of Lancaster, 4.7 per cent. of those appointed in 1989 were from an ethnic minority; between 1 January and 31 October 1995 the figure was 8.1 per cent. At 31 December 1989, excluding the Duchy of Lancaster, there were 24,521 magistrates and at 1 January 1995 there were 25,723.

  Chauffeur-driven Cars
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department what the cost of chauffeur-driven cars used by his Department was in each of the last five years. [5866]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Chauffeur-driven cars are used by the Lord Chancellor, Parliamentary Secretary and the permanent secretary. The Law Lords and members of the Scottish Office also use the cars on occasions. Expenditure over the last five years has been calculated as follows:

  1991: £409,909.10

  1992: £353,818.05

  1993: £195,995.35

  1994: £227,229.70

  1995: Figures for the complete year are not yet available.

  It should be noted that the figures above do not include cars used by the judiciary on the circuits.

  Internet
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what web site his Department maintains on the Internet; what information is provided there; how often it is updated; what is the address; and if he or his Department answers questions and supplies additional information through the Internet. [7569]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My Department has its own web site held on the Government information service, an Internet server maintained by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency.

  The Department's home page contains extracts from the LCD strategic plan for 1995–96 to 1997–98 providing details about the Department, its aims and key challenges, plans for the future and some departmental facts and figures. It also includes a summary of the consultation paper "Legal Aid—Targeting Need". The information was published on the Internet in August and no updates have taken place.

  The address of the home page is
  http://www.open.gov.uk/lcd/lcdhome.htm.
  The Department neither answers questions nor supplies additional information through the Internet and has no current plans to do so.

  The Court Service agency has two sites on the Internet: the home page and the charter for court users. The home page contains information on the structure and workings of the Court Service in England and Wales. The charter site contains the substantive pages of the charter for court users published in July 1995. The sites have not been updated since they were established in October 1995; they are currently being updated and it is intended to place Court Service leaflets on the Internet by June 1996. The addresses of the site are as follows:
  home page—http://www.open.gov.uk/courts/court/cs-home.htm charter—http://www.open.gov.uk./courts/charter/courts.htm
  The Court Service neither answers questions nor supplies additional information through the Internet.

  The Public Trust Office does not have a site on the Internet at present.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his 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. [6409]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  This information is not collected in the format requested but is included in the running cost expenditure of the Lord Chancellor's Department which is published in the annual report, Cm 2809. Projections for 1995–96 are in line with overall expenditure for next year as published in the public expenditure survey statement.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his estimate of the total cost for himself and other departmental Ministers for each year since 1991–92, including an estimate for 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. [6410]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information on expenditure in the format requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the impact of the new franchises on legal aid cash; and if he will make a statement. [7592]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None. However, the Legal Aid board, whose initiative franchising is, conducted extensive research to assist it in setting up the franchising scheme, and is monitoring its operation closely.

HEALTH

  Health Authorities and Trusts (Advertising)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of advertising by trusts and health authorities in each region in each year since 1990. [4186]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the table. Advertising is not defined in the national health service manual accounts and may be undertaken, for example, both for staff recruitment and for health promotion purposes.
  1206

  Expenditure on advertising by health authorities and national health service trusts

  Expenditure (£)

  Region

  1993–94

  1992–93

  1991–92

  1990–91

  Northern

  1,536,557

  1,308,722

  1,399,551

  1,323,781

  Yorkshire

  1,686,291

  1,854,389

  1,546,213

  1,859,669

  Trent

  2,704,686

  2,293,997

  2,085,979

  2,216,819

  East Anglian

  1,172,152

  1,036,682

  907,766

  1,025,380

  North West Thames

  2,498,796

  2,194,458

  2,207,702

  2,486,098

  North East Thames

  2,455,868

  2,490,538

  2,621,400

  3,221,808

  South East Thames

  2,337,759

  2,420,354

  2,031,840

  2,274,056

  South West Thames

  1,833,519

  1,653,714

  1,867,469

  2,328,691

  Wessex

  1,270,588

  1,201,590

  1,070,856

  1,334,230

  Oxford

  1,666,551

  1,611,181

  1,363,725

  1,811,388

  South Western

  1,674,348

  1,416,404

  1,509,019

  1,495,296

  West Midlands

  2,110,235

  2,273,185

  2,271,774

  2,788,696

  Mersey

  1,016,055

  974,966

  868,299

  881,187

  North Western

  1,469,480

  1,306,521

  1,504,003

  1,761,767

  Special Health Authorities

  633,838

  633,378

  735,386

  784,834

  Expenditure on advertising by health authorities and National Health Services trusts

  Region

  Expenditure 1994–951£

  Northern and Yorkshire

  3,597,713

  Trent

  3,327,513

  Anglia and Oxford

  4,263,608

  North Thames

  8,214,511

  South Thames

  6,398,960

  South and West

  4,080,457

  West Midlands

  3,355,466

  North Western

  3,310,769

  Special Health Authorities

  135,606

  1 Provisional.

  Research
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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(a) into the risk of transmission of the BSE agent from cattle to (i) humans and (ii) other primates, (b) into an early diagnostic test for Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and (c) effective treatment for Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. [6188]

  Mr. Horam
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council. The MRC is an independent body which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. For information on the amount spent by the MRC on research, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology gave him on 18 December at columns 863–64.
  1207
  The Department of Health has recently funded a series of studies, at the Institute for Animal Health, Edinburgh, into time-temperatures combinations required to inactivate BSE and related agents. Total expenditure on the studies was £340,000.

  The Department of Health and the Scottish Office jointly fund the National CJD surveillance unit in Edinburgh. Set up in 1990, the unit monitors and investigates the epidemiology of the disease, paying particular attention to occupation and eating habits, so that any change in the pattern of CJD following the advent of

  DH Funding of Surveillance of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease

  £ Thousand

  Year

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Total

  Surveillance

  80

  79

  89

  99

  105

  149

  169

  131

  9

  910

  Neuropathology

  154

  102

  59

  62

  74

  114

  122

  126

  129

  942

  Total

  234

  181

  148

  161

  179

  263

  291

  257

  138

  1,852

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1998–99 are estimates of expenditure.

  2. 1990–91 figure of £234,000 includes expenditure on capital equipment of £134,000.

  3. 1995–96 figure of £263,000 includes expenditure on capital equipment of £35,000.

  2. 1996–97 figure of £291,000 includes expenditure on capital equipment of £47,000.

  Deparmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [6384]

  Mr. Horam
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Financial year

  Total overseas travel

  Total ministerial transport £

  1992–93

  11,085

  not available

  1993–04

  53,404

  £280,536

  1994–95

  20,507

  £281,174

  1995–961

  45,000

  £284,000

  1 Estimated.

  Information is not available for 1991–92.

  Expenditure on the other items is not collected in the format requested, but is included in the running cost expenditure of my Department, which is published in the annual report.

  NHS Staff Earnings
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the average earnings of(a) consultants, (b) nurses and (c) chief executives of trusts and health authorities in each year since 1989. [6240]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.
  1208
  BSE can be detected. The unit produces annual reports. copies of which are available in the Library. Funding for the unit by this Department since 1990 is given in the table.

  The Government receive independent expert advice on matters relating to BSE and CJD from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, chaired by Professor John Pattison. The committee advises on research needs and priorities. The committee's latest report, "Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies—A Summary of Present Knowledge and Research", is available in the Library.

  Benzodiazepine
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the individuals or organisations receiving Health Department research funds for projects investigating the effects of medium and long-term use of benzodiazepine tranquillisers; and if he will indicate the total moneys allocated, a brief description of research hypothesis, the length of time for research projects and the expected date of publication of research results for each project. [6325]

  Mr. Bowis
  None. The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the secretary of State for Health if he will list all the guidance notes issued to health authorities and general practitioners regarding the prescription of benzodiazepine tranquillisers since 1985. [6326]

  Mr. Bowis
  Guidance on the prescribing of benzodiazepines was given to doctors by the Committee on Safety of Medicines in "Current Problems" No. 21 issued in January 1988; in the British National Formulary, a twice yearly publication which is issued free to all doctors; in "Drug Misuse and Dependence: Guidelines on Clinical Management" issued to all doctors in 1991; in "Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Benzodiazepine Dependence" published by the Mental Health Foundation, sent to all family health services authorities in March 1994; and in the MeReC bulletin issued to all doctors in October 1995. "The Health of the Nation" key area handbook, published in 1993, suggested that family health services authorities should agree with general practitioners local targets for reducing benzodiazepine prescriptions.

  Computerised General Practices
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of general practices are computerised in the United Kingdom; and what assessment he has made of computerisation of general practices in the Netherlands. [6299]

  Mr. Malone
  The average of computerised general practices in the United Kingdom is estimated at 88 per cent. My Department has made no assessment of computerisation in the Netherlands.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [6383]

  Mr. Horam
  The available information is shown in the table:

  Financial year1

  Total staff cost £

  Hospitality 2 £

  1992–93

  1,083,758

  31,164

  1993–94

  1,387,955

  31,814

  1994–95

  1,525,940

  22,567

  1995–963

  1,525,074

  17,787

  Expenditure on the other items is not collected in the format requested but is included in the running cost expenditure of my Department, which is published in the Departmental report.

  1 Information is not available for 1990–91 or 1991–92.

  2 Expenditure on hospitality includes entertainment, alcoholic drinks and non-alcoholic drinks.

  3 Estimated.

  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is his Department's estimate of the number of sufferers from myalgic encephalomyelitis in the United Kingdom in the last five years for which figures are available; [6897]

  (2) how much his Department has spent on funding research into myalgic encephalomyelitis in each of the last five years; and how much is planned to be spent in each of the next five years. [6898]

  Mr. Horam
  The nature of myalgic encephalomyelitis—which is increasingly being referred to as chronic fatigue syndrome—is not fully understood or defined. Until this is resolved, it will not be possible to determine the number of sufferers from chronic fatigue syndrome nor commission research into the prevalence of the condition.

  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. During the past five years, the MRC funded a study at the Institute of Psychiatry at an estimated cost of
  1210
  £91,000 to investigate chronic fatigue in general practice attenders. The MRC is always willing to consider high-quality research proposals.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out information held by his Department or on his behalf concerning the causes, frequency and locations of outbreaks of meningitis. [7370]

  Mr. Horam
  Outbreaks of meningitis are usually due to meningococcal infection. Two thirds of cases in the United Kingdom are from the group B meningococcal strain, one third from the group C strain. Outbreaks of the latter tend to occur more in closed or semi-closed communities, such as schools and military establishments. There are no known causes for outbreaks. They occur throughout the year, but the frequency increases over the winter months. There are approximately 2,000 notified cases of meningococcal infection—meningitis and septicaemia—each year. Some of the cases are sporadic; when more than one case occurs and there appears to be an epidemiolocical association between cases, there may be considered to be an outbreak. Information on the particular localities and number of notified cases of meningococcal infection is held by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and is published in the OPCS Monitor MB2 series, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he has made within his Department, or by co-ordination between relevant authorities, for logging, analysing and indexing monthly, or annually, the number of cases when admission to hospital of seriously ill people is delayed by failure within given times to local suitable centres of treatment, length of journey, or combination of both. [7374]

  Mr. Horam
  Health authorities and national health service trusts should work together to plan and ensure that facilities are adequate to meet demand. In some areas emergency beds services will play a co-ordinating role in matching patients to beds. We would expect any incident where there is an unnecessary delay in the admission of a seriously ill patient to be thoroughly investigated by local management.

  Psychiatrists
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary for Health how many(a) community-based and (b) hospital-based psychiatrists in the NHS (i) left the NHS and (ii) were appointed in each of the last five years. [7391]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is not available centrally.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement in respect of(a) morale and (b) recruitment of psychiatrists in the NHS. [7392]

  Mr. Malone
  Information about the morale of psychiatrists is not available centrally. We recognise that some of the psychiatry specialties, such as adult mental illness, have been experiencing difficulties in recruiting consultants. This matter is currently being given high
  1211
  priority by the specialist workforce advisory group, whose responsibility is to ensure an adequate number of doctors in higher specialist training in each specialty to meet likely future consultant opportunities.

  Alternative Therapies
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what alternative therapies are available on the NHS; and what steps he is taking to publicise their availability. [7705]

  Mr. Horam
  Homoeopathy has been an integral part of the national health service since its inception. NHS purchasers—district health authorities and general practitioner fundholders—have the freedom to purchase other forms of complementary medicine for their patients where they consider that is the most appropriate means of meeting assessed health needs of their local population. Like other forms of treatment—both orthodox and complementary—availability on the NHS and publicity of availability is a matter for local decision in the light of competing priorities against available resources.

  Hospital Bed Availability
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date form KHO3 on hospital bed availability was issued to NHS providers; and on what date completed returns have been requested. [7432]

  Mr. Horam
  The last KHO3 form issued to providers was for 1994–95. Forms were sent to national health service trusts and other provider hospitals on 10 March 1995, and they were asked to send back completed forms to reach the Department of Health no later than 31 May 1995.

  Forms for 1995–96 will be sent out in February-March 1996.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to publish in full the results of his Department's survey on bed availability among NHS providers collected on form KH03. [7431]

  Mr. Horam
  It is the policy of the Department of Health to publish the results of KHO3 in full. The latest Publication of "Bed availability for England" contains figures for the financial year 1994–95. Copies of the publication are available in the Library.

  Internet
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what web site his Department maintains on the Internet; what information is provided there; how often it is updated; what is the address; and if he or his Department answers questions and supplies additional information through the Internet. [7568]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department has maintained an Internet world wide web site on the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency's open government WWW server since 20 June. It is amongst the most heavily used of the departmental home pages. The site includes details of the Department of Health strategic aims and objectives, national health service developments, research and development activities, departmental publications and events, progress on "The 1212
  Health of the Nation" initiative and details of departmental public information phone lines. In addition, departmental press releases are available, as are links to departmental agencies. The period of update of the pages varies according to the information. For example, the text of departmental press releases is updated daily. A "What's New" page is available to help alert users to new amendments to the Department's home pages. The address of the Department's Internet site is http://www.open.gov.uk/doh/dhhome.htm and a feedback form facility is available. Details of departmental publications and their availability, as well as the full text of some departmental publications and information packs, can be downloaded. A departmental Internet mail box is under consideration.

  Sheffield Hospitals
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have been closed or are to be closed in the Sheffield area; what sums are expected to be raised from the sales for development; how much of this will be returned to the successor hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [7594]

  Mr. Horam
  In the Sheffield area three hospitals have closed since 1990, including King Edward VII hospital, St. George's hospital and Fulwood hospital.

  It is anticipated that, with the rationalisation programme of future health care provision, a further four hospitals may close wholly or in part; including Lodge Moor, Jessops, Middlewood and Nether Edge hospitals.

  It is not possible at this time accurately to identify what sums are expected to be raised from the sales of those hospitals. However, the amount of reinvestment directed into health care services for Sheffield is expected to be substantially more than sale proceeds will realise.

  Paediatric Intensive Care
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made by his Department on implementing the plans made as a result of the review of intensive care for children undertaken by regional health authorities to achieve a national service; and if he will make a statement. [7326]

  Mr. Bowls
  Health authorities are responsible for implementing these plans through contracts with hospitals providing appropriate facilities. To assist, the Department is collaborating with the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, on research to identify the optimum size and distribution of a national network of paediatric intensive care units.

  Workplace Injuries
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of workplace injuries, and other work-related medical complaints and deaths for each of the last 10 years. [7316]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The table shows the total number of fatal and other injuries in all industries reported to all health and safety enforcing authorities between 1986–87 and 1994–95.
  1213

  Comparable comprehensive figures for work-related medical complaints are not available. Many occupational diseases have long latency and the link with work may not be immediately obvious. The Health and Safety Executive obtains information on work-related diseases from a variety of sources and detailed discussion of these is

  Injuries reported to enforcing authorities 1986–87 to 1994–951

  Fatal

  Major injuries

  Over three-day injuries

  Year

  Employees

  Self Employed

  Members of the public

  Employees

  Self employed

  Members of the public

  Employers

  Self employed

  1986–87

  355

  52

  92

  20,695

  690

  14,575

  159,011

  1,029

  1987–88

  361

  84

  113

  20,057

  867

  12,880

  159,852

  1,159

  1988–89

  2529

  80

  121

  19,944

  1,152

  12,614

  163,119

  1,503

  1989–90

  370

  105

  3206

  20,396

  1,310

  11,378

  165,244

  1,865

  1990–91

  346

  87

  139

  19,896

  1,326

  9,981

  160,811

  2,077

  1991–92

  297

  71

  105

  17,597

  1,101

  11,009

  152,506

  1,832

  1992–93

  276

  63

  113

  16,938

  1,115

  10,669

  141,147

  2,136

  1993–94

  245

  51

  107

  16,705

  1,274

  11,552

  134,928

  2,531

  1994–951

  190

  73

  118

  16,503

  1,291

  11,298

  135,940

  2,846

  1 Provisional.

  2 Data includes the 167 fatalities of the Piper Alpha disaster, 6 July 1988.

  3 Data includes the 95 fatalities to members of the public in the Hillsborough disaster, 15 April 1989.

  HSE gets to know of virtually all workplace deaths. However, non-fatal injuries are subject to under reporting. HSE included a set of questions in the 1993–94 and the 1994–95 Labour Force Surveys (LFS) to establish the true levels of workplace injury. The results of the surveys show that just over 40 per cent. of non fatal injuries to employees are reported.

  Sewers (Rodent Infestation)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent studies have been made concerning the volume of rodent infestation of sewers and its impact on public health. [7122]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.

  No national studies have been undertaken into the level of rats in sewers. However, all sewerage undertakers have programmes to control and reduce the number of rats in their systems. The scale of the problem of rat infestation is generally considered to be static or declining in some areas.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Citizens Charter Unit
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what criteria are used to measure the success of the citizens charter unit. [6896]

  Mr. Willetts
  The key criterion is improvement in the standards and responsiveness of public services. A full account of this is set out in "The Citizen's Charter: The Facts and Figures", Cm 2970.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the responsibilities of the citizens charter unit. [6894]

  Mr. Willetts
  The unit works with the Prime Minister's advisory panel on the citizens charter and aims to improve the standard and responsiveness of public services. Its main tasks are:
  (i) promoting use of Charters quality improvement through workshops, conferences, support to local Charter Quality Networks, Charter News;1214
  included in its annual publication, "Health and Safety Statistics", copies of which have been deposited in the Library of the House. However, global estimates for work-related ill health compiled by the HSE from the 1990 labour force survey pointed to some 2.2 million cases of work-related ill health.
  (ii) advising services on Charters;(iii) running the annual Charter Mark awards scheme and associated Charter Mark nomination scheme;(iv) monitoring and reporting progress through the Charter White Paper and other means.
  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the cost to public funds in each financial year since its establishment of the citizens charter unit. [6893]

  Mr. Willetts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 12 December 1995,Official Report, column 634.

  "Charter News"
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the cost per issue of(a) the production and (b) the distribution of "Charter News" since its inception. [6895]

  Mr. Willetts
  The average production cost for issues 1 to 9 of "Charter News" was £43,632.14. The average distribution cost for issues 1 to 8 was £28,823.14. The distribution cost for issue 9 is not yet available.

  Private Finance Initative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide a breakdown of administration costs incurred to date and forecast for the future on PFI work. [5714]

  Mr. Freeman
  Costs incurred by the Cabinet Office, including the Office of Public Service, HMSO and Central Office of Information directly identifiable to PFI administration are negligible. The Department is undertaking a procurement exercise for the upgrade of the Government's metropolitan telecommunications service,
  1215
  for which overall project development and procurement costs are estimated at around £250,000, and private finance options are being considered.

  Local Government Enforcement Review
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action the Government are taking in response to the local government enforcement review published last year. [7952]

  Mr. Freeman
  The then President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for the Environment commissioned the local government enforcement review on 17 January 1994. Its remit was to look at the scope for improving co-ordination and reducing inconsistencies in the way legislation is enforced by local authorities. This follows concerns about burdens on business raised by the business deregulation task forces chaired by Lord Sainsbury.

  The report of the review team was published on 30 September 1994. It identified examples of existing best practice which might be more widely adopted by local authorities, including means of making enforcement more transparent, providing guidance, and encouraging flexibility. Relevant organisations including local authorities, business and professional bodies were consulted. Some 150 replies were received and carefully considered. There was broad support for the report's recommendations.

  The Government's conclusions in response to the review are as follows:
  The Government welcome the fact that the local authority associations have responded to the review by commissioning the production of a guide to good practice in local authority enforcement, accepting many of the recommendations of the review including the setting and publishing of clear and fair enforcement policies and complaints procedure; communicating effectively with business about requirements imposed by legislation; and involving business in the enforcement process generally, in a spirit of co-operation designed to reduce the need for heavy-handed enforcement. Work on the guide is underway, and the Government look forward to final publication with great interest.The Government agree that the review's recommendation that local authority officials be consulted at an early stage about proposed new EC laws which will have an impact on local authority enforcement. The Government accept that this should also be the practice for United Kingdom legislation—as it frequently is. Local business partnerships, which promote a dialogue between business and enforcement officers, have an important part to play by extending this consultation process to the business community who ultimately have to fulfil the requirements of the legislation.
  The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which received Royal Assent after the local government enforcement review was published, takes the review's recommendations further in two areas:
  Section 5 of the Act enables Ministers to introduce into existing legislation requirements which the review proposed as good practice. This includes a requirement for enforcement officers to provide a written explanation of any remedial action suggested, what action is necessary and why with a chance to make representation, and to provide details of the mechanisms for appealing against the enforcement action.Section 6 of the Act provides for the introduction of a model appeals mechanism which will be available for take-up by Departments, which should provide a quicker, simpler and less
  1216
  expensive way for business to challenge decisions when other means of resolving the difference of views have been exhausted.
  The review also made recommendations concerning co-ordination by different local enforcement departments of inspection visits they make on business. These were echoed by similar recommendations in the September 1995 deregulation task force report, which have been accepted by Ministers. The Cabinet Office deregulation unit will discuss with central Government Departments and with enforcers how best these recommendations might be taken forward.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Chauffeur-driven Cars
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what the cost of chauffeur-driven cars used by his Department was in each of the past five years. [5859]

  Mr. Newton
  The information is as follows:

  £

  1991–92

  146,000

  1992–93

  151,000

  1993–94

  158,000

  1994–95

  167,000

  1995–961

  101,000

  1 To date.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Construction and Engineering Courses
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many colleges of further education in the United Kingdom have facilities for students who wish to pursue vocational qualifications in construction and engineering at N/SVQ levels 2 and 3; [6074]

  (2) what measures are being taken to safeguard those who wish to pursue lifetime learning in construction and engineering at local colleges of further education. [6072]

  Mr. Paice
  Information on the number of further education colleges in the United Kingdom which provide courses in construction and engineering is not held centrally. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible only for further education in England.

  Details of the type of provision available in further education colleges in England are matters for the Further Education Funding Council. I am therefore asking the council's chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which bodies will be involved in the investigation into allegations of misinformation concerning the grant maintained ballot at Hurworth school; what are their terms of reference; and how much the investigation will cost. [5778]
  1217
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: My officials have written to the chairman of the governing body of Hurworth school and the local education authority inviting their comments on the allegations. This is in accordance with normal departmental procedures. As with all other such investigations, officials will review the evidence submitted taking account of any other available information. The costs of the investigation to the Department will largely depend on the time spent by the officials concerned as part of their normal duties and cannot readily be identified.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many complaints about disinformation she has received in connection with ballots on grant-maintained status; how many such complaints she has investigated; how many of the complaints investigated have been upheld; and how much, in total, investigations into such complaints have cost. [5779]

  Mrs. Shephard
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: My Department receives a considerable volume of correspondence about ballots on grant-maintained status, and information on the number of letters complaining about misinformation is not available. Since the implementation in January 1994 of section 31(1)(g) of the Education Act 1993, my Department has received complaints of misinformation leading to a formal investigation concerning 35 ballots. Of the completed cases, two complaints relating to misinformation have been upheld and the ballots—one of which resulted in a yes vote, and in one a no vote—were declared void. The costs of such investigations to the Department largely depend on the time spent by the officials concerned as part of their normal duties and cannot readily be identified.

  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in respect of each school which has been the subject of a formal inquiry by her Department into the running of its ballot on opt-out status, in which instances was(a) a letter sent by her to the local hon. Member informing them of the setting up of the inquiry, (b) was the letter also released to the press and (c) did the letter contain references to the hon. Member's spouse or child. [5937]

  Mrs. Shephard
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: In the case of Hurworth school in Durham, serious allegations had been made in the press relating to its ballot for grant-maintained status, and it was reported that the head teacher of the school had written to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) expressing his concern. In the light of these circumstances, I considered it appropriate to write to the hon. Member as I did.

  Ms Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in respect of each school which has been

  GM ballots investigated

  LEA

  School

  Ballot

  Constituency

  Complainent

  Outcome of enquiry

  Ballot Irregularity Cases

  Norfolk

  Acle High School

  Yes vote

  Mid Norfolk

  LEA School

  Ballot results upheld

  Walsall

  Aldridge County

  No vote

  Aldridge-Brownhills

  Local Councillor

  Ballot result upheld

  Northumberland

  Astley County High School

  Yes vote

  Blyth Valley

  Registered electors

  Ballot result upheld

  Lancashire

  The Baines School

  Yes vote

  Wyre

  LEA

  Ballot result upheld

  1218
  the subject of a formal inquiry by her Department into the running of its ballot on opt-out status, in which cases the setting up of the inquiry also announced in a press release; how long the inquiry took; and how was the outcome of the inquiry was made public. [5939]

  Mrs. Shephard
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The available information indicates that inquiries into ballots on grant-maintained status have been announced in press releases relating to the following schools:

  Eastwood School, Nottinghamshire

  George Spencer School, Nottinghamshire

  Grangefield School, Cleveland

  Laisterdyke Middle School, Bradford

  Abbs Cross School, Havering

  Sacred Heart High School, Hammersmith and Fulham

  George Tomlinson School, Bolton

  Canon Slade School, Bolton

  All Saints Schools, Sheffield

  Rutlish School, Merton

  St. Thomas Becket School, Knowsley

  Codsall High School, Stafordshire

  Great Wyrley High School, Staffordshire

  Calday Grange Grammar School, Wirral

  Wirral Grammar School for Boys, Wirral

  Hurworth School, Durham.

  The investigation into the ballot at Hurworth school continues. Information on the length of previous inquiries and how the outcomes were made public is not readily available.

  Ms Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the total cost so far to her Department of the decision to hold an inquiry into the ballot at Hurworth school. [5935]

  Mrs. Shephard
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The cost to my Department of the decision to hold an inquiry into the ballot at Hurworth school cannot readily be identified because the work has been undertaken by a number of officials as part of their normal duties.

  Ms Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list each school which has been the subject of a formal inquiry by her Department into the running of its ballot on opt-out status, and in each case indicating(a) who or what prompted her Department to launch a formal inquiry, (b) what had been the result of the ballot into which the inquiry was held and (c) what was the outcome of the inquiry, (d) what was the parliamentary constituency of the schools. [5936]

  Mrs. Shephard
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The following table shows such information as is readily available:
  1219

  GM ballots investigated

  LEA

  School

  Ballot

  Constituency

  Complainent

  Outcome of enquiry

  Kirklees

  Boothroyd Junior and Infants

  No vote

  Dewsbury

  LEA

  Ballot result upheld

  Wirral

  Calday Grange Grammar School

  Yes vote

  Wirral West

  LEA

  Ballot result declared void

  Bedfordshire

  Cardinal Newman School

  No vote

  Luton North

  Other organisation

  Ballot result declared void

  Bolton

  Crompton Fold County Primary

  Yes vote

  Bolton North-East

  LEA

  Ballot result upheld

  Surrey

  de Stafford County Secondary

  Yes vote

  Surrey East

  LEA

  Ballot results upheld

  Kirklees

  Deighton School

  Yes vote

  Huddersfield

  LEA

  Ballot result declared void

  Derbyshire

  Derby Moor School

  No vote

  Derby South

  LEA

  Ballot result upheld

  Kent

  Edenbridge Middle School

  Yes vote

  Sevenoaks

  LEA

  Ballot result declared void

  Oldham

  Failsworth School

  No vote

  Oldham West

  Parents

  Ballot results upheld

  Birmingham

  George Dixon School

  Yes vote

  Birmingham-Edgbaston

  LEA

  Ballot results upheld

  Greenwich

  Hawksmoor School

  Yes vote

  Woolwich

  LEA another local School

  Ballot results upheld

  Kent

  Hextable School

  No vote

  Sevenoaks

  LEA

  Ballot result declared void

  Waltham Forest

  Highams Park School

  Yes vote

  Chingford

  LEA

  Ballot result upheld

  Cambridgeshire

  Jack Hunt, Peterborough School

  Yes vote

  Peterborough

  LEA

  Ballot result upheld

  Wiltshire

  Kingsdown County Secondary

  Yes vote

  Devizes

  LEA

  Ballot result upheld

  Bromley

  Langley Park School

  Yes vote

  Beckenham

  Parents

  Ballot results upheld

  Leicestershire

  Manor High School

  No vote

  Harborough

  Parent

  Ballot result upheld

  Calderdale

  Moorside Junior School

  No vote

  Halifax

  LEA

  Ballot result declared void

  Birmingham

  Ninestiles

  Yes vote

  Sparkrook

  LEA

  Ballot result upheld

  Hillingdon

  Oak Farm Junior and Infant School

  Yes vote

  Uxbridge

  LEA

  Ballot result upheld

  Bury

  Peel Brow County Primary

  Yes vote

  Bury North

  LEA

  Ballot result upheld

  Gloucestershire

  Picklenash School

  Yes vote

  Gloucestershire West

  Parents

  Ballot result upheld

  Calderdale

  Ryburn Valley High

  No vote

  Calder Valley

  Other organisation

  Ballot result upheld

  Hampshire

  St. Joseph's RC Primary School

  Yes vote

  Aldershot

  Parent

  Ballot result upheld

  Kirklees

  St. Patrick's Catholic Primary

  No vote

  Huddersfield

  Parent

  School told to hold ballot

  Humberside

  Waltham Toll Bar

  No vote

  Brigg and Cleethorpes

  MP

  Ballot result upheld

  Rochdale

  Wardle High School

  Yes vote

  Littlebrgh and Saddle worth

  Parent LEA

  Ballot result upheld

  Dudley

  Windsor High School

  Yes vote

  Halesowen and Stourbridge

  LEA

  Ballot result upheld

  Misinformed Cases

  Lancashire

  Ashleigh Primary School

  Yes vote

  Rossendale and Darwin

  LEA

  Ballot result upheld

  Liverpool

  Blue Coat School

  No vote

  Liverpool Mossley Hill

  LEA

  Ballot result upheld

  Kent

  Brockhill Park

  Yes vote

  Folkestone and Hythe

  LEA

  Ballot result upheld

  Surrey

  Burpham County Primary

  Yes Vote

  Guildford

  LEA and Parent

  Ballot result upheld

  Derbyshire

  Chinley Primary

  Yes vote

  High Peak

  LEA

  Ballot result upheld

  Staffordshire

  Christ Church Middle

  No vote

  Stafford

  Other organisation Parent

  Ballot result declared void

  Staffordshire

  Christ Church Middle—2nd Ballot

  No vote

  Stafford

  Parent and LEA

  Ballot result upheld

  Staffordshire

  Anglesey

  Yes vote

  Burton

  LEA

  Ballot results declared void.

  Liverpool

  Croxteth Community Comp

  No vote

  Liverpool West

  School Parent

  Ballot result upheld

  Devon

  Devonport High

  Yes vote

  Plymouth Drake

  Other organisation, Parent

  Ballot result upheld

  Somerset

  Enmore Primary

  Yes vote

  Bridgewater

  Parent

  Ballot result upheld.

  Kent

  Gravesend Grammar

  Yes vote

  Gravesend

  LEA

  Ballot result upheld

  1220 1221

  GM ballots investigated

  LEA

  School

  Ballot

  Constituency

  Complainent

  Outcome of enquiry

  Ham and Fulham

  Holy Cross

  No vote

  Fulham

  School and Councillors

  Ballot result upheld

  Liverpool

  King David

  Yes vote

  Liverpool Broad Green

  LEA and Parent

  Ballot result upheld

  Lancashire

  Longridge School

  Yes vote

  Ribble Valley

  LEA

  Ballot result upheld

  Avon

  Merrywood Girls School

  No vote

  Bristol South

  Other organisation MP

  Ballot result upheld

  Leicestershire

  New Parks Comm College

  No vote

  Leicester West

  Parent

  Ballot result upheld

  Berkshire

  Prospect School

  Yes vote

  Reading West

  LEA Councillors

  Ballot result upheld

  Derbyshire

  Ripley Mill Hill School

  Yes vote

  Amber Valley

  LEA

  Ballot result upheld

  Essex

  Rochford Primary

  Yes vote

  Rochford

  Parents

  Ballot result upheld

  Manchester

  St. Kentigems

  Yes vote

  Manchester—Gorton

  LEA

  Ballot result upheld

  Buckinghamshire

  Two Mile Ash

  Yes vote

  Milton Keynes North East

  Other organisation

  Ballot result upheld

  Tameside

  Two Trees High School

  No Vote

  Denton and Reddish

  School Parent

  Ballot result upheld

  Waltham Forest

  Whitefields School

  Yes vote

  Chingford

  LEA Parent other

  Ballot result upheld

  Ballots currently under investigation

  Staffordshire

  Anglesey (2nd Ballot)

  Yes vote

  Burton

  LEA

  Under consideration

  Lancashire

  Beltham Primary

  Yes vote

  Blackburn

  LEA

  Under consideration

  Tower Hamlets

  Bethnal Green High School

  No vote

  Bethnal Green and Stepney

  Parent

  Under consideration

  Shropshire

  Castlefields

  No vote

  Ludlow

  Parent

  Under consideration

  Wiltshire

  Herod Parkway

  No vote

  Swindon

  Parent and MP

  Under consideration

  Durham

  Hurworh School

  No vote

  Sedgefield

  Arose from press articles

  Under consideration

  Berkshire

  Lynch Hill School

  Yes vote

  Slough

  LEA

  Under consideration

  Essex

  The Manningtree School

  Yes vote

  Colchester North

  LEA—Parents Electors,

  Under consideration

  Devon

  South Dartmoor Community College

  No vote

  Teignbridge

  Parents LEA Governors

  Under consideration

  Staffordshire

  St. Benedict Biscop

  Yes vote

  South Staffordshire

  LEA

  Under consideration

  Warwickshire

  Stockingford First School

  Yes vote

  Nuneaton

  LEA

  Under consideration

  Warwickshire

  Stockingford Middle Shool

  Yes vote

  Nuneaton

  LEA

  Under consideration

  Ms Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will arrange for all press releases and letters to hon. Members relating to every school which has been the subject of a formal inquiry by her Department into the running of its ballot on opt-out status to he placed in the Library. [5932]

  Mrs. Shephard
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: Press releases which have been issued by my Department relating to inquiries into the running of ballots on grant-maintained status have been placed in the Library. Letters to hon. Members concerning school ballots on grant-maintained status are between my Department and the hon. Member concerned.

  Dangerous Weapons
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidelines her Department has issued to schools regarding pupils found with dangerous or offensive weapons while attending school. [6981]
  1222
  Mr. Robin Squire
  None on this specific subject, but in May 1994 the Department issued guidance on a whole range of issues relating generally to pupil behaviour and discipline in the "Pupils with Problems" series of circulars.

  Student Support
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what financial assistance is available to students registered for full-time courses required to attend only to retake an examination and not eligible for(a) a student loan, (b) a grant or (c) income support, and who cannot register as unemployed. [6335]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: Students required to attend full time remain eligible for grant, student loan and access fund payments. Those required to attend part time are able to take part-time employment. Vulnerable students, such as lone parents and the disabled, retain their right to state benefits whether they are attending full time or part time.

  Part-time Teachers
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the number of part-time teachers in each of the past three years. [7012]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The numbers of part-time qualified teachers serving in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools sector in England were as follows:

  January 1993: 54,900

  January 1994: 57,300

  January 1995: 59,400.

  Teachers in sixth form colleges, pupil referral units, unattached special units and teachers providing education other than in schools are excluded throughout.

  Learning Credits
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans her Department has to introduce learning credits for post 16-year-olds; when it intends to implement them; and what funding mechanism it intends to use. [6960]

  Mr. Paice
  The Government remain attracted in principle to the idea of learning credits for all 16 to 19-year-olds but recognise that their introduction would have significant practical implications. Comments have been invited on the Coopers and Lybrand study of learning credits which has published alongside the second Competitiveness White Paper, "Forging Ahead", in May.

  We are now considering how best to develop the idea of learning credits further in the context of the Department's wider programme, set out in the White Paper, to improve education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds.

  Pupil: teacher Ratios
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the average pupil:teacher ratio for each year since 1992; and if she will make a statement on the average pupil:teacher ratio forecast for the year 1996. [7011]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information is shown in the following table. Information on the 1996 overall pupil:teacher ratio will be available in April 1996.

  Overall pupil:teacher ratio1 in schools2 in England 1992–95 position in January each year

  Year

  Including sixth form colleges

  Excluding sixth form colleges

  1992

  17.4

  —

  1993

  17.7

  17.8

  1994

  —

  18.1

  1995

  —

  18.3

  1Including the full-time equivalent of part-time teachers and counting part-time pupils as 0.5 FTEs.

  2Maintained nursery,primary and secondary schools.

  Enterprise Allowances
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the cost of the enterprise allowance initiative in each of the years since its introduction. [6978]

  Mr. Paice
  The enterprise allowance scheme was introduced in 1982. Its successor, from 1991, was the business start-up programme.

  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Year

  Cost £million

  1982–83

  2.4

  1983–84

  23.2

  1984–85

  80.1

  1985–86

  108.4

  1986–87

  149.7

  1987–88

  200.7

  1988–89

  196.7

  1989–90

  170.9

  1990–91

  133.1

  1991–92

  161.8

  1992–93

  149.2

  1993–94

  123.3

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have benefited, and how many businesses have been generated by the enterprise allowance since its inception. [6979]

  Mr. Paice
  A total of 565,700 people joined the enterprise allowance scheme between 1982–83 and 1990–91 and 162,800 joined its successor, business start-up, between 1991–92 and 1994–95. In 1994–95 the budget for the programme was absorbed by the single regeneration budget.

  The number of businesses generated is lower than the number of people in the programme because not all grants were made to sole proprietors.

  Greenbank Project, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the timing of European social fund payments to the Greenbank project, Liverpool. [7158]

  Mr. Forth
  The Greenbank project submitted claims for three projects in 1994. The payments were issued on the following dates:

  Date

  940892UK1

  First advance

  25 October 1994

  Second advance

  3 April 1995

  Interim payment

  13 December 1995

  940912UK1

  First advance

  9 December 1994

  Second advance

  3 April 1995

  Interim payment

  8 December 1995

  940913UK1

  First advance

  10 March 1995

  Second advance

  10 March 1995

  1225
  The Department has issued first advances for two of the three projects submitted by Greenbank in 1995.

  Date

  950992UK1

  First advance

  2 October 1995

  950993UK1

  First advance

  25 August 1995

  The third project —950991UK1—will receive its first advance once the Department has received a public match funding certificate. The Government have not yet received sufficient second advanced claims from objective 1 projects in 1995 for the second advance payment to be drawn down from the European Commission.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many representations she has received in 1995 about payments to voluntary organisations from the European social fund; and if she will make a statement. [7124]

  Mr. Forth
  There have been 60 recorded representations from or on behalf of voluntary organisations made to the Department in 1995, about payment delays and the European social fund payment process. Payment delays have been caused by a series of difficulties arising from the late signing of the 1994—96 programme and from the interpretation of the new 1993 ESF regulations.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what work her Department has done to develop best practice in the publication of departmental procurement guidance material relevant to small and medium enterprises' needs. [6631]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: The Department has produced a purchasing manual which deals with all aspects of procurement, including purchasing from small and medium enterprises.

  In addition, staff follow central guidance such as the best practice guides, issued by the central unit on procurement, and other recommendations, as in "An Efficiency Unit Scrutiny: The Government's Use of External Consultants", to keep documentation issued as simple and user-friendly as is practicable.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what meetings her Department has had since May 1995 with organisations representing small firms to review tendering procedures. [6632]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: The Department was represented at a meeting with the CBI small firm panel, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Forum of Private Business held on 27 September 1995 to review tendering procedures.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice has been given to procurement staff on the implications of purchasing from small and medium enterprises. [6633]
  1226
  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: All staff involved in procurement have been issued with a purchasing manual which deals with all aspects of procurement including purchasing front small and medium enterprises.

  Procurement staff also have copies of guidance issued by the central unit on procurement which has issued a series of best practice guides, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress her 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. [6714]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: A contact telephone number for the purchasing co-ordinating unit of the former Employment Department is given in "Tendering for Government Contracts", a copy of which is available in the Library. That contact remains extant.

  Access to Work
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the budget for the access to work programme in each region of Britain in the current financial year. [7164]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: I have been asked to reply.

  The regional distribution of resources is a matter for the Employment Service to manage as an agency. The Employment Service allocates and monitors resources so as to achieve the most effective use of the money available.

  Teacher Recruitment (Priority Subjects)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money will be available to trainee teachers under the new priority subject recruitment scheme for 1996–97; and how this money will be allocated to individual students. [7333]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A total of £1.4 million has been retained in the bursary scheme to cover students in the second year of two-year courses in England and Wales. In 1996-97 £7.869 million will be available under the new priority subject recruitment scheme in England, administered by the Teacher Training Agency. I have asked the chairman of the TTA to write with details of the allocation arrangements. The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales will be administering a similar initiative in Wales in 1996–97.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much funding has been made available in bursaries to trainee teachers in priority subjects since the commencement of the scheme; and what subjects have been covered. [7334]

  Mr. Squire
  By the end of the current financial year some £67 million will have been made available since the start of the scheme in 1986–87. The following subjects
  1227
  have been included at some time in the course of the scheme: chemistry, physics, biology, technology, mathematics, modern foreign languages and Welsh.

  Nursery Education Vouchers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many nursery vouchers will be issued to parents in respect of three terms of nursery education; and how many vouchers in total will be issued in(a) the pilot phase of the scheme and (b) in the first year of national implementation of the schemes. [7345]

  ITT target and actual intake in each subject area since 1989

  England and Wales

  England

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–961

  Primary

  Target

  11,124

  12,229

  12,660

  13,070

  13,937

  12,990

  12,115

  Actual

  12,814

  14,331

  16,263

  18,364

  15,775

  13,713

  13,601

  Secondary

  Art

  Target

  420

  475

  520

  530

  725

  810

  825

  Actual

  454

  475

  616

  629

  703

  751

  818

  History

  Target

  335

  380

  455

  475

  605

  790

  780

  Actual

  390

  491

  596

  633

  669

  915

  898

  Music

  Target

  317

  478

  500

  500

  485

  580

  585

  Actual

  282

  341

  403

  459

  461

  490

  564

  RE

  Target

  371

  388

  405

  405

  421

  500

  510

  Actual

  298

  252

  338

  371

  367

  441

  497

  English

  Target

  908

  925

  1,125

  1,130

  1,362

  1,710

  1,832

  Actual

  963

  1,103

  1,341

  1,437

  1,465

  1,804

  1,928

  Modern

  Language

  Target

  1,032

  1,376

  1,380

  1,380

  1,665

  2,060

  2,092

  Actual

  821

  1,032

  1,343

  1,459

  1,542

  1,772

  1,806

  Geography

  Target

  353

  392

  420

  420

  560

  645

  700

  Actual

  327

  342

  456

  520

  599

  618

  696

  Maths

  Target

  1,533

  1,727

  1,715

  1,715

  1,755

  2,230

  2,267

  Actual

  1,139

  1,091

  1,549

  1,787

  1,769

  1,930

  1,832

  Science

  Target

  1,752

  2,061

  2,040

  2,040

  2,615

  3,200

  3,402

  Actual

  1,607

  1,651

  2,279

  2,269

  2,373

  2,860

  2,809

  Technology

  Target

  1,840

  1,811

  1,745

  1,735

  2,119

  2,360

  2,312

  Actual

  1,314

  1,379

  1,975

  2,311

  1,991

  2,064

  1,860

  PE

  Target

  883

  723

  750

  750

  1,156

  1,255

  1,250

  Actual

  1,001

  933

  1,130

  1,204

  1,074

  1,273

  1,305

  Other

  Target

  319

  279

  220

  220

  500

  460

  445

  Actual

  349

  376

  505

  542

  481

  327

  360

  All Secondary

  Target

  10,063

  11,015

  11,275

  11,300

  13,968

  16,600

  17,000

  Actual

  8,943

  9,464

  12,529

  13,619

  13,491

  15,245

  15,373

  Total

  Target

  21,187

  23,244

  23,935

  24,370

  27,905

  29,590

  29,115

  Actual

  21,757

  23,795

  28,792

  31,983

  29,266

  28,958

  28,974

  English includes Drama

  Technology includes Business Studies and Home Economics.

  "Other" includes Classics, Economics and Social Sciences.

  1Figures for 1995–96 are provisional.

  Private Sector Loans
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how the savings in 1996–97 resulting from the delay in the introduction of subsidised private sector loans will now be accounted for in the budget of the Department for Education and Employment. [7382]

  Mr. Forth
  The postponement of the introduction of private loans will mean that the resultant savings will not be made in 1996–97. The Government will be considering what, if any, steps need to be taken as a consequence in
  1228
  Mr. Robin Squire
  In each phase, every eligible parent of a four-year-old child will receive vouchers for a maximum of three terms of nursery education, concluding with the term before the child attains compulsory school age. Parents will receive one voucher for each term.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was(a) the target intake and (b) the actual intake to teacher training courses, in each subject area, in each year since 1989. [7342]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Intake targets, and the actual intakes, for initial teacher training courses for each year since 1989 are given in the following table:

  the light of expenditure plans for 1996–97 as a whole. The Department's estimate for 1996–97 will provide for expenditure on student loans.

  Education Outside School
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children between the ages of five and 16 years receive their education outside school; and what percentage of the total five to 16-year-old population this figure represents. [7651]
  1229
  Mr. Robin Squire
  As of January 1995, a total of some 17,650 children between the ages of five and 16 years were receiving education "otherwise than at school" provided by local education authorities. Of that number, some 9,170 were registered at pupil referral units. The figure of 17,650 represents approximately 0.24 per cent. of the total of five to 16-year-old population in England.

ENVIRONMENT

  Queens Square Hotel, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what account was taken of the impact the hotel element of the Queens square development, Liverpool, on the position of the existing hotels; how many beds(a) will be provided and (b) jobs created; how much Government grant was provided; what capacity of rooms is expected; what will be the average room rate; and if he will list the projects which were turned down following the funding provided for the hotel development; [5171]

  (2) what consultation, took place with existing hoteliers and Liverpool businesses before embarking on the Liverpool Queens square hotel development; what assessment he has made of (a) the extent of discussions with the local community and (b) the effect of subsidies to surrounding infrastructure development on the competitiveness of the new hotel. [5172]

  Mr. Gummer
  The proposal for a new hotel, as part of the overall development of Queens square, is a key element of Liverpool city challenge's action plan, which has been subject to consultation with a wide range of interests.

  An application for funding has been submitted by the developers to English Partnerships and EP is seeking European funding from the European regional development fund under the objective 1 programme. No decision has yet been taken by either. The package is being appraised in the normal way both by EP and the objective 1 secretariat to determine costs, benefits and value for money.

  Structural Funding (Liverpool)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much of the objective 1 money allocated for tourism and related purposes in Liverpool has been(a) allocated and (b) designated; and what remains. [5117]

  Mr. Gummer
  Allocations in the objective 1 programme cover the whole of Meseyside. The total allocation to support the cultural, media and leisure industries—drivier 4—is approximately £42 million, of which £2.4 million has been committed in offer letters. Projects seeking a further £15.5 million are under consideration. Within driver 4, some £10 million is allocated specifically to support the development of visitor attractions. Of this, £887,000 has been committed in offer letters; projects seeking a further £9 million are under consideration.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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. [5591]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In 1994–95 the cost of hospitality, which is included in the running cost budget for my Department, was £121,000. Figures for the financial year to date are £63,000.
  The projected budget for 1995–96 is £114,000.

  Pipeline Link (Yorkshire Water)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the cost of constructing a mains pipeline link into the Yorkshire Water area from an adjacent water authority area. [6431]

  Mr. Clappison
  The cost of such a pipeline would depend on the length, the type of terrain to be crossed and whether there are suitable water treatment facilities to process the water. Yorkshire Water announced a new programme on 13 December, estimated to cost around £50 million and to be completed by early next summer, to provide some 35 miles of new pipeline and five new pumping stations to create a new east-west link from the Yorkshire grid near Selby to the major conurbations of West Yorkshire.

  Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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. [6567]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is not kept in the required format and is not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Research Studies (Wearside)
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all Department of Environment funded pilots, trials and research studies which have been conducted since 1989 involving the residents of(a) the City of Sunderland, (b)Wearside district and (c) the Sunderland travel-to-work area identifying (i) title, summary and duration of the pilot-trial, (ii) target population and total number of participants and (iii) whether each pilot, trial or research finding was published and date of publication; and if he will give details of all other non-Department of the Environment research bodies or other organisations involved in each pilot, trial or research scheme. [6306]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information on this range of activities is not held centrally, either by the Department of the Environment or the Government office for the north-east.
  1231
  The only information held centrally by the Department of the Environment relates to statistical surveys and is shown in the table. The Department has carried out a number of national surveys since 1989, in which residents of the Sunderland-Wearside

  Title

  Objectives

  Fieldwork start date

  Location

  Researchers

  Number of respondents and target population

  Ventilation in homes

  To evaluate the effectiveness of building regulations

  October 1993. Results available March 1994

  Cambridge, Cotswold, East Devon, Luton, Rushcliffe, Sunderland, Wakefield and walsall

  PAS

  250 owner-occupiers of modern homes

  Energy monitoring of low energy multi residential student accommodation

  To assess behaviour in building related to energy efficiency and attitude to energy issues

  Early summer 1995. Results available late summer 1995

  Linacre college, Oxford and Sunderland university environmental Ltd.

  Wimpey environmental Ltd.

  100 students

  Water Grid
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of the likely cost of constructing a water grid in Great Britain. [6420]

  Mr. Clappison
  The National Rivers Authority's discussion document "Water Resources Development Strategy" estimates that the capital cost of a water grid to meet additional demands of 2,000 m1/d would be several billion pounds.

  Telephone Helplines
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial support Government give through(a) the standard spending assessments, (b) the rate support grant and (c) other means to local authorities to fund rape crisis or sexual assault telephone helplines; and which authorities receive such funding. [6433]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  As part of the safer cities initiative, we provide grant direct to a number of voluntary bodies and other organisations for the provision of rape crisis or sexual assault telephone helplines.

  Standing spending assessments are made in relation to the major groups of services. They do not distinguish such detailed provision as telephone helplines. Revenue support grant is based on the total of SSAs, without distinction between services. It is for authorities to decide how much of their revenue from RSG and other sources they will spend on such telephone helplines. The Department has no information on authorities' expenditure on these services.

  Discharge Consents (Appeals)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals have been lodged by water companies against National Rivers Authority consents; if he will list each appeal; and how long each appeal has been on file. [6048]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: Since 1990, water companies have lodged a total of 1,854 appeals against NRA discharge consents. Following clarification of policy issues arising in the appeals, the NRA has been reviewing the consents in question with the water industry. As a result, over 700 appeals have now
  1232
  area may have been selected to take part. However, the Department does not have a central record of the residence of all persons participating in these surveys.

  been satisfactorily resolved and work is continuing to deal with the remaining cases as expeditiously as possible. I am placing the information requested in the Library of the House.

  Air Pollution (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information was received by his Department concerning air pollution levels in London between 8 and 11 December; and if he will make a statement. [6479]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: The Department of the Environment receives information on hourly concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, fine particles—PM 10—carbon monoxide, ozone, benzene and 1, 3–butadiene from its data dissemination unit at the national environmental technology centre, Culham, Oxfordshire. This information is also made available on the Internet. Information on hourly levels of nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and ozone, described as "very good", "good", "poor" or "very poor", together with a forecast for the following day, is made available on Ceefax, Teletext and a range of other media.

  Between 8 and 11 December "poor" air quality was forecast for London. "Poor" air quality then occurred for nitrogen dioxide for a period of eight hours at the Department's automatic monitoring site at Cromwell road and for two hours at Earls Court. One hour of "poor" sulphur dioxide occurred at Bexley. There were no forecasts or occurrences of "very poor" air quality.

  Repossessions
  Mr. Jim Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of schemes to assist home owners threatened with repossession by banks and building societies. [7004]

  Mr. Clappison
  Mortgage lenders are pursuing a range of initiatives designed to help borrowers in difficulty and to avoid unnecessary repossessions. The success of Government policies in securing sustainable economic growth, increased employment opportunities and low interest rates means fewer people are likely to get into difficulties with their mortgage payments and those in arrears are more likely to be able to pay them off.

  Do-it-yourself Shared Ownership Programme
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultation was undertaken with housing associations before amendments were made to the eligibility criteria of the do-it-yourself shared ownership programme in respect of private tenants; what account was taken of the practice of housing associations in respect of their policy towards applications from private tenants when their quotas were filled; and what action his Department intends to take to help those private tenants who have(a) signed agreements with housing associations, (b) given notice to their present landlords and (c) paid for valuation fees, mortgage offers or local authority searches who were subsequently informed that their agreements have been cancelled. [6910]

  Mr. Clappison
  Housing associations were not consulted about our decision, as part of the Budget settlement for the Housing Corporation's approved development programme, to direct the whole of the DIYSO programme at housing association and local authority tenants from April 1996, to ensure that for every successful DIYSO applicant a social letting would be released for another family in housing need.

  We have asked the Housing Corporation to honour any firm pre-commitments it has made on the DIYSO programme. My officials are considering with the corporation what procedures should be adopted by housing associations to protect private sector tenants who have been accepted onto the DIYSO scheme.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of individuals registered as being homeless in(a) England, (b) each region and (c) each local authority in each year since 1979; and what was the percentage change on the previous year. [7000]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have today placed in the Library tables giving the figures for, and percentage changes in, the numbers of households for which each local authority in England reported it had accepted responsibility to secure accommodation, under the homelessness provisions of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and the Housing Act 1985 in the years 1979 to 1994.

  The table also gives regional and England totals, which include estimates for missing data.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost of providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless persons for the last five years; and if he will provide a breakdown by(a) region and (b) local authority. [7001]

  Mr. Clappison
  The net costs of housing homeless households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are reported by local authorities in England on their revenue outturn returns.

  I have today placed in the Library a table giving the reported information for the years 1990–91, the first year in which this information was collected on the revenue outturn return, to 1993–94.
  1234
  Data on local authorities' expenditure on bed-and-breakfast accommodation are also published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy in its annual "Homelessness Statistics Actuals" publication. Copies of these publications, which are available for all years since 1989–90, are in the Library.

  Water Conservation
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of customers' willingness to respond to appeals to save water since privatisation. [6675]

  Mr. Clappison
  The issues of demand and consumption management are being considered as part of the longer-term review of water resource management announced by my right hon. Friend on 1 September this year.

  Rented Accommodation (Expenditure)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much he is spending on the rental of accommodation in(a) London and (b) Greater Manchester. [7002]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department's spend on the rental of accommodation includes:

  (a) £231.4 million per annum in Central London; and

  (b) £16.1 million per annum within the old Greater Manchester boundary,

  both sums being inclusive of VAT.

  New Forest Heritage Area
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to make an announcement on the extent of the New Forest heritage area. [6984]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In his answer of 14 July 1994,Official Report, column 767–69, announcing that the same planning policies as apply to a national park will apply to the wider New Forest heritage area, my right hon. Friend, the former Minister for the Environment and Countryside, said that the boundary of the heritage area would emerge from the current local plan process. The preparation and adoption of local plans is the responsibility of the statutory local planning authorities.

  I understand that the relevant New Forest district local plans defining the New Forest heritage area boundary were adopted recently, but that an area of land north of Totton and to the east of the Totton western bypass is proposed by the district council in the deposited New Forest district local plan to be included in the heritage area. This proposal will be considered in the context of the emerging New Forest district-wide local plan.

  Rivers
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of rivers in England is in good or fair condition and what is the European average. [7005]

  Mr. Clappison
  The recent Dobris report prepared by the European Environment Agency on the state of the pan-European environment includes estimates of the
  1235
  percentage of river length in various European countries which, on the basis of the definitions given in the report, can be described as of good or fair quality. These definitions do not necessarily correspond to those used in individual countries.

  The report includes data in respect of 12 European Union countries, including Scotland and Northern Ireland, and 10 other European states. The table provides a comparison, as a percentage of river length, between the data for England and Wales and, respectively, the average for the European Union countries and for all the countries for which data are provided.

  Good

  Fair

  England and Wales

  65

  23

  European Union

  43

  36

  All countries

  34

  43

  Rented Housing
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make additional resources available for the provision of affordable housing for rent. [7003]

  Mr. Clappison
  Over the next three years, 1996–97 to 1998–99, we estimate that public resources and private finance will provide an average each year of around 60,000 new social lettings for rent and shared ownership reflecting our estimate of need.

  Wearmouth Colliery (Regeneration)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his definition of suitable regeneration use in respect of the Wearmouth colliery site in Sunderland. [7155]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Urban development corporations can reclaim land for a wide variety of uses, subject to their general object of securing the regeneration of their areas. The phase 2 scheme at Wearmouth colliery is expected to be taken forward on the basis of offers of interest from the private sector, and it is not appropriate at this stage to predetermine what uses might be the most suitable for the site.

  Injury rates (per 100,000 workers) as reported to enforcing authorities 1986–87 to 1994–951

  Fatal

  Major injuries

  Over three-day injuries

  Employees

  Self employed

  Employees

  Self employed

  Employees

  Self employed

  1986–87

  1.7

  2.0

  99.1

  26.9

  761.1

  40.1

  1987–88

  1.7

  3.0

  94.0

  31.0

  748.90

  41.40

  1988–89

  222.4

  2.7

  91.4

  39.4

  747.7

  51.4

  1989–90

  1.7

  3.3

  91.8

  41.2

  743.4

  58.6

  1990–91

  1.6

  2.7

  89.9

  41.2

  726.5

  64.5

  1991–92

  1.4

  2.3

  81.7

  35.9

  708.5

  59.8

  1992–93

  1.3

  2.0

  80.4

  36.1

  670.0

  69.1

  1993–94

  1.2

  1.6

  79.3

  40.7

  640.4

  80.5

  1994–951

  0.9

  2.2

  78.2

  39.8

  644.5

  87.6

  1 Provisional.

  2 Data includes the 167 fatalities of the Piper Alpha disaster, 6 July 1988.

  Enterprise Allowances
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) in how many regions of the United Kingdom enterprise allowances are currently available through training with enterprise councils; [6996]

  (2) in how many TEC areas enterprise allowances are currently available. [6977]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The enterprise allowance scheme is no longer available.

  Since 1 April 1995, support for new businesses is one of the objectives of the SRB challenge fund, which is available throughout England. Some 80,000 new business start-ups are forecast to be supported over the lifetime of schemes approved in the first and second challenge fund bidding rounds. These new business-start-ups will take place in all regions in England.

  Training and enterprise councils may also provide additional support for enterprise and the expanding network of business links will give access to practical advice and guidance for new and growing businesses.

  Workplace Accidents
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the accident, work-related medical complaint and death rates for workplaces where the work force was(a) represented by a trade union in collective bargaining and (b) not represented by a trade union, for each of the last 10 years. [7203]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Executive does not collect the information in the form requested. However, the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985, RIDDOR, require work-related deaths, certain injuries and cases of occupational disease to be reported to the enforcing authority for the purposes of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The table gives the overall rates for injuries reported under RIDDOR for each of the years since the regulations came into force on 1 April 1986.

  Based on the global estimates for work-related ill health compiled by HSE from the 1990 labour force survey, which pointed to some 2.2 million cases of work-related ill health, it is estimated that work-related illness may affect some 6 per cent. of the adult population.
  1237
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his assessment of(a) the number of employers discouraging employees from reporting workplace accidents and (b) the effect of such discouragement on industrial accident statistics collected by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [7314]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is not available to make such an assessment.

  Whatley Stone Quarry
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect of the plan to double the output of Whatley stone quarry on the immediate environment, the City of Bath's hot springs and on the water supply to Bristol; and if he will make a statement. [7332]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Two planning applications for the proposed extension of Whatley quarry were the subject of a public inquiry in the spring of 1992, at which their environmental effects, including those on the Bath hot springs and the water supply to Bristol were considered. The planning applications were subsequently refused by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. A revised planning application for a smaller extension to the quarry is now before my right hon. Friend for him to decide whether to call it in for his own determination following another public inquiry. His decision will be made shortly.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations his Department has received about plans to increase the size of Whatley stone quarry in Somerset; and if he will make a statement. [7341]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A planning application for the extension of Whatley quarry is currently before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for him to decide whether it should be called in for his own determination following a public inquiry. We have received over 500 representations about the proposal from the local authorities, organisations and individuals. Many are objecting to the application or requesting that it be called in; others request that it be left to Somerset county council as planning authority to determine.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government will publish their consultation paper on the draft regulations to protect important hedgerows as provided for by section 97 of the Environment Act 1995; what is the delay in the production of hedgerow evaluation criteria by ADAS; and when he expects the final regulations to be implemented. [7075]

  Mr. Clappison
  The hedgerow evaluation criteria, which are being developed by ADAS under a research contract, will be an integral feature of the consultation paper on the draft regulations to protect important hedgerows. Production has been delayed by several factors associated with our aim to introduce a scheme which is fair, workable and practical. For example, additional effort was devoted to testing the criteria on a1238
  large number of hedgerows of different types. ADAS was asked to undertake more detailed analysis of the data that resulted from this field trial and survey. The consultation paper will be produced following publication of the ADAS research report. It remains our aim to introduce the hedgerow protection scheme by July 1996.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of hedgerow loss between January 1995 and January 1996. [7071]

  Mr. Clappison
  The results of the last hedgerows survey commissioned by the Department were announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) on 21 July 1994. These indicated a net loss, as a result of both removal and change in management, of 18,100 km of hedges per year in England and Wales during 1990–93. No further research into hedgerow loss has been undertaken.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the original timetable for the production of hedgerow evaluation criteria by ADAS; what is now the timetable; and if he will make a statement. [7146]

  Mr. Clappison
  The original research contract was due to end on 8 August 1995. This has since been extended to 29 February 1996.

  Negative Equity
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the percentage of home buyers in each of the past five years experiencing negative equity in England. [7247]

  Mr. Clappison
  Estimates of negative equity are sensitive to underlying assumptions such as changes in house prices. Using the Department's house price index, it is estimated that, in each of the last five years, the percentage of households in England buying their home with a mortgage who experienced negative equity was as follows:

  1990: 3 per cent.

  1991: 6 per cent.

  1992: 10 per cent.

  1993: 11 per cent.

  1994: 8 per cent.

  Average Rents
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average rent in(a) local authority, (b) housing association and (c) private sector accommodation in each year since 1979 in (i) cash and (ii) real terms. [7242]

  Mr. Clappison
  The available information is given in the tables.
  1239

  Average rents in England, 1979–80 to 1994–95 (i) Cash

  £ per week

  Financial year

  Local authority rents

  Calendar year1

  Housing association rents2

  Private sector rents2

  1979–80

  6.49

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  8.19

  1980

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  11.53

  1981

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  13.58

  1982

  n/a

  n/a

  1983–84

  14.03

  1983

  n/a

  n/a

  1984–85

  14.79

  1984

  16

  16

  1985–86

  15.63

  1985

  17

  18

  1986–87

  16.48

  1986

  20

  23

  1987–88

  17.40

  1987

  24

  26

  1988–89

  19.01

  1988

  23

  29

  1989–90

  20.86

  1989

  22

  31

  1990–91

  23.92

  1990

  27

  43

  1991–92

  27.59

  1991

  30

  51

  1992–93

  30.84

  1992

  37

  55

  1993–94

  33.70

  1993

  38

  68

  1994–95

  35.79

  1994–95

  43

  69

  1 The Family Expenditure Survey changed from a calendar to a financial year basis in 1994.

  2 These figures are from the Family Expenditure Survey and are subject to sampling variability. They cover all types of tenancy, i.e. both assured and non-assured tenancies.

  (ii) Real terms (1994–95 prices)1

  Financial year

  Local authority rents

  Calendar year2

  Housing association rents3

  Private sector rents3

  1979–80

  16.22

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  17.30

  1980

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  22.20

  1981

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  24.41

  1982

  n/a

  n/a

  1983–84

  24.10

  1983

  n/a

  n/a

  1984–85

  24.19

  1984

  26

  27

  1985–86

  24.24

  1985

  26

  29

  1986–87

  24.81

  1986

  31

  34

  1987–88

  24.87

  1987

  35

  38

  1988–89

  25.47

  1988

  32

  40

  1989–90

  26.12

  1989

  29

  40

  1990–91

  27.73

  1990

  32

  50

  1991–92

  30.10

  1991

  33

  57

  1992–93

  32.34

  1992

  39

  58

  1993–94

  34.33

  1993

  39

  69

  1994–95

  35.79

  1994–95

  43

  69

  1 Real terms figures are cash figures adjusted for inflation as measured by the GDP market prices deflator.

  2 The Family Expenditure Survey changed from a calendar to a financial year basis in 1994.

  3 These figures are from the Family Expenditure Survey and are subject to sampling variability. They cover all types of tenancy, i.e. both assured and non-assured tenancies.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) which organisations he consulted about changes to the guidance on health and safety enforcement practice; and if he will make a statement; [7243]

  (2) when he issued his proposals on health and safety enforcement practice for consultation under section 3(1) of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994; and if he will make a statement. [7244]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Guidance on arrangements for the enforcement of health and safety at work is a matter for the Health and Safety Commission. The commission has drawn up statutory guidance under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which reflects the enforcement principles of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act
  1240
  1994. In so doing the Commission has sought the views of local authorities through the Health and Safety Executive local authority enforcement liaison committee and the deregulation task force. I understand that the commission plans to issue the guidance early next year. It will be reflected in instructions to Health and Safety Executive inspectors.

  Police Authorities (Standard Spending Assessments)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is, for each police authority in England and Wales, the proposed standard spending assessment for 1996–97 and the standard spending assessment set for 1995–96 and each of the previous five years. [7275]
  1241
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The total standard spending assessments of police authorities in England are given in table 1. SSAs for police authorities in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Table 1: Total standard spending assessments1 (SSAs) for police authorities

  £ million

  Police authority

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–972

  City of London

  41.625

  42.683

  44.490

  48.307

  69.888

  65.873

  62.146

  Metropolitan Police

  632.132

  697.623

  750.134

  783.503

  813.137

  736.737

  743.791

  Greater Manchester Police

  114.059

  125.715

  144.294

  150.493

  157.194

  164.724

  170.674

  Merseyside Police

  76.806

  84.448

  97.596

  101.870

  106.323

  108.325

  109.231

  South Yorkshire Police

  48.861

  53.800

  62.880

  65.646

  68.558

  74.173

  77.184

  Northumbria Police

  58.132

  63.987

  74.897

  78.204

  82.049

  90.780

  94.334

  West Midlands Police

  112.329

  124.362

  143.595

  149.870

  156.545

  166.072

  171.747

  West Yorkshire Police

  86.473

  95.826

  110.489

  115.606

  120.675

  126.306

  130.468

  Avon and Somerset Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  74.669

  77.406

  Devon and Cornwall Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  73.793

  76.349

  Hampshire Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  85.057

  87.197

  Sussex Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  73.436

  75.315

  Thames Valley Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  97.053

  100.877

  West Mercia Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  49.634

  51.882

  Bedfordshire Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  27.861

  28.589

  Cambridgeshire Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  31.593

  33.090

  Cheshire Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  46.851

  48.982

  Cleveland Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  35 .606

  36.544

  Cumbria Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  27.241

  28.456

  Derbyshire Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  44.524

  46.150

  Dorset Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  31.619

  32.348

  Durham Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  34.286

  35.673

  Essex Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  73 .969

  75.593

  Gloucestershire Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  28.427

  29.227

  Hertfordshire Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  43.794

  44.635

  Humberside Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  49.433

  51.467

  Kent Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  79.504

  81.637

  Lancashire Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  78.370

  81.489

  Leicestershire Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  45.433

  47.456

  Lincolnshire Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  28.005

  29.170

  Norfolk Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  35.797

  37.795

  Northamptonshire Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  27.981

  29.079

  North Yorkshire Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  33.560

  34.767

  Nottinghamshire Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  55.734

  57.752

  Staffordshire Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  51.044

  54.281

  Suffolk Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  29.414

  30.700

  Surrey Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  40.778

  41.054

  Warwickshire Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  24.063

  24.547

  Wiltshire Police

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  29.613

  30.277

  1 The total SSA is made up from elements for police, interest receipts, net costs of financing capital expenditure and boundary changes. For the City of London the total SSA also includes the elements for Education, Personal Social Services, Highway Maintenance, and All Other Services. For the Metropolitan Police the total SSA also includes allowances for Probation and Magistrates' Courts and School Crossing Patrols.

  2 Proposed.

  n/a = not available

  Table 2: Police elements of SSA

  £million

  Police authority

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  21996–97

  City of London

  17.983

  20.639

  23.187

  26.570

  29.690

  26.772

  26.141

  Metropolitan Police

  613.875

  676.931

  729.511

  761.712

  791.008

  701.446

  707.299

  Greater Manchester Police

  115.636

  126.349

  144.376

  149.884

  156.167

  163.283

  169.412

  Merseyside Police

  77.791

  84.622

  97.563

  101.359

  105.608

  107.231

  108.232

  South Yorkshire Police

  49.279

  53.967

  62.838

  65.282

  68.019

  73.418

  76.443

  Northumbria Police

  58.132

  63.939

  74.676

  77.581

  80.833

  89.262

  92.687

  West Midlands Police

  113.021

  124.080

  143.090

  148.656

  154.888

  163.619

  169.443

  West Yorkshire Police

  87.025

  95.027

  109.774

  114.045

  118.825

  124.155

  128.520

  Avon and Somerset Police1

  50.802

  55.443

  63.999

  66.488

  69.276

  73.454

  76.055

  Devon and Cornwall Police1

  47.095

  51.537

  60.702

  63.064

  65.707

  73.082

  75.706

  Hampshire Police1

  54.289

  59.904

  71.551

  75.453

  79.133

  84.418

  86.626

  Sussex Police1

  50.826

  56.093

  60.753

  64.003

  67.155

  72.712

  74.543

  1242
  In non-metropolitan counties before 1995–96, the element of the SSAs relating to police formed part of the SSA for the county council. The police elements of the SSAs for all authorities are given in table 2.
  1243

  Table 2: Police elements of SSA

  £ million

  Police authority

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  21996–97

  Thames Valley Police1

  63.248

  70.893

  85.179

  90.574

  95.202

  96.078

  99.744

  West Mercia Police1

  32.947

  36.416

  42.562

  44.218

  46.071

  48.779

  51.154

  Bedfordshire Police

  18.039

  20.238

  25.127

  26.498

  27.790

  27.679

  28.357

  Cambridgeshire Police

  19.824

  21.691

  26.516

  27.547

  28.702

  31.295

  32.824

  Cheshire Police

  30.911

  33.986

  39.805

  41.353

  43.087

  46.465

  48.708

  Cleveland Police

  24.640

  27.037

  31.139

  32.350

  33.706

  35.314

  36.290

  Cumbria Police

  19.129

  21.151

  24.609

  25.566

  26.638

  27.007

  28.253

  Derbyshire Police

  29.670

  32.276

  38.354

  39.846

  41.516

  43.990

  45.604

  Dorset Police

  20.801

  22.879

  26.993

  28.043

  29.218

  31.109

  31.891

  Durham Police

  22.753

  24.751

  28.796

  29.917

  31.171

  33.905

  35.297

  Essex Police

  49.255

  54.851

  64.662

  67.767

  71.273

  73.103

  74.640

  Gloucestershire Police

  19.262

  20.953

  24.546

  25.501

  26.570

  28.062

  28.860

  Hertfordshire Police

  29.917

  32.973

  38.803

  40.290

  42.413

  43.466

  44.352

  Humberside Police

  32.963

  36.128

  42.168

  43.809

  45.645

  48.947

  50.972

  Kent Police

  51.544

  57.435

  68.381

  72.419

  76.389

  78,976

  81.005

  Lancashire Police

  52.506

  57.873

  66.943

  69.547

  72.462

  77.487

  80.669

  Leicestershire Police

  29.124

  32.636

  38.416

  39.910

  41.583

  44.646

  46.644

  Lincolnshire Police

  19.576

  21.547

  25.002

  25.975

  27.064

  27.600

  28.757

  Norfolk Police

  22.538

  25.345

  29.978

  31.144

  32.450

  35.557

  37.586

  Northamptonshire Police

  18.550

  20.539

  24.671

  25.630

  26.705

  27.734

  28.850

  North Yorkshire Police

  22.886

  25.345

  29.398

  30.541

  31.821

  33.270

  34.395

  Nottinghamshire Police

  38.358

  42.194

  48.595

  50.485

  52.894

  54.772

  56.700

  Staffordshire Police

  36.207

  39.638

  45.921

  47.707

  49.707

  50.507

  53.753

  Suffolk Police

  19.626

  21.673

  25.562

  26.557

  27.670

  29.191

  30.519

  Surrey Police

  30.103

  33.255

  39.239

  40.503

  42.834

  40.274

  40.492

  Warwickshire Police

  16.415

  18.451

  21.520

  22.443

  23.384

  23.711

  24.188

  Wiltshire Police

  17.954

  21.115

  26.495

  27.763

  28.927

  29.223

  29.860

  1 The figures for the years up to and including 1994–95 have been derived by adding the police SSA elements for the constituent authorities.

  2 Figures between years are not strictly comparable because of minor changes in function and boundary changes

  Krypton Gas
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what inquiries are being made into the climatic effects of krypton gas being released into the atmosphere as a result of uranium reprocessing. [7254]

  Mr. Clappison
  I am not aware of any inquiries in progress at present. In 1993, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution published a report, entitled "A Review of the Potential Effects of the Release of Krypton-85", which had been prepared for it by the university of Manchester institute of science and technology. This confirmed the conclusion of an earlier study, commissioned by British Nuclear Fuels from Imperial college, London, that the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield would have insignificant effects on cloud microphysics.

  Waste Regulations
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made on the revision of waste regulations. [7807]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department is currently working on a number of measures in the waste management field, which are at various stages of development. We have been concerned about the implications of implementing these proposals for local waste regulation authorities, including those affected by local government reorganisation, and for the new environment agencies which take over the waste regulation function on 1 April.
  1244
  In order to avoid overloading regulators with change during this busy transitional period, and to help to ensure a smooth transfer of responsibilities, we envisage a progressive timetable for these new measures. Against this background, the Government have also decided to provide a further extension to 30 September of the transitional arrangements for trade effluent treatment plants, further to the extension introduced last August which expires on 1 April. The proposals are as follows:
  Proposed new Special Waste Regulations, published for consultation last March, are intended to be made and laid before Parliament by 1 April, which will come into force in the summer.Regulations to extend until 30 September current transitional arrangements for effluent treatment plant which will be made in the New Year, which will come into force before 1 April. Proposed changes to requirements concerning technical competence may also be included, subject to consultation.Measures to extend and amend waste management licensing exemptions for composting, and sewage/water treatment plant and possibly other activities will be proposed in the Spring, with a view to their coming into operation by 1 October.Measures to extend waste management controls to certain types of agricultural and mining and quarrying waste; and provisions about consulting and compensating those with rights in land adjoining waste facilities, will also be proposed later in the year, with a view to these taking effect by the end of the year.

  Local Authority Housing Stock
  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]
  1245
  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to his reply 19 December 1995, c. 1327]: I have today issued bidding guidance to enable authorities to bid for resources from a challenge fund to improve the remaining poor-quality council estates. The name of the fund is the estates renewal challenge fund.

  The estates renewal challenge fund is worth more than £300 million over the next three years and will help improve the remaining poor quality estates by speeding their transfer to housing associations and other new landlords.

  The money will be available to meet a wide range of costs associated with transfer and I want all local authorities to consider this option as part of their housing strategy. Transfers, which would go ahead only if both councils and tenants wanted them, can bring real benefits to tenants living in the worst conditions where there is the greatest need for investment.

  I will be placing copies of the guidance in the Libraries of both Houses.

TREASURY

  Income Tax
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people paid tax at marginal rates of 50 per cent. and above, broken down(a) into 10 per cent. bands

  Table A: Average reduction in income tax per individual1 in 1996–97 compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime

  Range of individual's income in 1996–97(£

  Number of individuals 1996-971(million)

  Total reduction (£ million)

  Average reduction (£ per annum)

  Under 5,000

  2.6

  380

  150

  5,000 to 10,000

  8.0

  3,100

  390

  10,000 to 15,000

  6.0

  4,900

  810

  15,000 to 20,000

  4.2

  5,200

  1,240

  20,000 to 30,000

  4.1

  7,300

  1,790

  30,000 to 50,000

  1.7

  4,700

  2,780

  50,000 to 80,000

  0.4

  3,000

  7,420

  Over 80,000

  0.2

  9,700

  47,200

  Total

  27.2

  38,300

  1,410

  1 Individuals liable to income tax under the 1978–79 indexed regime.

  In contrast to these hypothetical figures, table B shows how the share of income tax actually paid by high-income groups has risen since 1979, while the share of the income tax burden borne by low-income tax payers has fallen.

  Table B: Calculation using the income base for each year

  Per cent.

  Quantile group of taxpayers

  1978–79

  1996–97

  Top 1

  11

  17

  Top 5

  24

  34

  Top 10

  35

  45

  Bottom 50

  18

  13

  All taxpayers

  100

  100

  Motability
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make a statement on the measures he has taken
  1246
  and (b) by family type in (i) 1988 and (ii) the latest date available. [7187]

  Mr. Jack
  Nobody has had a marginal rate of income tax of 50 per cent. or above since 1988.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was raised by the 1p on the basic rate of income tax in each year since 1985. [5500]

  Mr. Jack
  Information for years 1985–86 to 1993–94 is available in table 4.5 of the Autumn Statement. Information for later years is available in table 6 of the tax ready reckoner. Copies of these are available in the Library.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update, to take account of the 1995 Budget, the information on tax changes contained in his answer of 21 October 1986,Official Report, columns 812–14, and indicate separately the effects of the 1995 Budget on each of these levels. [4513]

  Mr. Jack
  Readily available information on the annual reduction in income tax liability for 1996–97 compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime is given in the table. This comparison is hypothetical since if an indexed version of the 1978–79 tax regime had prevailed over the last 18 years the income base would not have grown in the way it has. The effect of changes in mortgage interest relief cannot be included in the analysis because most mortgage interest relief is given at source and therefore is not recorded on individual tax records.

  to prevent the Motability scheme from being used for tax evasion purposes. [5095]

  Mr. Jack
  I cannot comment on a particular body or organisation's tax affairs.

  Value Added Tax (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue was raised from(a) VAT and (b) income tax in Wales in 1994–95; and what is his estimate for revenue from (a) and (b) for 1996–97. [5955]

  Mr. Jack
  Consumer spending in Wales on goods and services subject to VAT is a little under 5 per cent. of the United Kingdom total. On this basis, VAT in Wales was about £1.8 billion in 1993–94 and £2 billion in 1994–95. The income tax liability for residents of Wales was around £2.3 billion in 1993–94, excluding the impact of mortgage interest relief at source. Estimates are not available for later years.

  Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [6573]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Newspaper advertising is not distinguishable from other types of advertising. The total expenditure is as follows:

  Year

  £

  Treasury

  1992–93

  286,538

  1993–94

  281,330

  1994–95

  302,814

  1995–961

  108,097

  Paymaster

  1993–94

  6777

  1994–95

  51,017

  1995–961

  6,289

  Central statistical office

  1990–91

  69,000

  1991–92

  113,100

  1992–93

  125,100

  1993–94

  123,000

  1994–95

  92,983

  1995–961

  172,442

  Royal mint

  1992–93

  254,635

  1993–94

  411,331

  1994–95

  296,580

  1995–962

  869,758

  Valuation office

  1991–92

  1,900

  1992–93

  1,200

  1993–94

  3,800

  1994–95

  8,000

  1995–962

  13,000

  1 To end November.

  2 Estimated.

  Sale of shares in BT and the electricity generating companies

  1992–93: £0

  1993–94: £12 million

  1994–95: £8 million

  1995–96 (estimate): £0.

  The non-departmental public bodies have reported spending on advertising in any of these three years.

  Disposable Incomes
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each member state of the European

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93£

  1993–94

  1994–5

  1995–964

  Telephone1

  4,391

  3,391

  5,154

  13,303

  13,661

  8,727

  Staff costs

  345,907

  387,927

  424,805

  475,078

  461,577

  283,414

  1248
  Union the level of net disposable income per head in constant 1995 prices for the last available three years. [6001]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 18 December 1995]: Information on the net disposable income per head at constant 1995 prices is not available. Information on disposable income per head is published in the Eurostat publication "National Accounts ESA, Detailed tables by sector, Volume 1, Non-financial transactions, 1982–1993" which is available in the Library.

  The ESA term gross disposable income corresponds to personal disposable income in the United Kingdom national accounts.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total cost for himself and other departmental Ministers for each 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. [6396]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Expenditure for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other departmental Ministers is shown in the table:

  Overseas travel and accommodation £

  Cars and chauffeuring £

  Domestic travel and accommodation £

  19919–921

  66,444

  —

  2,185

  1992–931

  49,005

  –

  1,725

  1993–94

  77,266

  284,694

  4,268

  1994–95

  67,335

  283,518

  2,564

  1995–962

  43,785

  192,569

  1,142

  1 The cost of chauffeur-driven cars was centrally accounted for and the costs for the Ministers' cars are indistinguishable from other officials' cars.

  2 To end November.

  Departmental spending on ministerial security (c) forms an indistinguishable part of the Department's overall security budget.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [6395]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Figures for running the departmental office of the Chancellor are given in the table.
  1249

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93£

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–964

  Press2

  468,125

  503,474

  493,517

  600,761

  591,192

  383,607

  Other3

  98,498

  178,738

  142,844

  211,025

  196,426

  96,502

  1 The increase in costs between 1992–93 and 1993–94 largely reflects the delegation of the costs of the Reuters service.

  2 Press and Communications have been defined as the running costs of the Press Office.

  3 Figures for entertainment and drinks are not separately identifiable and have been included in Other.

  4 To end November.

  Stationery costs are centrally funded.

  Figures for refurbishment are not readily available but are included as part of the running cost expenditure shown in the departmental annual report.

  This table does not include the Chancellor's car, as this cost is not distinguishable from the other Ministers' cars.

  Family Expenditure Survey
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of those in households(a) responding to the family expenditure survey of 1994–95 and (b) completing census forms in 1991 were (i) aged 75 to 84 years, (ii) aged 85 years or older, (iii) long-term sick and/or because of handicap limited in their activities, (iv) sharing household with others in the same dwelling, (v) homeless and (vi) unemployed for six months or more. [6799]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information for (iv), (v) and (vi) is not available from either the family expenditure survey or the 1991 census. Information for (iii) is not available from the FES of 1994–95.

  (a) Percentage of those in households responding to the family expenditure survey of 1994–95

  (i) aged 5 to 84 years: 4.5

  (ii) aged 85 years or older: 1.1

  (b) Percentage of those in households completing census forms in 1991

  (i) aged 75 to 84 years: 5.5

  (ii) aged 85 years or older: 1.5

  (iii) long term sick and/or because of handicap limited in their activities: 12.2

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the disposable household income at April 1995 prices of(a) the poorest decile group, (b) the poorest quintile group, (c) the average household, (d) the richest quintile group and (e) the richest decile group in the family expenditure surveys of (i) 1965, (ii) 1970,
  (iii) 1980, (iv) 1990 and (v) 1994–95. [6800]

  Mrs. Knight
  Data from the family expenditure survey are given in current prices.

  Information from the 1980 FES may be found for category (c) in table 44, and for categories (a), (b), (d) and (e) in table 47 of the 1980 FES report.

  Information from the 1990 FES may be found for category (c) in table 31, and for categories (a), (b), (d) and (e) in table 25 of the 1990 FES report.
  1250
  Information from the 1994–95 FES may be found for category (c) in table 8.1, and for categories (b) and (d) in table 8.3 of the 1994–95 FES report. Average weekly disposable household income of category (a) was £60.41, and of category (e) was £800.66.

  All these reports may be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Information from the 1965 and 1970 family expenditure surveys could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to Tables 4.1 and 10.4, how many one adult and two adult retired households participating in the family expenditure survey for 1994–95 received income from(a) state pensions and/or income support only, (b) state pensions and occupational pensions, (c) state pensions and personal pensions, (d) state pensions, occupational pensions and personal pensions and (e) none of these sources, by gross income decile group. [6798]

  Mrs. Knight
  Pursuant to tables 4.1 and 10.4 in the report on the 1994–95 family expenditure survey, in each gross income decile group, over 90 per cent. of one adult and two adult retired households received income from category(b) state pensions and occupational pensions, category (c) state pensions and personal pensions and category (d) state pensions, occupational pensions and personal pensions. In each gross income decile group, less than 5 per cent. of one adult and two adult retired households received income from category (a) state pensions and/or income support only, and category (e) none of these sources.

  Labour Statistics
  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the change between 1992 and 1995, in absolute terms and as a percentage of the work force, in(a) full-time permanent employment, (b) part-time permanent employment, (c) temporary employment, (d) full-time self-employment and (e) part-time self-employment. [6913]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The requested information is shown in the following table.

  Employees in Great Britain1

  Change—Summer 1992 to Summer 1995 Thousands

  Per cent.

  Full-time permanent

  –126

  –1

  Part-time permanent

  205

  5

  Temporary

  339

  25

  1251

  Employees in Great Britain1

  Change—Summer 1992 to Summer 1995 Thousands

  Per cent.

  Full-time self-employed

  21

  1

  Part-time self-employed

  74

  13

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, CSO.

  1 Not seasonally adjusted.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the extended life of the private finance panel and the provision of grant in aid. [7953]

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed that the life of the private finance panel be extended to 30 September 1997. Grant in aid to meet the running costs of the private finance panel executive, which provides administrative and other assistance to the panel, will be sought in estimates for Her Majesty's Treasury's vote, class XVI, vote 1.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter of comfort to be provided to financial institutions and other participants in consortia participating in the private finance initiative to cover business expectations beyond the public sector contracting cycle. [2821]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: I know of no such general letter of comfort and have no plans to issue one. Particular contracts may provide for possible extension of the contract beyond the period initially planned, although in general there will be competitive benefits if the original supplier is not guaranteed to recover the original investment. I would like to draw the hon. Member's attention to the case studies, which discuss optimum contract length, in chapter 4 of the private finance guidance handbook "Private Opportunity, Public benefit", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Small and Medium Enterprise
  Mr. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) 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; [6671]

  (2) what progress his Department has made regarding establishing a contact point with responsibility for liaison and relevant business support organisations and taking forward small and medium enterprise related public procurement initiatives. [6721]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: The Treasury set up a central purchasing unit five years ago to deal with all matters relating to the procurement of goods and services within the Department. This follows advice on good procurement practice issued by the central unit of procurement and acts as a focal point for all suppliers' business inquiries irrespective of the size of supplier.

  Manufacturing Employees
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many jobs in manufacturing were lost between(a) the first quarter of 1974 and the second quarter of 1979 and (b) the second quarter of 1979 and the present day. [7032]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: The information requested is set out in the table:

  Employees in Great Britain (seasonally adjusted) (net change—thousands)

  June 1974–June 1979

  June 1979–October 1995

  Standard Industrial Classification 1980 Divisions 2,3 and 4

  –609

  —

  Standard Industrial Classification 1992 Section D

  —

  –2,761

  Source:

  CSO.

  Housing Authorities (Loan Books)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the decision to sell the loan books of the Housing Corporation, Scottish Homes and Tai Cymru was made; and for what reasons it was not included in the Red Book expenditure tables. [6929]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: The decision to sell the loan books was taken alongside other public expenditure decisions announced in the Budget. Allowance for the sales was made in the Red Book expenditure tables.

  Benefits-in-kind
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultation the Inland Revenue has had with the chairmen of non-departmental public bodies concerning revenue investigations into the value of benefits-in-kind, executive car leasing and other prerequisites. [6818]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: I am not aware of any such consultations. But, as part of its general tax compliance programme, the Inland Revenue may seek to satisfy itself that all benefits that are taxable on directors and employees have been disclosed.

  Landfill Levy
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the two rates at which the landfill levy will be applied were arrived at; and if he will make a statement. [6889]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: The different rates of landfill tax for inactive and other wastes reflect the different effects on the environment caused by landfilling these different types of waste.

  Commemorative Coins
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Government plan to issue any new commemorative coins. [7769]
  1253
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve my recommendation that a Crown be issued in 1997 with new obverse and reverse designs to mark the 50th anniversary of the wedding of Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh.

  It is not intended that these coins should go into general circulation although the coins will be available at most banks and post offices for £5 and special collectors' versions will be issued in precious metal and base metal. The coins will not be issued to the public until 1997.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for(a) each standard region of the United Kingdom and for (b) the United Kingdom, all inward investment projects published (i) during 1994 and (ii) since January 1995, indicating (1) the number of jobs committed and (2) the amount of gross investment, where published, expressed in pounds sterling at constant prices. [7040]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  A record number of inward investment projects were notified to the Invest in Britain Bureau in the financial year 1994–95. The regional breakdown of this is as follows.

  Table A: 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995

  Region

  Number of projects

  Total jobs (created/safeguarded)

  East

  12

  2,462

  East Midlands

  44

  11,670

  North-east

  41

  15,281

  Northern Ireland

  23

  5,259

  North-west

  53

  7,494

  Scotland

  81

  10,795

  South-east

  40

  18,195

  South-west

  21

  2,093

  Wales

  51

  5,235

  West Midlands

  62

  12,266

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  25

  6,274

  Total

  453

  91,394

  Table B: 1 April 1995 to 18 December 1995

  Region

  Number of projects

  Total jobs (created/safeguarded)

  East

  2

  400

  East Midlands

  4

  353

  North East

  11

  1,095

  Northern Ireland

  4

  237

  North West

  13

  1,276

  Scotland

  21

  2,592

  South East

  23

  10,439

  South West

  4

  1,648

  Wales

  13

  2,215

  West Midlands

  24

  3,613

  1254

  Table B: 1 April 1995 to 18 December 1995

  Region

  Number of projects

  Total jobs (created/safeguarded)

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  23

  4,394

  London1

  1

  150

  N/S22

  2

  210

  Total

  145

  28,622

  1 Figures for London are now separate from those of the South East.

  2 Not specifiedp—project will create or safeguard jobs in more than a Single region.

  Capital expenditure is not quoted in the preceding tables. This is because the information is not always made available to the Invest in Britain Bureau by the investor. Figures in table (B) should be taken only as indicative, as there is often a delay between a project announcement and official notification reaching the IBB.

  IBB figures are based on numbers of projects notified to the IBB at the time of the decision to invest. Companies are under no obligation to notify their investment decisions and the figures take no account of subsequent developments.

  New Companies
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many new companies in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland have registered in each of the past seven years; and if he will provide a breakdown by sector. [7245]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to Companies House under its chief executive Mr. David Durham. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from David Durham to Mr. Andrew Welsh, dated 20 December 1995:
  You recently asked the President of the Board of Trade for information on the registration of new companies. The President has asked me to deal with your request, as I have responsibility as Chief Executive and Registrar of Companies.We are able to give you separate figures for the seven years for Scotland and Northern Ireland, but only a combined figure for England and Wales. We are not sure what you mean by "breakdown by sector". If you are referring to industry type, this information could be gathered from our database, but the exercise would be extremely time consuming and would not be economically viable.

  New Companies Incorporated

  Financial year

  England/Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  1994–95

  124,800

  7,100

  1,053

  1993–94

  109,000

  6,400

  955

  1992–93

  102,700

  6,100

  891

  1991–92

  105,400

  6,600

  1,075

  1990–91

  108,700

  6,800

  1,103

  1989–90

  119,300

  7,000

  1,186

  1988–89

  128,100

  6,900

  1,067

  The statistics for England/Wales and Scotland are taken from DTI report "Companies in 1994–95": statistics for Northern Ireland are provided by the Information Unit, NI Registry.I hope this information is helpful.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been spent on furnishing and decorating ministerial offices in his Department in each of the last three years. [5561]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  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.

  Export Credits Guarantees
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of export credits guarantees in each of the past five years; and if he will provide a breakdown by sector. [7267]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The figures requested are as follows:

  £million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Civil

  1,318

  1,442

  1,881

  1,507

  1,325

  Defence

  640

  276

  1,591

  1,973

  543

  Aerospace

  342

  377

  330

  606

  1,137

  Total

  2,300

  2,095

  3,802

  4,086

  3,005

  These figures relate to guarantees issued for project capital goods only. They do not include guarantees for short-term credits by ECGD's insurance service group prior to privatisation in 1991, nor do they include contracts covered under ECGD reinsurance treaties.

  Shipyards
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, how many shipyards were operational in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland in each of the past 10 years. [7276]

  Mr. Eggar
  The following table gives the numbers of operational United Kingdom shipyards known to the Department, and building merchant ships of 100 gross tonnes or more, over the past six years.

  Year

  Number

  1990

  25

  1991

  19

  1992

  19

  1993

  16

  1994

  14

  1995

  13

  Information for earlier years and by country could be produced only at disproportionate costs.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were, in 1995 prices, the construction costs of each of the advanced gas-cooled reactor nuclear power stations currently scheduled for privatisation. [7060]

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the notes on tangible fixed assets on pages 55 and 65 of the report and accounts of Nuclear Electric 1994–95 and pages 49 and 1256
  56 of the report and accounts of Scottish Nuclear 1994–95, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the amount of the nuclear levy spent on the AGR stations currently scheduled for privatisation for each year of operation. [7059]

  Mr. Eggar
  Income from the fossil fuel levy forms part of Nuclear Electric's total income; the uses to which this income has been put are a commercial matter for the company.

  Foreign Investment
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the estimated figures for foreign investment into the United Kingdom for each year since 1979; and what equivalent figures his Department compiled in respect of(a) Germany and (b) France for the same period. [5893]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Data on foreign direct investment into the United Kingdom, Germany and France are regularly published in "International Direct Investment Statistics Yearbook, OECD", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Data from this source are currently available for the years 1981 to 1993. Definitions of foreign direct investment differ from country to country.

  Inward direct investment flow figures into the selected countries 1981–93

  Year

  UK $bn

  Germany $bn

  France $bn

  1981

  5.9

  0.3

  2.4

  1982

  5.3

  0.8

  1.6

  1983

  5.1

  1.8

  1.6

  1984

  -0.2

  0.6

  2.2

  1985

  5.8

  0.6

  2.2

  1986

  8.6

  l.2

  2.7

  1987

  15.5

  1.9

  4.6

  1988

  21.4

  1.2

  7.2

  1989

  30.4

  7.1

  9.6

  1990

  32.9

  2.5

  9.0

  1991

  15.8

  4.2

  11.1

  1992

  16.4

  2.5

  15.9

  1993

  14.5

  0.5

  12.1

  Notes:

  1. Flow figures are volatile and fluctuate year to year in part due to the cyclical nature of reinvested profits and the lumpiness of merger and acquisition activity.

  2. The definition of direct investment differ between countries.

  Source:

  "International Direct Investment Statistics Yearbook, OECD," editions 1993 and 1995.

  British Coal
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when British Coal sold CINMan; what was the total number of bidders; which bid was successful; and what criteria were used to make the choice. [6740]

  Mr. Page
  These are matters for British Coal as vendor.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the sale on CINMan by British Coal; and if he will indicate where the advertisements were placed. [6739]
  1257
  Mr. Page
  These are matters for British Coal. I am asking the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Mineworkers' Pension Scheme
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the latest valuation of the(a) mineworkers' pension scheme and (b) the staff superannuation fund; how many trustees of the scheme there are including the chairperson; who is the sponsoring body of each trustee; and what is the annual salary that has been proposed or agreed for the scheme's trustee's. [6741]

  Mr. Page
  The market values of the mineworkers' pension scheme and the staff superannuation scheme funds at the end of October 1995 were £8.52 billion and £8.87 billion respectively.

  The current trustees of the mineworkers' pension scheme are:

  M. Butler (Chairman)

  P. Keenan

  S. Gleig

  G. Ferguson

  M. Atkinson

  G. Bolton

  N. Greatrex

  J. Stones

  J. Wills

  T. Gay

  Mr. Butler, Mr. Keenan, Mrs. Gleig, Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Atkinson have been selected and appointed by the Secretary of State, in accordance with the provisions of the appendix to the articles of the trustee company. These provisions also allow for the phased replacement of union-appointed trustees by elected pensioner representatives. Mr. Bolton and Mr. Greatrex, both of whom were previously union-appointed representatives, were elected as pensioner representatives in their respective constituencies from 1 October 1995. The election process for the remaining three constituencies begins this month with the three further elected trustees due to take office from 1 April 1996. No remuneration is currently paid to MPS trustees, although I understand the question of modest remuneration remains under consideration.

  The trustees of the staff superannuation scheme, their sponsors and remuneration, remain as set out in my answer to the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) on 28 November 1995, Official Report, column 546.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the annual salary that was(a) proposed and (b) agreed for the (i) chairperson of the mineworkers' pension scheme and (ii) the chairperson of the staff superannuation fund; and what salary was paid to the previous chairperson of each fund. [6742]

  Mr. Page
  Under the rules of the staff superannuation scheme the remuneration of the trustees may be determined by me after consultation with them. The salary of the current chairman was accordingly determined by me at £15,000 per annum. Her predecessor received no remuneration.
  1258
  The rules of the mineworkers' pension scheme do not currently allow remuneration to be paid to the chairman or to the trustees.

  Electro-shock Batons
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade of whom inquiries were made by his Department in the process of investigating allegations concerning British companies' involvement in the sale of electro-shock batons abroad. [7312]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Inquiries were made by the Department of the companies concerned and within government.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the human rights record of the country for which the electronic batons were destined for which his Department issued a trans-shipment licence in 1993; and what monitoring the Department is undertaking of their use. [7313]

  Mr. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to my letter to her of 3 August 1995 in response to her question tabled on 17 July 1995. No further details can be released about this matter.

  Fuel Rods
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is (i) the average cooling time for reprocessed fuel rods and (ii) the effect on containment of radiation shortening the cooling time of reprocessed fuel rods has on a reprocessing plant. [7261]

  Mr. Page
  The cooling time for spent fuel rods prior to reprocessing is dependent on the nature of the fuel and the conditions under which it was irradiated.

  Dounreay
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what investigations have been conducted in response to Dounreay management's failure to disclose a 1977 explosion in an intermediate-level waste shaft to the COMARE committee. [7289]

  Mr. Page
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to a question from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on 21 June 1995,Official Report, column 316.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide details of(a) maintenance procedures at Dounreay and (b) any fires or other accidents occurring during maintenance procedures at Dounreay. [7293]

  Mr. Page
  Maintenance procedures at Dounreay are matters for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Details of all incidents at Dounreay are contained in site newsletters, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to change the requirement that Dounreay workers maintain secrecy regarding materials deposited in a sealed-up intermediate-level waste disposal shaft. [7292]
  1259
  Mr. Page
  An inventory of the intermediate level waste disposal shaft at Dounreay was published in the 1988 report of R. M. Consultants Ltd. which was placed in the Library of the House. The inventory has since been updated and was made available at the Dounreay local liaison committee meeting on 28 November 1995.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average number of fuel rods reprocessed at Dounreay for each year between 1965 and 1990. [7252]

  Mr. Page
  During the period 1965 to 1990, UKAEA reprocessed 9,027 material test reactor fuel elements at Dounreay. The reprocessing plant has not always operated continuously in the past but in discrete campaigns; it would be misleading therefore to quote an annual average. However, for eight of the years in this period the plant reprocessed more than 600 elements in each year. These figures do not include the reprocessing of oxide fuel from the prototype fast reactor.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to privatise the Dounreay facility. [7378]

  Mr. Page
  I have no plans to privatise the Dounreay facility.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what types of public consultation have been undertaken with the Scottish or United Kingdom public to determine the acceptability of processing foreign waste at Dounreay. [7255]

  Mr. Page
  Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at Dounreay is an established industrial process which has been undertaken at Dounreay for more than 30 years. It is carried out subject to nuclear installations inspectorate and Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate regulation. There has been no reason to engage in public consultation about the continuation of such a well-established and well-regulated activity.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the minimum cooling period for reprocessing fuel rods enforced by the management of Dounreay; [7277]

  (2) what is the estimated time from shipment of spent nuclear fuel from a foreign country to Dounreay with the return of uranium per the return to sender clause; [7284]

  (3) what steps have been taken to reduce the fire risk at the Dounreay facility especially during maintenance operations; [7279]

  (4) what disposal methods are used to deal with the nitric acid used to wash out contaminated areas of the Dounreay facility prior to maintenance; [7257]

  (5) what process is in place for analysing alpha contamination at Dounreay; [7260]

  (6) what percentage of low-level waste produced as a result of re-processing at Dounreay ends up in the low-level waste dump site at Dounreay; [7285]

  (7) what further checks were made on containment of radiation immediately after the windows and concrete shielding were replaced in the Dounreay facility's D1206 caves; [7280]
  1260
  (8) what is the current status of the dissolver tank at Dounreay that experienced an incident eight years ago resulting in high levels of neutron radiation in the area; [7258]

  (9) what actions were taken at Dounreay to remedy or replace the leaking transportation flasks responsible for contaminating the area around the Caithness complex; [7377]

  (10) what action has been taken over the last 10 years to resolve the problems of inadequate containment of radiation in the Dounreay facility's D1206 caves where irradiated fuel rods are dissected; [7379]

  (11) what long-term contingency plans there are for the Dounreay intermediate level waste shaft in the event of a breach in the next 100 years. [7290]

  Mr. Page
  These are operational matters for UKAEA. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Radioactive Waste
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the definition of(a) high-level waste and (b) low-level waste used by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. [7283]

  Mr. Page
  UKAEA uses the waste category definitions given in the Reviews of Radioactive Waste Management Policy (Final Conclusions), Cm 2919.

  ECGD
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future of the transitional reinsurance facility provided by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. [7844]

  Mr. Nelson
  On 24 June 1993,Official Report, column 265, my predecessor announced to the House that the Government would extend the transitional reinsurance facility until at least the end of 1997. At the same time he undertook to give two years' notice of any decision to withdraw from the facility. The case for the continuation of the facility beyond 1997 would be reviewed in 1995.

  The review has now been completed. It remains the Government's objective to maximise the provision of this type of reinsurance by the private market, with the aim of ultimately eliminating the need for this form of Government support. The review has confirmed that we are making progress towards this objective. Only minimal support was required in 1995, and we do not expect the facility to be called on at all in 1996. Nevertheless, the Government recognise that there remains a need for the facility to remain in place for the time being, to be used as a last resort in the unexpected event that the private reinsurance market is not able to meet fully the needs of United Kingdom exporters. The terms and conditions under which the facility is offered will continue to reflect this objective. We intend that the facility should be reviewed again in 1999, and as before, in order to provide a stable framework of support for both insurers and UK exporters and to avoid disruption to the market, adequate notice will be given of any decision to withdraw the facility.

  Research Masters
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made by the pilot scheme for research masters, announced by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in October 1994. [7846]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The progress has been encouraging. It is plainly too early to reach firm conclusions about either the first year or the pilot more generally, but I congratulate all the university and research council staff involved on their achievements to date.

  The new, one-year, research master's—"MRes"— degree comprises: a significant, original research component; a grounding in research techniques and/or development of specialist knowledge; and modules to broaden the student's experience by equipping him or her with transferable skills and knowledge, such as team-working, communication, and the exploitation of research. The purpose of the pilot is to test the effectiveness of this new degree as a direct route into employment or as a preparation for a PhD. Courses began admitting students for the first time this October.

  We estimated that the research councils would support some 250 students. However, in view of the quantity and quality of submissions from university departments, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council—BBSRC—Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council—EPSRC—Medical Research Council—MRC—and Natural Environment Research Council—NERC—made provision to support a total of 275 students on some 35 courses in 25 universities. A total of 265 places had been taken up by the end of October. Successful applicants were required to hold at least an upper second class honours degree, as for research council PhD studentships. The table gives the numbers of studentships offered, applications made, and awards taken up by the end of October in more detail.

  Offered

  Applications

  Taken up

  BBSRC

  45

  321

  45

  EPSRC

  160

  442

  150

  MRC

  25

  166

  25

  NERC

  45

  467

  45

  Total

  275

  1,396

  265

  I understand that many of the courses have additional students supported by industry or other means, and that other industry or external involvement includes offers of placements for research projects, of contributions to teaching and course modules; and of assistance in final examinations.

  The research councils are currently collecting more detailed information from the first year's intake by means of an "entry" questionnaire. Preliminary analysis will be available in the spring. The councils also plan to visit courses, and to collect further data using an "exit" questionnaire. I shall publish a more detailed report on overall experience with the first year of the pilot as soon as this is possible.

  The Economic and Social Research Council—ESRC—and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council—PPARC—are not involved directly in the pilot. The ESRC has very largely anticipated the research
  1262
  master's in the social sciences through its research training guidelines and course recognition procedures. There will, for example, be some 350 ESRC students on 135 master's courses with a recognised research weighting in 1995. The ESRC is asking students starting standard and research-weighted master's course to complete the "entry" questionnaire which is being used in the pilot. PPARC is monitoring the EPSRC's experience with the pilot, as well as the progress of recently introduced, four-year, first degrees–"MPhys" and "MSci".

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what decision has been reached on the financial control regime under which the National Weights and Measures Laboratory will operate. [7845]

  Mr. Lang
  Following endorsement by the Treasury, the National Weights and Measures Laboratory will begin operating on a net expenditure control basis from 1 April 1996. From this date I shall expect it to recover its costs in full from income from customers, including the DTI. I am confident that by moving to net control the agency will have the flexibility needed to develop its business further and to meet a wider range of customer needs.

  Patent Office
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many consultants were employed in each of the years 1993, 1994 and 1995 in the information technology section at the Patent Office; and what were the costs of employing them in each year. [6688]

  Mr Ian Taylor
  The Patent Office made no use of external consultants in the years 1993 and 1994 in the information technology section. In 1995 it employed Coopers and Lybrand at a total cost of £35,900 plus expenses. The Patent Office has also used a number of external IT experts for specialist work as particular needs arose.

  Shipbuilding
  Sir Giles Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the OECD agreement on shipbuilding. [7847]

  Mr. Eggar
  The signatory countries to the OECD agreement decided in Paris on 11 December to postpone the entry into force of the agreement from 1 January to 15 July 1996 at the latest. This was necessary to allow more time for the United States and Japan to complete their ratification of the agreement.

  The Community had already decided that, if the OECD agreement could not enter into force on 1 January 1996, it would extend its current regime for shipbuilding under the seventh directive for a further nine months until 30 September 1996 or until entry into force of the OECD agreement, if earlier. The current EC regime for shipbuilding under the seventh directive will therefore now continue on this basis in 1996.

  In the United Kingdom the home credit guarantee scheme will continue on its current basis until the OECD agreement enters into force in 1996. As we announced in

  1263
  March, the future of the scheme is under review and I will make a further announcement about the results of the review when this is completed.

  An announcement about shipbuilding intervention fund grants will be made early in 1996 once the Commission has decided the level of the EC subsidy ceiling.

  Arms Export Licences
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the procedures for(a) reviewing and (b) renewing arms export licences. [7063]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  All export licences for military equipment, both individual and open, are issued and, as appropriate, reviewed in accordance with United Kingdom Government policy and criteria, which are agreed with European partners and in other international forums.

  Ceramic Industry
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will visit Stoke on Trent to assess developments in the ceramic industry. [6938]

  Mr. Page
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to visit Stoke on Trent. I was pleased to note the recent publication of the interim report of the ceramic industry's tableware strategy group. This sets out for wider consultation a series of issues likely to affect this sector's global prospects in the long term. I welcome this initiative and hope that it will lead to an agreed agenda of competitiveness issues on which my Department can work with the industry.

  Redundancies
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 7 December,Official Report, column 338, what is the required run-down in staff numbers; and what posts he expects to lose at what grades within his Department. [6509]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: The Department's MINIS process is currently being used to seek savings in all areas of the Department's running costs. The balance between staff-related and other savings will not be clear until that process is completed. As in past years, the outcome of MINIS will be published and a copy placed in the Library of the House.

  Goods and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1994–95. [6495]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: My Department procured goods and services to the value of £311 million in financial year 1994–95.

  OECD Comparisons
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library figures for the United Kingdom's position relative to other OECD countries in terms of(a) gross domestic product growth, (b) the level of investment in the United Kingdom as a share of gross domestic product, (c) employment creation and (d) growth
  1264
  in exports between (i) the second quarter of 1979 and the latest figures available and (ii) the first quarter of 1974 and the second quarter of 1979. [7022]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: Details of the UK's position relative to other OECD countries are not readily available on a quarterly basis for the information requested.

  Trade Deficits
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in which years a deficit in invisible trade has been recorded since 1965; and what was the deficit. [7033]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: The information is published by the Central Statistical Office as table 1.16 of the "Economic Trends" annual supplement. The publication is available in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in which year since 1965 the highest deficit in real terms has been recorded in(a) visible trade and (b) the balance of payments current account. [7053]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: The visible trade deficit was equivalent to 6.2 per cent. of money GDP in 1974. The current account deficit was equivalent to 4.3 per cent. of GDP in 1989.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the manufacturing output change between the first quarter of 1974 and the second quarter of 1979(a) in total and (b) as annual growth. [7030]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: Manufacturing output rose by 2.9 per cent. between the first quarter of 1974 and the second quarter of 1979, an annual growth rate of 0.5 per cent. However, manufacturing output in these periods was affected by the miners' strike and the winter of discontent. Between the first half of 1974 and the first half of 1979, manufacturing output fell by 2.5 per cent. an annual rate of fall of 0.5 per cent.

  Manufacturing Trade
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the United Kingdom's percentage share of world trade in manufacturing goods for(a) the first quarter of 1974, (b) the second quarter of 1979 and (c) the present day. [7034]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: Information of the UK's percentage share of world trade is available only on a half-yearly basis.

  Nuclear Electric
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the reasons for the change from previous plans of £650 million in 1997–98 and £150 million in 1996–97 in the financial requirements of Nuclear Electric; [7035]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the financial requirements of Nuclear Electric in 1996–97 and 1997–98; [7037]
  1265
  (3) if he will make a statement on the effect the announcement of privatisation has had on Nuclear Electric's ability to contribute to the Exchequer. [7054]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: The financial requirements of Nuclear Electric in 1996–97 and 1997–98 are shown in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" for 1996–97. As outlined in the report, there will be a change in Nuclear Electric's external financing requirements following the privatisation of the company's advanced gas-cooled reactor and pressurised water reactor stations in 1996, which will leave only the magnox stations in the public sector. The change also includes revision of economic and other estimates such as electricity prices, station outputs, and cost savings, as in normal practice.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of building, designing and commissioning Sizewell B and the seven advanced gas-cooled reactors; and what are the expected receipts from the privatisation of Nuclear Electric. [7036]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: I refer the right hon. Member to the notes on tangible fixed assets on pages 55 and 65 of the report and accounts of Nuclear Electric 1994–95 and pages 49 and 56 of the report and accounts of Scottish Nuclear 1994–95, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  The receipts from the Government's planned privatisation of parts of the nuclear power industry will depend on a variety of factors, including market conditions at the time of the sale.

  Inflation
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the United Kingdom's position relative to OECD countries in respect of inflation. [7024]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: The information is published by the OECD in "Main Economic Indicators," which is available in the Library of the House.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if the Millennium Commission will take into account in deliberating on the content and siting of any millennium exhibition, the ability of the United Kingdom to provide suitable venues for sporting events and festivals of(a) international and (b) worldwide significance; [4614]

  (2) what guidelines (a) her Department and (b) the Millennium Commission, have issued for the inclusion of (1) covered and (2) open (i) arenas and (ii) stadiums to be provided in submitted plans of prospective operators of millennium exhibitions sites. [4615]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 11 December 1995]: This is a matter for the Millennium
  1266
  Commission. I shall write to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the Millennium Commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the Director General of the National Lottery visited Australia; who paid for the visit; how long was the visit; and what assessment he made as to the conformity of the visit with guidelines. [6684]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Office of the National Lottery is a non-ministerial Department and therefore responsible for implementing its own hospitality and travel arrangements, taking into account the principles and rules set out in the civil service management code. Oflot is under no obligation to clear with, or inform my department about, detailed arrangements. This is therefore a matter for the director general and I have asked him to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his response in the Libraries of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what occasions for each certificate under section 27 of the Data Protection Act 1984 was signed by a member of his Department what was the length of time for which the certificate was valid; and in what circumstances benefit records can be used for the purpose of safeguarding national security. [5304]

  Mr. Burt
  No such certificates have been issued by the Department of Social Security. It seems unlikely that benefit records would have any relevance to national security.

  We cannot deal in advance with the circumstances that might apply in the event of an application for a section 27 certificate being made.

  War Pension
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will now end the policy of counting the first £10 of a war pension received as a result of an injury sustained while fighting as income; and if he will make a statement. [4942]

  Mr. Heald
  The first £10 of a war disablement pension is disregarded in all income-related benefits. We have no plans to end this arrangement.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many discretionary payments under regulation 69(8) have been made; for what amounts; and what percentage this was of total housing benefit expenditure, in each year since 1991£92. [5055]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table.
  1267

  Housing benefit discretionary expenditure: Great Britain

  Year

  Discretionary payment expenditure £

  Percentage of total housing benefit expenditure

  1992–93

  740,000

  0.01

  1993–94

  960,000

  0.01

  1. Expenditure figures are final audited returns rounded to the nearest £10,000.

  2. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest hundredth of a per cent.

  3. Reliable data is not available for 1991–92.

  4. Detail of the numbers of discretionary payments made is not collected.

  Motability
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the extent to which Motability Finance Ltd., Motability Car Leasing, Motability Hire Purchase and Motability Quarter End Partnerships have used their tax capacity status for the sole and full benefit of disabled people in the scheme. [5137]

  Mr. Burt
  The Motability scheme has been structured to take advantage, whenever possible, of capital allowances against corporation tax to reduce the size of loans needed to finance the scheme. This is normal business practice and disabled people receive the benefit in the form of lower charges for obtaining personal transport.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the special privileges and protection from competition in respect of car leasing and hire purchase agreements enjoyed by Motability. [5089]

  Mr. Burt
  In general, the reliefs and benefits which underpin the Motability scheme apply equally to any suppliers whose predominant business is the supply of vehicles on lease or hire purchase to disabled people. There is one exception. Regulations provide for direct payment of a beneficiaries' qualifying benefit, in whole or in part, in support of an agreement through the Motability scheme. The Motability scheme has to compete for business in the normal way.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost to the national insurance fund of all current holders of an appropriate personal pension with an annual income of(a) £2,000 or below, (b) up to £3,000, (c) up to £4,000, (d) up to £5,000, (e) up to £6,000, (f) up to £7,000, (g) up to £8,000, (h) up to £9,000 and (i) up to £10,000, opting back in to SERPS in 1995–96 basing this estimate on the assumptions that (i) those contracting into SERPS continue within SERPS up to the year 2050 instead of being in an APP and (ii) future earnings remain the same in real terms. [5523]

  Mr. Heald
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is readily available is in the table, and is based on the following assumptions:

  (i) the year in which opting into SEEPS is assumed to take place is 1997–98;

  1268

  (ii) earnings have been assumed to increase with age and, in addition, by 1.5 per cent. above prices for each age level;

  (iii) not all earners have been assumed to work until they reach State pension age.

  Extra SERPS expenditure in selected years if APP holder in low earnings bands opt back into SERPS

  £ million 1995–96 prices

  Earnings band for opting back into SERPS

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  2040–41

  2050–51

  2,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,000

  0

  0

  0

  10

  10

  5,000

  0

  0

  20

  50

  50

  6,000

  0

  10

  40

  130

  120

  7,000

  1

  10

  80

  250

  240

  8,000

  1

  20

  130

  420

  400

  9,000

  2

  30

  200

  650

  610

  10,000

  3

  50

  300

  920

  860

  1. Little extra cost until 2010 as most APP holders are under age 45.

  2. Estimates of numbers affected based on data for 1993–94, the most recently available, used to estimate proportions of APP holders in respect of people in the earnings bands quoted.

  3. Earnings under £3,000 would not accrue SERPS so no financial effect in respect of that year.

  4. Earnings have been used, as a breakdown by income is not available.

  5. All expenditure of £10 million and above has been rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost to local authorities of the software and other administrative changes that will be necessitated by the provisions of the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996 in respect of payments four-weekly in arrears. [6131]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The estimated total gross administrative cost to local authorities arising from the introduction of new payment rules for housing and council tax benefit is some £3 million. However, there are offsetting savings for local authorities because we estimate that there will be a reduction in overpayments of benefit as a result of the changes. On-going costs after introduction are expected to be negligible although authorities will continue to benefit from savings arising from overpayments avoided.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the annual cost of reducing the housing benefit taper for those in work to (i) 60 per cent., (ii) 55 per cent., (iii) 50 per cent., (iv) 45 per cent., (v) 40 per cent., (vi) 35 per cent. and (vii) 30 per cent., and how many people would be entitled to housing benefit in each of these cases. [7185]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  Estimated cost of reducing the housing benefit taper for those in work

  Taper

  Net cost £ million

  Housing benefit caseload

  65 per cent.

  —

  4,875,000

  60 per cent.

  70

  4,895,000

  1269

  Estimated cost of reducing the housing benefit taper for those in work

  Taper

  Net cost £ million

  Housing benefit caseload

  55 per cent.

  160

  4,925,000

  50 per cent.

  265

  4,975,000

  45 per cent.

  390

  5,030,000

  40 per cent.

  545

  5,105,000

  35 per cent.

  740

  5,195,000

  30 per cent.

  980

  5,295,000

  Notes:

  Estimates based on the Family Expenditure Surveys of 1991, 1992 and 1993, uprated to 1996–97 prices and benefit levels.

  Estimates of costs are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Estimates of caseloads are rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  Figures may not sum exactly due to rounding.

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made based on assumptions used in "Equality in State Pension Age", Cm. 2420, of the amount of(a) basic retirement pension and (b) SERPS addition payable to someone newly retired in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 2025 and (iii) 2035, giving figures separately for men and women with a full contribution record and lifetime earnings equal to (1) average male or female earnings and (2) half of average male or female earnings, expressed in cash terms in April 1996 prices and as a percentage of average earnings in the relevant years. [6530]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.

  1996

  2025

  2035

  Basic retirement pension

  61.15

  61.15

  61.15

  Additional pension based on average earnings

  Male

  77.30

  99.60

  103.50

  Female

  47.70

  68.90

  79.60

  Additional pension based on half average earnings

  Male

  32.10

  43.90

  50.60

  Female

  17.30

  25.50

  31.70

  As percentage of average earnings

  Basic retirement pension

  Male

  15

  10

  9

  Female

  21

  14

  12

  Additional pension based on average earnings

  Male

  20

  16

  15

  Female

  17

  16

  15

  Additional pension based on half average earnings

  Male

  8

  7

  7

  Female

  6

  6

  6

  Notes:

  1. Estimated average earnings 1996–97 Males 397.44 Female 288.91

  2. Real earnings are assumed to increase by 1.5 per cent. a year.

  3. Estimates take Annualisation from 2000 and the equalisation of State pension age from 2020 into account.

  4. Amounts are expressed in 1996 prices. Estimates are rounded to nearest 10 pence. Percentages are rounded to nearest whole per cent.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many times since incapacity benefit began the adjudicating authorities have decided against the opinion of Benefits Agency medical services doctors in cases of(a) mental illness and (b) physical illness in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) Wales, and (iii) England. [6257]

  Mr. Burt
  Decisions on capacity are taken by independent adjudication officers who are required to take account of all relevant evidence, including medical advice from a Benefits Agency doctor. Information on the extent to which the decisions of adjudication officers concur with medical advice is not available.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list be each independent tribunal service region-area the total number of industrial disease mucous membrane medical appeal tribunal appeal hearings held each month since January 1994 giving (i) the number of successful awards and the average percentage of disability awarded and (ii) the number of percentage of (1) successful cases and; (2) unsuccessful cases conducted with(a) a claimant's representative present and (b) no claimant's representative present. [6323]

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

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research his Department has undertaken to assess differences in social security appeal tribunal, MAT and disability appeal tribunal appeal outcomes for claimants with or without representation at the appeal hearing. [6322]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No research has been undertaken by this Department specifically on this subject.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the annual cost of introducing a maintenance disregard for lone parents on income support of (i) £10, (ii) £15, (iii) £20; and how many lone parents would receive maintenance in each case. [7180]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  It is estimated that by 1998–99 the annual cost of a £10 maintenance disregard would be around £110 million; the cost of a £15 disregard would be around £140 million; and the cost of a £20 disregard would be around £170 million. Actual costs would depend on the exact level and pattern of compliance among absent parents. It is estimated that around 300,000 lone parents on income support will be in receipt of maintenance by 1998–99. In the long run, as the number of lone parents with a child support maintenance assessment increases, the annual cost of maintenance disregard is likely to double.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the annual cost of disregarding child care costs for lone parents on income support. [7182]
  1271
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not available.

  Income Support
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate what the earnings disregard for income support claimants would now be if it had been uprated since 1975 under supplementary benefit; and what the costs to public funds would have been of that uprating. [7184]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The earnings disregards until November 1975 were £1 a week for those required to register for work and £2 for all other claimants. Those disregards uprated in line with the Rossi index1 would now be £4.45 and £8.65 respectively. It is not possible to make a meaningful estimate of the current costs of such an uprating because the structure and rules of earnings disregards changed with the introduction of income support in 1988.

  The current standard disregard is £5 a week but a higher £15 disregard is available to lone parents, people entitled to the disability premium, couples aged under 60 who have been receiving income support continuously for two years or more, members of certain specialist forces—for example, part-time firefighters—and carers entitled to the carer premium.
  Note:1Rossi is the CSO retail prices index minus adjustments for housing expenditure. Rossi is the price index used for uprating most income support allowances.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of providing free school meals for children living in families receiving family credit. [7186]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  About £130 million a year.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the annual cost of increasing the maintenance disregard for lone parents in receipt of family credit by (i) £20, (ii) £25, (iii) £30 and how many lone parents would receive maintenance in each case. [7181]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  Estimated cost of increasing the maintenance disregard in family credit for lone parents 1996–97

  Maintenance disregard increased to£

  Additional net benefit costs £ million

  20

  5

  25

  10

  30

  15

  35

  20

  Estimates are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  It is estimated that around 90,000 lone parents receive maintenance in each case.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the annual cost of reducing the family credit taper for those in work to (i) 65 per cent., (ii) 60 per cent., (iii) 55 per cent. and 1272
  iv) 50 per cent.; and how many people would be entitled to family credit in each of these cases. [7198]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  Estimated cost of reducing the family credit taper: 1996–97

  Taper

  Family credit £ million

  Housing benefit £ million

  Council tax benefit £ million

  Net cost £ million

  Family credit estimated caseload

  70 per cent.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  680,000

  65 per cent.

  120

  –15

  1—

  105

  700,000

  60 per cent.

  260

  –25

  –5

  230

  755,000

  55 per cent.

  435

  –40

  –5

  390

  820,000

  50 per cent.

  645

  –50

  –10

  585

  900,000

  Estimates based on the Family Expenditure Surveys of 1991, 1992 and 1993, uprated to 1996–97 prices and benefit levels.

  Estimates of costs are rounded to the nearest £5 million. Estimates of caseloads are rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  Figures may not sum exactly due to rounding.

  1Indicates less than £2.5 million.

  Voluntary Unemployment Deduction
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people received a voluntary unemployment deduction, grouped by the reason for the deduction, on the latest date for which figures are available. [7188]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Based on a 5 per cent. sample taken in February 1995, 33,000 people1 were receiving income support with a voluntary unemployment deduction.2 The precise reason for the deduction in these cases is not known. However information as to the numbers and types of adjudication officer decisions taken in relation to voluntary unemployment is routinely kept and produced as the analysis of adjudication officers' decisions, copies of which are available in the Library.
  1Figures rounded to the nearest thousand.2Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry February 1995.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the annual cost of reducing the council tax benefit taper for those in paid work to (i) 15 per cent. and (ii) 10 per cent.; and how many people would be entitled to benefit in each of these cases. [7179]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  Estimated cost of reducing the council tax benefit taper for those in work

  Taper

  Net cost £ million

  Council tax benefit caseload

  20 per cent.

  —

  5,620,000

  15 per cent.

  40

  5,675,000

  10 per cent.

  120

  5,870,000

  Estimates based on the Family Expenditure Surveys of 1991, 1992 and 1993, uprated to 1996–97 prices and benefit levels.

  Estimates of costs are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Estimates of caseloads are rounded to the nearest 5.000.

  Figures may not sum exactly due to rounding.

  Earnings Disregard
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of increasing the earning disregard for income support claimants by (i)£5, (ii)£10 and (iii) £15 a week. [7183]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table:

  Increase in disregard £

  Cost £ million

  5

  35

  10

  65

  15

  100

  1. Modelled on the 1991, 1992 and 1993 Family Expenditure Surveys and the 1994 Quarterly Statistical Enquiry uprated to 1995–96 prices, benefits and earnings levels.

  2. Costs include the increased costs of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit due to increased entitlement to these benefits.

  3. It has been assumed that both the head and the spouse of a couple each gain by the increases in the earnings disregards.

  4. It has been assumed that no behavioural changes take place.

  Benefit Savings
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each local authority in England which achieved(a) less than 50 per cent. and (b) between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. of its target level of weekly benefit savings resulting from the detection of housing benefit fraud in the last available year; and if he will list the actual percentage achieved by each local authority which achieved less than 50 per cent. of its target. [7147]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information for the latest available year, 1994–95, is set out in the table.

  Local authority

  Percentage of weekly benefit savings threshold achieved

  Between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. of threshold achieved

  Chiltern

  58

  Blyth Valley

  58

  Tower Hamlets

  57

  Bromley

  56

  Thamesdown

  53

  North Wiltshire

  53

  Coventry

  52

  Sutton

  51

  Colchester

  51

  Wirral

  51

  Kirklees

  50

  Kingston Upon Hull

  50

  Bexley

  50

  Less than 50 per cent. of threshold achieved

  Hart

  45

  Sedgefield

  38

  Knowsley

  30

  Rutland

  27

  Wansbeck

  24

  1274

  Local authority

  Percentage of weekly benefit savings threshold achieved

  Nuneaton

  20

  Congleton

  18

  North-West Leicester

  8

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  South Bedfordshire

  0

  Teesdale

  0

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide revenue forecasts for the current year and the next five years of expenditure on schemes provided under the PFI. [5734]

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: Revenue costs from public funds will not arise until 1997 when the first of our PFI systems has been developed and successfully delivered. Estimated revenue costs are subject to continuing negotiation and are commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown of administration costs incurred to date and forecast for the future on PFI work. [5733]

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The administrative costs incurred in the DSS in 1994–95 on PFI work are estimated at around £2 million. The estimated costs for 1995–96 are £8 million. It is not possible to forecast, with confidence, future administrative costs associated with PFI work.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide for schemes so far agreed under the PFI the level of financing costs above the current cost of Government borrowing for the scheme with(a) the highest financing costs and (b) the lowest costs. [5735]

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: The information is not available in the format requested. It is a fundamental principle when considering schemes under the private finance initiative that what is assessed is the overall best value for money in providing a specified service, taking into account all aspects of design, building, finance and operation as a unified whole.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what technical difficulties the Child Support Agency has encountered in meeting requests for subject access under the Data Protection Act 1984; what investigations were instigated in respect of those difficulties; and what steps he has taken to ensure that future software procurement programmes will include, as part of their design criteria, routines which support the rights of data subjects under the Data Protection Act 1984. [5301]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.
  1275
  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 19 December 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary for Social Security about the Data Protection Act 1984.Prior to August 1995 the Agency experienced some difficulties in providing information from the Child Support Computer System to the public in a clear and understandable format.System enhancements introduced during August this year have eradicated the major technical difficulty which meant that explanations and other actions had to be undertaken clerically before personal information held on the Child Support Computer System could be issued.The latest information that I can give you is that in over 90 per cent. of cases the Agency is answering requests for information within 40 days as required by the Data Protection Act 1984.The Child Support Agency is registered with the Data Protection Registrar's Office in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984. Any future software procurement programmes will take full account of its requirements.I hope this is helpful.
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his answer of 23 November,Official Report, column 231, regarding savings achieved by the Child Support Agency, to the same format as his answer of 19 July, Official Report, column 1499, to provide a full breakdown of the maintenance contributing to benefit savings from (a) pre-CSA arrangements paid direct by absent parent to parent with care, (b) pre-CSA arrangements paid through the agency collection service, (c) CSA assessments and paid direct by absent parent to parent with care and (d) CSA assessments and paid via the agency collection service. [5651]

  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 Miss Ann Chant to Mr. John Greenway, dated 19 December 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about benefit savings.You asked for an answer given on 23 November 1995 to be updated to provide a breakdown of maintenance contributing to benefit savings between that arising from pre CSA assessments and that arising from CSA assessments.The Child Support Agency is responsible for recording all Social Security benefit savings arising as a result of action taken to arrange maintenance. During the first two years we sought to estimate a breakdown between pre and post CSA maintenance. This was appropriate as, like any new organisation, the Agency wished to monitor its progress.As an ever increasing proportion of all the maintenance paid has now been arranged by the Agency, producing estimates between "old" and "new" money would no longer be either valid or useful; the Agency no longer has a business need to try to divide maintenance paid in this way. I cannot therefore provide the data you ask for.

  Day Centres (Homeless People)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many day centres for the homeless have received funding from his Department in the last 12 months. [7216]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.
  1276
  My Department does not fund the capital costs or the overall running costs of day centres for homeless people, but 21 day centres have received grant under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 which is paid to voluntary sector organisations for specific projects to prevent and relieve homelessness.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many day centres for homeless people there are in the United Kingdom. [7217]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not held by my Department.

SCOTLAND

  National Lottery
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of benefits to Scotland from the national lottery. [5211]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scotland is doing extremely well from the national lottery. To date, over 560 awards have been made, totalling around £125 million.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the meeting of the hon. Member for Linlithgow with the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General concerning the request for a trial in The Hague, under Scottish rules of evidence, and under a Scottish judge, of the two Libyans accused of bombing Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, what approach the Lord Advocate has made to lawyers in Germany and the United States, and Scots lawyers representing the accused Libyans. [5214]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the percentage change in aggregate external finance to local authorities between 1995–96 and 1996–97 in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms. [5216]

  Mr. Kynoch
  It is plus 2.6 per cent.; and minus 0.1 per cent.

  Failing Schools
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what policies he is pursuing to deal with failing schools in Scotland. [5217]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Examples of the policies we are following to raise standards and improve quality include:
  inspection by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools with appropriate and systematic follow up the requirement on all schools to draw up school development plans, and the publication of extensive information for parents on schools' performance.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve quality and choice in nursery education. [5218]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  We plan to run the pilot phase of our pre-school education voucher initiative from August 1996. We intend to ensure that this initiative delivers high-quality provision and parental choice.

  Ministers' Constituencies
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance is given to Ministers in his Department in respect of their treatment of their own constituencies. [5219]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Guidance is contained in the Cabinet Office booklet "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", a copy of which is available in the House Library.

  Forfar Bypass
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the Kirriemuir and Glamis junctions on the Forfar bypass. [5221]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office has recently received three representations about the Kirriemuir and Glamis junction on the Forfar bypass, including one from my hon. Friend. As a result of the representations, a package of measures to address road safety will be introduced at the junctions early in the new year.

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet representatives of private nursing homes in Scotland to discuss the powers of health boards in respect of registration and inspection; and if he will make a statement. [5223]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has agreed to meet nursing home proprietors in Tayside to discuss community care issues. The date has yet to be arranged.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are homeless or living in overcrowded or substandard accommodation in Scotland. [5224]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Information on the number of people homeless at any one time is not available. During the financial year 1993–94—the latest year for which figures are available—a total of 23,000 households containing 40,800 people in Scotland were assessed as homeless by local authorities.

  At the time of the 1991 census of population, 213,900 people in Scotland were in accommodation which fell below the occupancy norm used in the census. This represents a very substantial reduction on the 1981 figure of 698,000.
  1278
  It is estimated from the Scottish house condition survey that in 1991 some 217,000 people were living in dwellings which fell below the tolerable standard.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the practicalities of a different rate of income tax for Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [5225]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As I carry out my duties in Scotland I am constantly being made aware of the deep anxiety felt by all sections of the community on the implications of the "tartan tax".

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he is making towards the eradication of bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement. [5226]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Very good progress is being made towards the eradication of BSE in cattle in Scotland. In 1988 we identified the reason for the sudden outbreak of the disease and took early action to eradicate that cause by banning the use of animal protein in cattle feed. Further control measures have been taken in the light of advice from our independent scientific advisers.

  The success of that action is demonstrated by the continuing downward trend of cases which are now at their lowest level for five years. Out of a total number of cattle of over 2 million, the number of confirmed cases of BSE in Scotland in 1995 is expected to be around 600, which is some 27 per cent. of the 1993 level.

  Our preventive measures are recognised as being safe and effective by independent experts in the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, the chief medical officers and international bodies including the World Health Organisation.

  Scottish Constitution
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received(a) seeking and (b) opposing independence for Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [5227]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the past six months I have received 44 representations on constitutional issues of which 37 favoured Scotland remaining within the United Kingdom. Of the remainder, two argued the case for an independent Scotland, and five for a multi-option referendum on Scotland's constitutional future.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future relationship of the Government of the United Kingdom with the Scottish people. [5228]

  Mr. Forsyth
  The vast majority of Scots remain convinced that Scotland's best future lies within the United Kingdom. The Government agree with that view.

  European Regional Fund
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total value of grants that Scotland
  1279
  has received from the European regional fund since the fund's inception. [5230]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Since the inception of the European regional development fund in 1975, Scotland has received awards totalling almost £1.5 billion. The Government place great emphasis on ensuring value for money from these receipts, particularly as the UK is a net contributor to the European Community budget. To ensure transparency of these receipts in the UK's public expenditure system it was announced in the House on 17 February 1992 that the Government would provide automatic cover for, and identify separately, all forecast ERDF receipts.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what crime prevention measures he intends introducing for Scotland. [5231]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On 11 December, my right hon. Friend announced plans for the deployment of 500 additional operational police officers, backed up by improved technology, which we expect will help to prevent crime. I announced, on 13 December, a £4 million CCTV challenge competition for Scotland to help fund more CCTV schemes, which have a clear effect on preventing crime. The Scottish Crime Prevention Council will continue its programme of crime prevention measures, which have achieved much since the council was set up in 1992. My right hon. Friend and I welcome the fact that recorded crime is falling—7 per cent. in the first six months of 1995, following reductions in the three previous years—and further reduction remains a major concern of the Government.

  Gaelic
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the European Commission has taken to promote the speaking of Gaelic in Scotland. [5233]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  This information is not held by the Scottish Office. We do, however, have details of EU structural funding of a number of projects which contribute to the promotion of Gaelic.

  Monklands District Council
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects Mr. Nimmo Smith QC to complete his inquiry into the employment practices of Monklands district council. [8018]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Mr. Nimmo Smith delivered his report to me on the afternoon of 15 December. I told him that I would advise the House of the completion of his inquiry and the submission of his report. I have now read the report, which is lengthy, and I am placing copies in the House Library today.

  Mr. Nimmo Smith's report concludes that Monklands district council has not failed to comply with the requirements of section 7 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. No further action is therefore required by me. I would like to place on record my thanks to him for the speed with which he has conducted his inquiry.

  Crime
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is pursuing to reduce crime.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend and I expect that further reductions in crime will be achieved by the deployment of the extra 500 operational police officers, backed up by improved technology, which he announced to the Scottish Grand Committee on 11 December. I announced, on 13 December, a £4 million CCTV challenge competition for Scotland to help fund more CCTV schemes, which have a clear effect on reducing crime. The Scottish Crime Prevention Council will continue its programme of crime prevention measures, which have achieved much since the council was set up in 1992. My right hon. Friend and I welcome the fact that recorded crime is falling—7 per cent. in the first six months of 1995, following reductions in the three previous years—and further reduction remains a major concern of the Government.

  Highlands and Islands
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the economic prospects of the highlands and islands. [5234]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The highlands and islands area continues to benefit from the Government's careful economic policies. These have helped to reduce unemployment in the highland and islands area by 1,940 between November 1994 and November 1995 and have encouraged new enterprise. Highlands and Islands Enterprise continues to promote economic development and it is estimated that in 1995–96 HIE will have invested some £20 million in highland businesses, attracting around £64 million in private investment and creating or securing 3,000 jobs.

  Field Cropping Forms
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many forms MCAP009.114 his Department received and processed in each of the past four years; [2334]

  (2) if the information on form MCAP009.119 is held in computer form; what categories of analysis are used; if the information is held centrally; and if the method of information processing is standard for each area. [2336]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The forms referred to are the covering letter requesting details of a farmer's field by field cropping for the period 1982 to 1991 and the blank cropping record itself. These forms are issued to farmers by the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department in order that the eligibility of individual fields for aid under the arable area payments scheme can be determined.

  The information is held locally in the Department's area offices and is not held on computer. The forms are analysed to ensure that individual fields meet the strict EC rules covering the eligibility of land for AAPS aid. Aid can be paid only on land which on 31 December 1991 was not in permanent grass, permanent crops, woodland or non-agricultural use. The process of analysis is standard throughout Scotland.
  1281
  Information on the number of forms received and processed could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [5980]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: Information is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department's policy is to canvass relevant views of the public wherever this is appropriate and cost-effective, and to make responses widely available subject to any essential safeguards of confidentiality.

  Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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 1995–96 based on expenditure to date and existing plans. [6558]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Press advertising expenditure by Scottish Office departments was as follows:

  Newspaper

  £

  1992–93

  The Sun (Scotland)

  3,404

  Daily Record

  11,300

  News of the World (Scotland)

  630

  Sunday Mail

  10,989

  Sunday Post

  11,424

  Edinburgh Herald and Post

  828

  The Glaswegian

  1,080

  The Strathclyder

  1,275

  1993–94

  The Sun (Scotland)

  16,680

  Aberdeen Evening Express

  1,435

  Aberdeen Press and Journal

  13,658

  Daily Record

  58,712

  Dundee Courier

  11,849

  Dundee Evening Telegraph

  1,150

  The Scotsman

  16,219

  Edinburgh Evening News

  1,284

  Edinburgh Herald and Post

  1,526

  The Herald

  22,428

  Glasgow Evening Times

  5,544

  Scotland on Sunday

  5,522

  News of the World (Scotland)

  2,376

  Sunday Express

  840

  Sunday Mail

  46,334

  Sunday Post

  50,157

  Sunday Times (Scotland)

  360

  1282

  Newspaper

  £

  Scottish Daily Express

  420

  Greenock Telegraph

  743

  Helensburgh Advertiser

  297

  Scottish and Universal Lanarkshire Package

  3,324

  Scottish and Universal Paisley Package

  1,281

  Scottish and Universal West Lothian Package

  1,423

  Scottish and Universal Ayrshire Package

  2,287

  Arbroath Herald

  610

  Buchan Observer

  554

  The Glaswegian

  950

  North Clyde Series

  835

  Dunfermline Press

  1,032

  Falkirk Herald

  815

  Fife Free Press Group

  2,615

  Fife Leader

  643

  Guthrie Newspaper Group

  1,937

  Scottish Provincial Press

  5,029

  Lennox Herald

  559

  Motherwell Times Series

  471

  Oban Times

  438

  Orcadian

  277

  Paisley and Renfrew Gazette Series

  1,203

  Perthshire Advertiser

  529

  Scottish County Press Group

  1,159

  Stirling Observer

  844

  Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser

  1,347

  Airdrie and Coatbridge World

  147

  The Strathclyder

  2,500

  Cumbernauld News and Advertiser

  393

  East Kilbride News

  525

  Glenrothes Gazette

  213

  Irvine Times

  484

  Lothian Courier

  690

  1994–95

  Scottish Daily Express

  1,731

  The Sun (Scotland)

  10,258

  News of the World (Scotland)

  4,126

  Daily Record

  49,040

  Aberdeen Evening Express

  6,600

  Aberdeen Press and Journal

  8,426

  Dundee Courier

  6,928

  Dundee Evening Telegraph

  2,299

  The Scotsman

  11,565

  Scotland on Sunday

  11,614

  Edinburgh Evening News

  6,678

  The Herald

  12,306

  Glasgow Evening Times

  10,842

  Sunday Mail

  45,795

  Sunday Post

  49,306

  Sunday Times (Scotland)

  6,880

  Oban Times

  335

  Orcadian

  498

  Shetland Times

  445

  Stornoway Gazette and Westcoast Advertiser

  1,001

  Tweeddale Press Group

  2,065

  Greenock Telegraph

  780

  Scottish and Universal Lanarkshire Package

  3,168

  Scottish and Universal West Lothian Package

  1,388

  Scottish and Universal Dumfries and Galloway Package

  851

  Scottish and Universal Ayrshire Package

  2,059

  Arbroath Herald

  652

  Buchan Observer

  519

  Dunfermline Press

  990

  Edinburgh Herald and Post

  1,568

  Falkirk Herald

  883

  Fife Free Press Group

  1,635

  The Glaswegian

  2,786

  Guthrie Newspaper Group

  2,208

  Scottish Provincial Press

  2,577

  Lennox Herald

  540

  Linlithgow Journal and Gazette

  216

  Northern Scot Series

  826

  1283

  Newspaper

  £

  Paisley and Renfrew Gazette Series

  1,161

  Perthshire Advertiser

  554

  Scottish County Press Group

  1,176

  Stirling Observer

  811

  The Strathclyder

  2,500

  Highland News Group

  618

  Galloway Gazette and Stranraer News

  157

  1995–961

  Scottish Daily Mail

  240

  Scottish Daily Express

  1,224

  The Sun (Scotland)

  3,792

  Aberdeen Press and Journal

  5,264

  Daily Record

  15,776

  Dundee Courier

  3,685

  The Scotsman

  5,600

  Scotland on Sunday

  2,786

  The Herald

  7,719

  Sunday Mail

  7,423

  Sunday Post

  7,423

  The Times Education Supplement

  1,174

  1Expenditure to date.

  There are no current plans for further press campaigns in this financial year. Details for previous years are not held centrally.

  Expenditure by my agencies was:

  Historic Scotland

  £

  1994–95

  Daily Mirror

  360

  Glasgow Evening Times

  296

  The Herald

  1,388

  The Scotsman

  1,286

  Figures for previous years could be provided only at disproportionate costs. Historic Scotland has no plans for press advertising in 1995–96.

  Details of press advertising by non-departmental public bodies are not held centrally.

  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
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: 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.

  Mr. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the current membership of the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board. [6292]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: The current membership is:

  Professor Philip Love CBE (Chairman)

  Ian Buchanan Esq

  R. Gavin Burnett Esq

  John Murray Esq

  Mrs. Joyce Simpson

  1284

  Hugh Torrance Esq

  Duncan White Esq OBE.

  Mr. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the annual costs to public funds of the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board since the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provision) (Scotland) Bill 1990 received Royal Assent; and what is his assessment of such costs in the future. [6293]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: The Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board was established in June 1991 and the costs to public funds are as follows:

  1991–92: 113,756

  1992–93: 108,796

  1993–94: 31,093

  1994–95: 26,299

  1995–96: 10,000.

  The costs for 1996–97 are estimated to be £100,000. In future years costs will depend on the volume of business. The board is expected to become self-financing in due course.

  Mr. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if practitioners under the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board will be required to subscribe financially to a guarantee fund at their own expense; [6294]

  (2) if practitioners under the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board will be required to take out professional indemnity insurance at their own expense. [6295]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: Yes.

  Scottish National Heritage
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the budget for Scottish Natural Heritage for the financial years(a) 1994–95 (b) 1995–96 (c) 1996–97 (d) 1997–98. [7205]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: The information is set out:
  £ million

  1994–95: £39.9

  1995–96: £40.3

  1996–97: £36.0.

  The budget for 1997–98 has not yet been decided. SNH has, however, been given a planning figure of £36.2 million for each of the years 1997–98 and 1998–99. These figures will be reviewed in the context of the Government's annual public expenditure survey and are subject to possible change in light of survey decisions.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what surveys he has conducted into the popularity of the bridge to Skye among local residents. [5213]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Highland regional council conducted a survey among local residents in 1986 in which 70 per cent. of respondents supported the idea
  1285
  of a bridge replacing the ferries. Earlier this year, and prior to the bridge opening, further research was carried out on behalf of the Scottish Office by PA Cambridge Economic Consultants in liaison with the Transport Research Laboratory as part of a longer-term study of the impacts of the bridge. That work indicated varying perceptions of the bridge. Visitors to the area think the bridge will be of more benefit to residents of the area whereas residents of the area consider it likely to be more benefit to visitors. There have been no surveys since the bridge opened on 16 October.

  Scottish Assembly
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received in favour of a tax-raising Scottish Assembly. [5229]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the past six months, I have received 16 representations in favour of a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers.

  Balmoral Estate
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the contents of the memorandum of understanding relating to Scottish Natural Heritage in respect of the Balmoral estate; and if he will indicate the terms of the financial agreement. [5495]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The memorandum of understanding between Balmoral Estates and the former Nature Conservancy Council was drawn up in 1991. It is designed to cover the management of areas of special conservation interest on the Balmoral and Birkhall estates, bearing in mind that the statutory procedures for the notification of sites of special scientific interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 do not apply to Her Majesty's private estates in Scotland.

  The provisions of the memorandum include measures for the identification of important sites, the formulation of management plans, dialogue on operations which might harm their special interest and steps which might be taken to enhance the interest.

  There is no financial agreement within the terms of the memorandum. It does, however, contain provision for financial terms to be included within any voluntary agreement made in pursuance of the management plans for the site. To date, no such agreements have been entered into.

  Forth Boad Bridge
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Forth road bridge was last painted; how many people were involved; what was the cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [5496]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Forth road bridge is the responsibility of the Forth road bridge joint board, a statutory body made up of members from Lothian regional council and Fife regional council. However, I understand from the joint board that painting of the Forth road bridge is a continuous process carried out in an eight-year cycle. Some 17 people are involved in painting the bridge, and these include both permanent and seasonal 1286
  workers. In common with other expenditure on the bridge the costs are met from toll revenue. No public funds are used.

  Kincardine Bridge
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if specific funding has been allocated for the replacement of the Kincardine bridge, the building of a bypass and an improved West Fife road network; [6724]

  (2) what is the timetable for (a) the replacement of the Kincardine bridge, (b) the construction of a bypass and (c) the improvement of the West Fife road network; [6834]

  (3) what plans he has for public consultation on all the options outlined by consultants for routes for a replacement Kincardine bridge and bypass; [6835]

  (4) what is his preferred option for the replacement of the Kincardine bridge and bypass;[6836]

  (5) when construction will begin on (a) the replacement of the Kincardine bridge and (b) the bypass; [6837]

  (6) if he will make a statement on the funding of the Kincardine bridge and bypass. [6931]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend will be holding public consultation early in the new year on the conclusions drawn from studies of the various options at Kincardine. These studies consider the requirements of the crossing and the bypassing of Kincardine village. This will include a public exhibition in Alloa and Kincardine. A number of routes will be exhibited and information will be displayed setting out their relative merits. This will enable the options to be fully examined by the public, and individuals and local interests will be invited to give their views. At this stage my right hon. Friend has not come to any decision on the option which best meets local and national needs and careful account will be taken of all the views expressed.

  When the responses to the consultation have been considered, further detailed studies will be undertaken on the preferred option to allow the preparation and publication of draft statutory orders. Subject to those responses and the progress made on that work publication is unlikely to be before mid-1997. No date is fixed for construction, and the further progress of the scheme will be dependent on the reaction of the public to the published orders and on the availability of finance in the light of other competing priorities.

  The viability of an improved road between Kincardine and the M90, the West Fife regional road, has been examined as part of the Kincardine studies. However the Government's present view is that such a road could be provided only in the longer term.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the United Kingdom's resources of water for domestic and individual supply is located in Scotland. [7269]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Some 12.4 per cent. of the public water resources available for domestic and industrial purposes are located in Scotland.

  Negative Equity
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the percentage of home buyers in each of the past five years experiencing negative equity in Scotland. [7248]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  This information is not held centrally.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was spent in Scotland in(a) set-aside payments under the arable area scheme and (b) total arable area payments in 1994–95. [7192]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Payments which have been made to farmers in Scotland under the 1994 arable area payments scheme are as follows:

  (a) Set-Aside: £22,834,883.66

  (b) Total AAPS Payments: £115,992,045.88.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money is forecast to be spent in Scotland in(a) set-aside payments under the arable area scheme and (b) total arable area payments in 1995–96. [7193]

  Mr. Robertson
  Forecast payments which will be made to farmers in Scotland under the 1995 arable area payments scheme are as follows:

  (a) Set-Aside: £23,572,834

  (b) Total AAPS Payments: £151,892,010.

  Fisheries (Expenditure)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the level of structural support expenditure on fisheries in Scotland from(a) the United Kingdom Government and (b) European Community funds has been in each of the past three years; what is the projected expenditure in each of the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [7286]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The table shows support to the Scottish fishing industry from(a) UK Government public aid sources and (b) EC funds paid in the last three years and forecast for the next three years.

  (a) UK Government public aid sources £

  (b) EC funds £

  1992–93

  8,024,582

  2,112,221

  1993–94

  11,140,188

  5,915,329

  1994–95

  9,654,932

  5,887,707

  1995–96

  13,844,000

  8,500,000

  1996–97

  18,420,000

  13,420,000

  1997–98

  17,250,000

  13,750,000

  1 Does not include decommissioning—forecast not available.

  Radiation Discharge Levels
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what increase the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has petitioned Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate to authorise regarding emissions of(a) alpha particles, (b) caesium 137, (c) plutonium and (d) iodine. [7288]
  1288
  Mr. Kynoch
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has not applied to HMIPI for any increase in discharge limits for releases to the sea for alpha-emitting radionuclides, caesium 137, any isotope of plutonium, or any isotope of iodine. For releases to air, the UKAEA has not sought any increase for alpha-emitting radionuclides or iodine 129. However, the UKAEA has sought an increase in the discharge limit for caesium 137 from seven to 10 gigabecquerels, an increase in the limit for iodine 131 from 3 to 14 gigabecquerels and an increase in the limit for plutonium 241 from 5 to 5.5 gigabecquerels.

  Dounreay
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what quantity of(a) alpha particles, (b) caesium 137, (c) plutonium and (d) iodine the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is authorised to discharge into the air and sea at the Dounreay facility each year; [7287]

  (2) what amount of alpha radiation Dounreay normally is allowed to release into the atmosphere in the form of particles of plutonium 239. [7278]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is authorised to dispose of radioactive waste to air and sea by two separate authorisations which set limits on the quantity of radionuclides or groups of radionuclides which may be discharged by a variety of routes. Full details of these authorisations are given in the published Scottish Office statistical bulletin—Env/1995/3—entitled "Radioactive Waste Disposals From Nuclear Sites in Scotland: 1990 to 1994" and a copy of the bulletin is available from the Library of the House. The following limits apply specifically to alpha emitting radionuclides, caesium 137, plutonium 241 and iodine 131.

  Discharges to sea

  Alpha emitting radionuclides (excluding curium 242)

  0.75 Terabecquerels per annum

  Caesium 137

  50 Terabecquerels per annum

  Plutonium 241

  15 Terabecquerels per annum

  Curium 242

  1 Terabecquerel per annum

  Discharges to air. from the Fuel Cycle Area

  Alpha emitting radionuclides (including plutonium 239 but excluding curium 242 and 244)

  1 Gigabecquerel per annum

  Caesium 137

  7 Gigabecquerels per annum

  Plutonium 241

  5 Gigabecquerels per annum

  Iodine 129

  4 Gigabecquerels per annum

  Iodine 131

  3 Gigabecquerels per annum

  Curium 242

  1 Gigabecquerel per annum

  Curium 244

  0.1 Gigabecquerel per annum

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what inquiries he has undertaken into the hazards of radioactive elements discharged from the Dounreay facility into the sea and atmosphere. [7251]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Extensive monitoring of the environment around Dounreay is carried out by both the site operator and Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate. The results of this monitoring are published and copies of the
  1289
  Scottish Office bulletin "Environmental Monitoring for Radioactivity in Scotland" and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's publication on "Radioactive Waste Discharges from UKAEA Establishments" are available in the Library of the House. The published results demonstrate that doses to the public as a result of discharges from Dounreay are small and well within internationally agreed limits.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what monitoring of the area around Dounreay, including Orkney coastal areas, is taking place to ascertain where plutonium particles accidentally discharged on 11 February of the current year were deposited. [7259]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The unplanned discharge of plutonium particulate material from the Dounreay site which occurred on 11 February was small when compared with the authorised discharge limits. These limits are set to ensure that the dose to the most exposed group in the population is extremely low and well within internationally agreed limits. The very extensive environmental monitoring programme in place around Dounreay is adequate to provide information on this and other discharges from the site. Information on this environmental monitoring programme is contained in the Scottish Office statistical bulletin "Environmental Monitoring for Radioactivity in Scotland" and a copy of this bulletin is in the Library of the House.

  Food Exports
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of Scottish exports are in the food sector, and what action he is taking to promote the Scottish food sector in international markets. [7268]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  In 1994, the Scottish food and drink processing industry, excluding whisky, accounted for 3 per cent. of Scottish manufacturing exports.

  There is a wide range of current initiatives to assist the promotion and marketing of the Scottish food industry in overseas markets. These are either done directly through the Scottish Office or through its economic development agencies Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and their network of local enterprise companies. In addition to this purely Scottish effort, Food From Britain has a United Kingdom remit to assist British food and drink companies in export markets and to promote British food and drink products.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures and what resources are available to his Department for the promotion of inward investment. [5208]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Inward investment in Scotland is promoted by Locate in Scotland, which employs around 95 staff worldwide and has a budget of £8.9 million in the current year. Locate in Scotland also draws heavily on partnership arrangements with other bodies to assist it in its task.

  The measures available to support inward investment are those available to support economic development generally, including, in particular, the regional selective assistance scheme.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what major investments have been made by overseas companies in Scotland's economy over the last 12 months. [5212]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Our continuing success in attracting inward investment to Scotland includes major announcements during the past 12 months by Chungwa Picture Tubes, Shin-Etsu Handotai, Lexmark, MIC Textiles, Selfcare International, Canon, Motorola and IBM, among others.

  Community Care
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the community care arrangements in Scotland. [5210]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Local authorities, health boards and housing agencies are together making considerable progress towards ensuring that vulnerable people receive effective community care services.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any items accepted in lieu of inheritance tax have been allocated in Scotland since he last made an announcement. [7808]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am pleased to announce that I am allocating three paintings—"A Village Wedding" by Jan Steen, "The Castle of Bentheim from below" by Jacob van Ruisdael and "The Bird Trap" by Nicholas Berchem—to the Royal Scottish Academy on permanent loan. The paintings have been accepted in lieu of tax arising from the death of Mrs. E. S. Borthwick-Norton.

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 Winston
Robert Maurice Lipson Winston, Esquire, having been created Baron Winston, of Hammersmith in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Blackstone and the Lord Carter.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
William John Lawrence Wallace, Esquire, having been created Baron Wallace of Saltaire, of Shipley in the County of West Yorkshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Holme of Cheltenham and the Lord Dahrendorf.

St. James's Park Pelicans
2.58 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston Lord Stodart of Leaston asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the arrival of two pelicans from Prague was the result of a request made to the Government of the Czech Republic; and whether there are more to come to join Vaclav and Rusalka with a view to restoring the number of pelicans in St. James's Park.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, the two pelicans, Vaclav and Rusalka, joined the white pelican and the eastern white pelican at St. James's Park in September. They were brought from Prague Zoo. There are no plans to acquire any more.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for such a positive reply. Is he aware of the fact that over the past 30 years or so, when this subject has been discussed, questions have been asked about the possibility of reproduction among the pelicans in St. James's Park? On each occasion the Minister answering the Question has been obliged to say that because of his ignorance of the sex of the pelicans he has been unable to provide any information. On this occasion, the two pelicans have been supplied with Christian names. Does that give my noble friend the possibility of adding a plume to his cap by refuting the claim that has always been made that the only thing that knows the sex of a pelican is another pelican?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships are grateful to my noble friend for having the interests of the pelicans in St. James's Park so close
1602
to his heart over so many years. As my noble friend commented, the two newly acquired pelicans are called Vaclav and Rusalka. Vaclav is the same name as Wenceslas, a male name, and Rusalka is a female name. When the pelicans left Prague Zoo, the experts there identified the sex of each of the pelicans. In order to ensure that they are no longer in the predicament of not knowing the identity or the sex of the pelicans, the Government have ringed each of them so that the knowledge can be retained.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the Minister who replied to a similar question on this subject in 1988 indicated that the park pelicans had not laid an egg for 300 years. Is that because conditions in the park are not propitious for the propagation of pelicans? If so, is it kind to import those pelicans and so deny them a normal life with a mate, including the patter of little webbed feet.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, an egg was laid by the pelicans in St. James's Park but it was infertile. I am advised by ornithological experts that the reality is that pelicans tend not to produce fertile eggs unless they are part of a larger flock of a minimum of about 10 birds. I understand that London Zoo plans to try to establish such a flock. As for the nature of the community in which pelicans live, it is similar to that experienced in monasteries and nunneries.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is it true that there have been pelicans in St. James's Park since the reign of Charles II and if there are no pelicans there, according to historical myth, dreadful things will happen? Can the noble Lord elucidate on that at all?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the first pelicans in St. James's Park were presented to King Charles II by the Russian ambassador in the early 1660s. In February 1665, John Evelyn noted that he had seen a pelican which was,
"a fowle between a stork and a swan".
I have no detailed knowledge of the myth to which the noble Lord refers.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the importance of the pelicans and the amount of traffic in St. James's Park, will the Minister consider putting up some pelican crossings?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, that is a matter for the Department of Transport.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will a third pelican be added so that, as in the days of the last war, they can be referred to as Chiefs of Staff?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am sure that it is possible to add a pelican. But if more than four pelicans are in St. James's Park they have a tendency to behave very badly towards the other water fowl on the lake; in particular, they eat up the young ones. That goes against the wish of the Royal Parks Agency.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am sure that we all welcome more beautiful birds, especially at this time of the year. However, can the Minister reassure the House

1603
that those birds are in fact legal and not illegal immigrants? Can the noble Lord further assure the House that, if they ask for political asylum, they will not have their benefits reduced? Finally, I should like to wish the House a very happy Christmas.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I can confirm that the pelicans were legally imported to this country; indeed, I understand that they went through their period of quarantine on Duck Island, together with the pelican to which I referred which went to London Zoo. I can assure the House that the pelicans are being properly looked after. Each pelican eats four pounds of whiting a day at a cost of £78.50p per week for all the pelicans. In addition, they receive supplements of vitamin tablets.
Lord Stoddart of Leaston: My Lords, I merely rise to thank my noble friend the Minister for giving the House more detailed information on the Question than we have ever had before.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I endeavour to provide whatever information your Lordships may seek of me.

HM Prisons: Bullying
3.5 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to combat bullying of women prisoners, following the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons on HM Prison, Risley, in which it was stated that "without the direct involvement of the area manager it was impossible to arrange transfers of difficult women."
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government take the issue of bullying in all prisons very seriously. Since 1993, the Prison Service has published an official policy on bullying which provides clear guidance for establishments to address and reduce the problem. The transfer of male and female prisoners who persistently display bullying behaviour is used as a last resort when all other means have failed. If that becomes necessary, transfer procedures are in place. The Prison Service is currently examining ways of making the transfer process even more effective.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, can she help the House and tell us what is actually happening in women's prisons at present? First, we have the situation at Risley where it has been made clear that there have been a number of serious sexual assaults on women inmates. Secondly, we have the situation at Holloway where General Sir David Ramsbotham had to withdraw his inspection team because of the degrading conditions that he found there. Thirdly, we hear today of the report on New Hall women's prison. Is not the Minister becoming increasingly embarrassed at having to defend such an appalling situation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as regards the sexual assaults, I can tell the House that the situation was
1604
promptly dealt with. The governor has put it in the hands of the police who are dealing with the matter. Therefore, it would be improper for me to make any further comment. As for the transfer of people, I have said that that is a last resort. It is very much a matter for the governors to deal with in the first instance. It was a very serious incident and the six people who were suspected of participation had to be dispersed very quickly. That gave rise to the problem.
I turn now to the inspection of Holloway Prison. I share the concern expressed about the situation; indeed, we should all do so. However, it is not about money, because extra money was put into Holloway for more staff and improved training even before the inspector withdrew his team. Senior management at headquarters is working with the governor and setting firm targets for improvements and dates by which those improvements must be achieved. So that matter is also in hand. Therefore, although we are concerned about such matters, as long as the governors and the Home Office are taking them seriously, I am happy to come to the Dispatch Box and account for them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister said that it is not a question of money. However, is it not a fact that when we learnt about the appalling conditions at Holloway, we also learnt that the prison is overcrowded in that there are 561 inmates when there should be only 507? Surely that is a question of money.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the prison estate for female prisoners is not overcrowded. There are 2,065 female prisoners, so overcrowding is not the issue; and it is certainly not the issue as it relates to the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if it is not a question of money or overcrowding and if there are enough staff, can my noble friend the Minister tell the House what it is?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble friend that it is partly a question of management.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the Minister has just made a statement which implies criticism of the present governor of Holloway Prison. Is that her position? Is that what she is saying?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord has a fertile imagination when interpreting what I say. I said that it is sometimes a question of management.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, on being questioned during a television news programme as to what conditions were like at Holloway, an inmate who had just been released said, "Yes, it is tough and security is tough; but what else do you expect? It is a prison, not a holiday camp."?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, some noble Lords seem to be sympathetic to the point that the noble Lord makes. That indeed is one of the issues. There is laxity in some prisons and it is a question of management. Where there is good management usually there is minimal trouble.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, the Government evidently knew some time ago that the conditions in Holloway were appalling. I visited Holloway a few weeks ago and the situation was so bad that the prisoner I visited was half an hour late in arriving because there was no one in Holloway to bring her down. Why did not the Government do something about this a long time ago?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have responded to the situation. As I said a moment ago, extra staff and extra training have been provided at Holloway. Targets have been set. They have not all been met but time limits have been set for meeting those targets. Sending in the inspectors is all part of monitoring the adequacy of the service for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the House may be slightly mystified by what the Minister has said. When she replied to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, she said that he had a fertile mind. I would ask the Minister what constitutes management if it is not the way in which the prison is run? Is she criticising the way in which Holloway has been run, and, if so, what are those criticisms? Can we please have some more detail?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was asked to give reasons why sometimes there are problems in prisons. I said that it is often a question of management. It is often a question of management, but that is not the only reason. There may be other reasons. In the case we are discussing obviously more staff were needed and more staff have been provided. More money was needed and more money has been provided. The inspector set a programme for the prison to enact. The Home Office has set management tasks for the prison to meet and has set dates by which those tasks must be met.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to press this point—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Richard: My Lords, I hope I may make this point and then I shall willingly shut up and give way. I wish to ask the Minister a relatively simple question. Is she criticising the way in which Holloway has been run? Is that what she means by ascribing a fault to management because, if so, she ought to say so?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords. I said that often the problems in prisons have something to do with management in prisons. Anyone who has a supervisory position in a prison has a management responsibility. When the inspector returns to the prison he will expect that what he has asked to be achieved will have been achieved. The Home Office will also expect its targets to have been achieved by the management of the prison.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, has my noble friend seen the rather disquieting reports in the press about the shackling of women inmates and about the treatment of women who are about to give birth?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have seen those reports. It is true that the handcuffing of prisoners was applied unequally. It was applied in a more lax way to women prisoners and in a more serious way to male prisoners. The result was that more women prisoners escaped. The policy now is that handcuffing is applied equally to both sexes.

Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I would say to the noble Baronesses opposite that the exception to that policy is that women are not handcuffed when they are actually giving birth. However, when prisoners are being transferred from one prison to another and even when they are being transferred to hospital they are made secure by handcuffs.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, as far as I am aware, only women give birth or breast-feed and therefore equal opportunities to shackle them do not seem to exist in this case? Will the Minister please look closely at the necessity for this? When a woman is about to give birth she is unlikely to try to escape; and the same is true if she is breast-feeding. As a former Minister for prisons, I would add that it was not necessary to follow that policy in the past. Can the Minister tell us why it is necessary to follow it today?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I said that women prisoners are not handcuffed when they are about to give birth. That is the exception to the equally applied policy. I also said why it is necessary to have an equal policy for handcuffing with the exception of prisoners being attended to medically; and that is because more women were escaping as they were not handcuffed in situations where male prisoners were handcuffed.
Lord Elton: My Lords, given that the Question has gone much wider than that on the Order Paper, may I bring it back to Holloway, which is closer to the Question on the Order Paper? I suggest that my noble friend was extremely wise—she was supported by most of your Lordships—to resist any attempt to make her give a judgment on a developing situation in a prison on which a report is expected but has not been completed. The proper time to make a judgment is when the report has been completed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that comment. The responsibility for conditions at Holloway will be very much a matter for the Home Office, the Prison Service and indeed for Holloway Prison itself. We would be wise not to discuss the details of that until the inspection report is made public.

Former Yugoslavia: Human Rights
3.16 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to ensure that human rights are central to the reconstruction plans for former Yugoslavia.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the London Conference on 8th and 9th December underlined the relationship

1607
between the fulfilment of commitments in the Dayton Peace Agreement. These include observance of the highest standards of human rights and the readiness of the international community to commit financial resources for reconstruction and development. It also created a human rights task force in Sarajevo, to be chaired by the High Representative or his deputy, to bring together the organisations and agencies involved in the implementation of the peace agreement.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in view of this important commitment to human rights, conditionality in the availability of aid for reconstruction should be central in our policy towards former Yugoslavia? Can he tell us what benchmarks will be put in place to measure progress towards the fulfilment of human rights and who will have responsibility for monitoring progress? Specifically in terms of the role of the World Bank in the reconstruction, as the World Bank is charged by its articles of agreement to operate on economic criteria alone, what ad hoc arrangements can be made to ensure that it is looking to the fulfilment of human rights too?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I shall try to cover those points. The new constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina guarantees all the people the highest level of internationally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms as set out in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms. The Dayton agreement creates a commission on human rights to safeguard the rights guaranteed by the constitution. The commission has two parts: an ombudsman and a human rights chamber. I have further details if the noble Lord requires them. The World Bank will be in the lead as regards reconstruction. However, it will be advised by the steering board which will provide political guidance for the World Bank programme. The EU clearly has an important role to play together with the World Bank and with other donors such as the US, the OIC and Japan.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is a country in which human rights have never been accepted and honoured except, paradoxically, when there was a communist dictator in the person of Marshal Tito?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, my noble friend may well be right. However, what we are trying to do is to make sure that it has excellent human rights from here on.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, with regard to the prosecution of war criminals, have the complaints of Judge Goldstone regarding the availability of resources and regarding UN bureaucracy obstructing his work been fully resolved? Is he satisfied that the mechanisms of war crimes prosecutions can now proceed rapidly so that all those responsible for atrocities will be brought to court and punished?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the Government strongly support the tribunal. We believe that those responsible for atrocities should be tried and will be taken to task.
1608
We have done more than most. In addition to co-sponsoring the resolution setting up the tribunal, we have given financial support, donated equipment, seconded staff and provided valuable evidence to the prosecutor's office.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that preparatory to having a trial it is necessary to have possession of the accused? Is it not a fact that NATO has been given a very vague assignment as to the arrest of alleged war criminals? Could that assignment be made more precise?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. IFOR's prime role is the separation of the forces and monitoring of the military arrangements. However, the North Atlantic Council has authorised IFOR to detain those persons indicted by the War Crimes Tribunal with whom it comes into contact in the execution of its assigned tasks in order to ensure the transfer of those persons to the tribunal.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned in the course of his answers the role of the High Representative in this matter. Can he make it clear to the House whose High Representative he is, and towards whom or in what company he is the representative? Normally one represents somebody else to a third party or in a third assembly or party.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I certainly can. The main roles of the High Representative will be to co-ordinate the activities of the organisations involved in civilian aspects of the peace settlement, for example, the OSCE, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Bank. He is also to consult with those heading the NATO operation to ensure the efficient co-ordination of civilian and military efforts. The Dayton agreement provides for joint civilian and military structures.
Lord Judd: My Lords, can the Minister clarify whether aid for reconstruction, both bilateral and multilateral and including that from the World Bank, will be available on the basis of demonstrable progress towards the fulfilment of human rights? If it is to be dependent upon demonstrable progress towards the fulfilment of human rights, how will that be established?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, yes it will be. The World Bank will be advised by the steering board which will advise on the progress towards human rights in respect of political aspects. The World Bank will be required to take that advice into account when funding reconstruction.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the international church agencies met recently in Skopje to discuss reconstruction and that psychological rebuilding is regarded by the Churches as of equal importance? Can the Minister reassure the House that donor governments will give that equal emphasis?
Lord Chesham: Yes, my Lords, I certainly can.

Electricity: Supply and Demand
3.23 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken to prevent a collapse in electricity supply as almost happened on 19th July and 17th November.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, there was no need for the Government to take any action as there are long-standing procedures in place to deal with events of this kind. They proved effective, as at no time was electricity supply even near collapse on the dates in question.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does the Minister not understand that we came within a hair'sbreadth of losing electricity supply on two occasions this year—and that at a time when the weather was not cold and there was no need to assume that the system was going to break down? Is not the problem that the pressure for profits on privatised industries means that there is not adequate investment and that the future safety margin between peak demand and supply is getting dangerously thin?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I cannot accept that. I certainly do not accept that there was anything like the crisis that the noble Lord seems to believe. To find that we were something like 0.38 of a herz below the minimum for three minutes 20 seconds hardly seems to me to indicate a massive breakdown of the system. It is important that there should be a proper balance and as reasonable a prediction as possible of the balance between demand and supply. Otherwise the effects would feed through to consumers, and electricity prices would rise. I am sure that the noble Lord will also appreciate that one does not want to take the risk of creating any unnecessary environmental pollution.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that this Question is alarmist in nature and quite unwarranted? Is he aware that when I was a member of the London Electricity Board before privatisation we had a total loss of power due to a major breakdown, when the whole of the City of London lost power for just under four hours? Had that breakdown lasted for four hours, every firm in the City except one would have lost material on their computers. However, in this instance the loss of power lasted only three minutes 40 seconds. Does my noble and learned friend agree that since privatisation the grid has controlled the electricity supply very well and operates most efficiently and competently?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Yes, my Lords. I am grateful to my noble friend for her remarks, which are clearly based on experience. The precise concatenation of events which occurred when the interconnector failed and another generator failed to come off within seconds of each other was beyond reasonable prediction. Indeed the performance of the grid since privatisation has been remarkable. The number of incidents involving loss of
1610
supply to consumers declined from 14 in 1987-88 to eight in 1994-95, and the duration of those breakdowns was shorter.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is it not a standard problem in all public utilities that one must decide whether one is going to plan for the most extreme conditions in 25 years, 40 years, 50 years or 100 years, and that if one does not take it to the latter extent then once in 100 years one will be caught short?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Indeed, my Lords. There has to be a basis for making reasonable predictions. It is for the National Grid, as best it can, to make that prediction. I understand that it makes a calculation on a day-to-day basis. There will be times when a number of events coincide which make it extremely difficult to meet those demands. I emphasise that on the two occasions that have been highlighted there was no loss of power to consumers.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, while it is satisfactory to note that there were no serious consequences on the two occasions referred to in the Question, nonetheless it raises the issue of who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that adequate supplies of electricity are available. Does the noble and learned Lord recall that under the Electricity Act 1957 that duty was squarely placed on the shoulders of the CEGB? In present circumstances, is it the responsibility of the regulator, the National Grid Company, the regional electricity companies or the generating companies? Is the situation not a little confusing in that respect?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, my Lords, I do not believe that it is confusing. There are clearly set out duties upon the grid, the suppliers and the director general. The noble Lord should not allow the ghosts of Christmas past to haunt him. The lights are not going to go out this Christmas. As he reflects on the new year, he may wish to reflect that in the course of the next year, because of the success of the new National Grid, he will receive a bonus of some £50.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, did not the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, put his finger on the crucial point when he referred to privatisation, namely, the level of investment? However, did he not get it wrong, because it is a simple fact that in the private sector the industry is able to call on private capital, which is not in short supply as is seen by the scramble to invest in the electricity companies, whereas when it was in the private sector the industry had to compete with everything else, which made it much more difficult to have a decent electricity service?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. I understand that there is a view that there might be greater opportunity for generating provision in the south of the country. There is clearly now a much better prospect of that being achieved as privatised companies have access to the equity markets.

Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee on the Bill—

L. Birdwood,

L. Butterworth,

E. Grey,

B. Mallalieu,

V. Simon,

L. Templeman (Chairman),

B. Warnock;

That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee shall be printed and, if the Committee think fit, delivered out;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee do meet on Monday 15th January 1996 at a quarter-before five o'clock.—(The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Litigation and the Professions
3.30 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe rose to call attention to the increase in litigation and the consequences for the professions; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on 6th November of this year the House discussed breast cancer screening. It was put to the Minister that while 250 specialist units were needed, only 170 specialist care nurses were available—and would more money be put to that cause? I thought to myself that we were talking as though there were some great supermarket where cancer care nurses sit on the shelf waiting patiently until they are required. That is hardly the case. Everyone who enters the profession makes the deliberate choice that that is the way in which they wish to serve the community. The burden of my case is that the growing threat of litigation is proving a serious deterrent to people who wish to enter the caring services. I say straight away that I have no wish to protect incompetence; and I have no wish to make any party political points. The issue is so all-embracing and serious that it must be discussed in an entirely rational and objective manner.
We are all aware of the situation in the United States. One of the great pleasures of going to the United States is to hear all the jokes which are constantly retold about lawyers. My favourite is this: why is all the high-level nuclear waste in New Jersey, whereas all the lawyers are in Washington? The answer is that New Jersey had first choice.
There is a serious side to this. At random I have chosen a few articles to illustrate the point. First, the
1612
Daily Telegraph on Wednesday 1st February 1995 states:
"A group of British smokers has been granted legal aid to sue the tobacco firms. Robert Hardman fears we are following the US on the path of litigation lunacy".
Next, the Independent on Sunday on 21st May 1995 states:
"America seeks to curb litigation frenzy—as Britain catches it".
My last example is from the Sunday Times of 12th November of this year which states:
"Huge legal suits threaten US firms. Litigate and make your fortune".
Perhaps I may refer to the marketing of this aspect. The Financial Times on 8th July 1994 published the results of a survey by KPMG Peat Marwiick forecasting that there would be a large increase in the amount of litigation business,
"in the property, construction, banking and fraud sectors … and personal injury".
The survey stated that one reason for the growth was the increasing awareness of litigation opportunities, partly because of marketing by lawyers. I have already drawn the attention of the House to an appointment card that I received from a hospital on the back of which was an advertisement by solicitors asking whether people who felt that their treatment was not entirely satisfactory wished to contact them in order to take the matter further. In a local paper on 9th November 1995, Lloyd & Associates, Solicitors, asked:
"Have you been injured in a traffic accident, at work, tripping or slipping? Have you received negligent service from a bank, accountant, doctor, builder or other professional?".
The advertisement offers a free half-hour interview.
I believe that it is a serious and growing situation. We have all been aware for some time of the grave difficulty of enrolling people into the specialisms of obstetrics and gynaecology. However, a survey in the Doctor, the weekly newspaper for the medical profession, of 7th December, states:
"Quality candidates for partnerships are increasingly scarce … When does a deteriorating recruitment problem in general practice become a crisis?".
It gives alarming figures. In another place a Question was asked which elicited a reply reported in the Daily Telegraph of 18th December. The article states,
"NHS 'forced to employ more locums'",
and refers to junior doctor vacancies and unfilled consultant posts and generally gives a black picture.
I hope that the answers will not be used to berate the Government over the shortage of general practitioners because I do not believe that there is very much they can do about that. People are still attracted to medicine but they shy away from the sections where there is a lot of patient contact. The more contact and exposure there is with a large number of people, the greater the probability that sooner or later some sort of trouble will lead to litigation.
We are all aware of the growth in defensive medicine and the way in which tests for the most obscure possibilities are multiplying in order to protect the doctor or specialist against possible legal action. There seems to be a growing attitude in society that if

1613
something goes wrong someone must be to blame. That is compounded by the constantly rising expectations which society now has. General practitioners are extremely exposed in their situation and are becoming increasingly anxious.
It is also becoming more difficult to recruit nurses. Nurses find themselves having to write more and more voluminous reports instead of attending to patient care. Those reports become more and more detailed in order to include every possible factor which might be required in the event of legal action. I heard a similar remark from a dentist recently that more and more time is having to be spent on writing up reports. People are constantly looking over their shoulders, worrying all the time.
Those factors apply to medicine which is probably the most clear example. However, the problem also spreads into education. The teaching profession is becoming increasingly alarmed. Litigation within schools is increasing and is seen as a real threat to both class teachers and senior management. At present it is used as a threat and as a way of intimidating, almost bullying, staff to concede points to angry parents and children. "Do as I say or I shall sue you", is the tenor of the remarks. Children and parents know that one can sue staff, even if they are mostly unclear about what and about how to do it—although no doubt more and more solicitors will be only too keen to advertise that their services are available. At this stage the threat is rarely carried out, but I am sure that if matters continue as they are there will soon be a change for the worse.
The fear of litigation is real for all staff in schools, partly because it involves the law, with which most staff are not conversant, and the accompanying threat of media coverage. If we do not do something, that fear of litigation will spoil the climate in our primary and secondary schools.
Let us take the social services departments of our local authorities. Staff are becoming much more nervous than a few years ago. An atmosphere of fear and uncertainty is building up. Staff are concerned all the time with the allocation of finite resources so they have to make choices. People who are left out of various aspects become disgruntled. Therefore every time staff allocate those resources they are at risk that somebody left out will become resentful.
We know of the child protection cases—staff are between the devil and the deep blue sea. If they do not do something in some cases they are heavily criticised. If they do something in other cases they also attract criticism. Again, one has a large group of desperately needed people in society who are looking over their shoulders all the time and worrying.
Accountants have recently been shaken by the Binder Hamlyn case involving £105 million. Architects and the construction industry are also worried. Litigation in the construction industry is inevitably expensive, not least due to the multiplicity of participants and the difficulty in establishing complicated issues of fact which brings about an apparent need for vast numbers of expensive
1614
expert witnesses. It is frequently, therefore, a cost-led activity, with sometimes unworthy, potentially costly claims being made as a ruse to thwart worthy but less expensive ones. It even spreads to surveyors, where there is a growing trend for clients to threaten legal action, not only to recover damages arising from professional negligence but also to extract work from an under-resourced consultant.
Even the voluntary agencies are not exempt. Let us consider an organisation like St. John's. We are all familiar with the uniformed figures who stand-by at functions in case anyone is taken ill. When they are on duty they may treat a casualty in good faith, but at the end of a case they may finish up as the target for legal action. Such threats are always at the back of their minds. We are becoming an introverted and egocentric society.
The example to the rest of the world is not good. I recently purchased a copy of the magazine The Big Issue and, like all noble Lords, allowed the vendor to keep the change. The issue of 27th November to 3rd December contains an article headed
"Doctors use Pill disclaimer" which states:
"A medical practice in County Durham is asking women who want to continue using combined contraceptive pills following last month's health scare to sign a disclaimer saying that they accept the risks involved".
The form is admitted to be some sort of protection,
"against litigation in the future".
The point about that is that we are constantly pressing the developing world to do something about their population problems. We tell them that it is their responsibility to use contraceptive methods. Yet here we are—one of the most widely-used methods is coming under query. If we go to such countries and say, "Use this method", they will reply, "But in your own country people have to sign a form saying that there is no legal responsibility on the person who prescribes it". That is another form of neo-colonialism: we try to get people to do something while at the same time putting up our own defensive barriers.
I have referred to that in the past on the subject of energy. Having for two or three centuries used fossil fuels and created the most appalling pollution, and having built up a standard of living on that basis, we are now trying to lecture the rest of the world on not using fossil fuels and finding substitutes because of the greenhouse effect. That is another form of neo-colonialism. If we are not careful about that kind of thing, we shall create a situation in which the rest of the world is extremely resentful because it will not be a case of "Do as I do" but "Do as I say".
I can offer no solutions today. However, I am grateful to those who have listened to me because I believe that this is one of the most serious problems which faces our society today. I beg to move for Papers.
3.43 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the subject of the Motion before us affects all professionals, as the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, indicated. Most recently, chartered accountants have been under fire in a big way, but even

1615
lawyers themselves are under threat. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, I wish to concentrate my remarks principally on health issues and the medical profession in particular. In doing so, I must declare an interest as a non-executive director of the Medical Defence Union.
The MDU is a professional association which provides doctors, dentists and other healthcare professionals with advice and assistance in medico-legal matters arising from clinical practice. One of its main functions is to support members who are sued under tort law for professional negligence and to pay legal costs and damages awarded against them. So there is a real interest in the subject of the debate.
In deciding to speak to the terms of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks—and I should thank him for tabling it and for introducing the debate as he did—I sought some facts and figures from the Medical Defence Union. It is true that year on year we have seen a 10 per cent. increase in the number of claims made and a 5 per cent. increase in the amount of costs claimed. Earlier this year, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege stated that the Department of Health is seeing an increase in the number of cases brought to court and in the amounts of money now being awarded through court action. She stated that, although 96 per cent. of the cases brought were settled out of court, the sums are increasing alarmingly. In the past three years they have risen from awards amounting to some £60 million to £125 million. The burden on professionals to insure adequately has therefore greatly increased.
But far worse, I believe, is the effect on the morale of medical and dental practitioners, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, referred. The danger of drop-outs from the profession is great and there is evidence to show that there is a direct correlation between drop-outs and complaints brought. Even worse, there are non-entrants into certain high risk categories of medical practice. There is also the danger that doctors and GPs in particular will go in for defensive medicine. Since primary-led healthcare is the first of the six National Health Service priorities in healthcare, it is to be deplored if GPs, instead of making decisions, refer patients to hospitals or play safe rather than taking risks, albeit based on professional expertise and judgment.
Clearly one would not wish to dispute that patients have rights and I was all in favour of the Patient's Charter. I am in favour of the efforts of the Department of Health to provide more easily accessible and streamlined complaints procedures. We must have a little more evidence of the results to see how the procedures work.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, is currently conducting an inquiry into medical negligence and I believe the report is due out in its final form next year. The inquiry is exploring various ways of finding alternatives to court action. As I understand it, there have been considerable consultations with agreement on the need to find alternatives to court action. It is well known that at present many patients sue, particularly for small amounts, when what they most want is explanations, a proper hearing of their complaint and
1616
perhaps an apology. They do not usually receive any of those. What they get is a long and exhausting hassle, sometimes with money at the end of it. We need effective and useful alternatives to litigation and I hope that the Woolf Report in its final form will be helpful in that area.
Another issue has affected the number of complaints brought. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, touched on it and it is the issue of legal aid. The vast majority of clinical negligence cases are brought by people entitled to legal aid and the number of legal aid certificates issued for clinical negligence cases in 1994-95 was, I understand, 8,167. That apparently represents a 7 per cent. increase over the previous year. Although not all certificates issued resulted in cases coming to court, there is a very important point to bear in mind in relation to legal aid proceedings; namely, no costs may be awarded to the defendant, even if he or she is successful. I shall be very interested to hear the views of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in the light of the work that he has been doing in the area of legal aid.
To return briefly to the Woolf Report, I understand that the noble and learned Lord may advocate a fast-track procedure for medical negligence claims. I question whether it is desirable that issues concerning professional reputations should be decided without the facility to call oral factual and expert evidence. I was asked to make that particular point in this debate, and I think it will be well understood.
Finally, I raise the issue of the role of judges in relation to the awarding of damages. Again, I ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor: what sort of guidelines exist, and what sort of method may be applied to try to avoid some of the excesses of the United States, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, has already referred?
In summary, it is absolutely necessary to get the right balance between the rights and needs of consumers in relation to whichever branch of the profession is under fire and the need to have proper and expert advice and practice from the professional.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, will forgive me if I describe him as enigmatic. I do so for the following reasons. On 5th February 1990, on the occasion of the sixth day in Committee on the Courts and Legal Services Bill, Clause 44 provided for what is known as conditional fees, speculative litigation, contingency fees, or whatever one wishes. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, moved that that clause should not stand part of the Bill. There was a detailed debate, during which seven Law Lords, the Master of the Rolls, the former Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and the former Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, all spoke in favour of his Motion. The Motion that the clause should not stand part of the Bill was defeated, in some measure due to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, who voted with the Government for that clause to stand.

1617
It may be that the noble Lord did not appreciate what might be the consequences. But that particular defence, if that is the right way to describe it, could not have existed after 7th February 1995 when, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, just mentioned, there was a Starred Question concerning medical negligence. It was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who raised the question:
"Is it correct that claims are increasing in number, not because there is more negligence but because more of the public are now inclined to enter into litigation following a trend in the United States?"—[Official Report,7/2/95; col. 97.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, answered:
"We are seeing an increase in the number of cases brought to court and the amounts of money that are now awarded through court action. We do not believe that there is an increase in clinical accidents".—[col. 97.]
The 96 per cent. of cases settled out of court referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, was specified.
The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, took part in exchanges on the Starred Question. He complained about the advertisements that solicitors were inserting in newspapers with a view to obtaining retainers to litigate on behalf of persons anxious to sue hospitals.
After the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, I said:
"does the Minister accept that the position will be exacerbated when the Government allow the practice which has hitherto been prohibited—the contingency fee system—which will exacerbate the enthusiasm of lawyers to take up cases and bring them forward, particularly in the field of personal injuries?"—[col. 98]
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who did not have notice of the question, very wisely said:
"that is something that the Government need to consider".
So the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, was well aware of that trend.
Therefore, it becomes the more surprising, when on 12th June this year (some six months ago) I sought to amend a draft order which the Lord Chancellor laid before the House to implement the speculative litigation, that the noble Lord should vote in favour of the order. The gravamen of my submissions was that the Lord Chancellor's proposal that a lawyer should be able to double his fees—a mark-up of 100 per cent.—where he succeeded on behalf of a client, was excessive, and that it should be no more than 20 per cent., which was the Lord Chancellor's second thought (his first thought had been 10 per cent.); or alternatively that, in order that the whole of the damages that might be recovered should not be eaten up by the 100 per cent., a cap should be put on the damages that could be recovered as 20 per cent.
We lost that amendment by only five votes. One of the votes against us was that of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. We should have won that Motion if the Opposition Front Bench had been prepared to follow their troops into the Lobby through which they urged them. But apparently, by some strange precedent, that is not done. I do not blame the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, for that, but I do find it strange that he should be railing against the increase in litigation when so much of it at the moment is—and so much more will be—caused by speculative litigation.
1618
The noble Lord referred to the building industry. At the present moment the conditional fee is permissible only in regard to personal injuries, insolvency matters (I believe), and matters in the European Court. But from a logical point of view there can be no basis for stopping the extension of speculative litigation into the field of construction work.
The Law Commission, whose views are usually respectfully followed by the Government, was not asked for them on the Green Paper on speculative litigation published in 1989. It therefore took the initiative of providing them without being asked. It was hostile to the whole concept of speculative litigation. It recounted the recommendation and observations put in by the official referees—who, as noble Lords will know, are the judges who deal with the complex building industry litigation. The official referees said:
"We think that architects, engineers and surveyors, also doctors and other professionals, could be particularly vulnerable to claims brought or threatened on a contingency basis. The damages recoverable in most construction cases would make receiving a proportion of them attractive, while for the professional, even to report the claim to his insurers will probably result in an increase in his next premium. In consequence, however strong the professional's case, he might think it expedient to make a 'nuisance payment'; if the professional goes to his insurers and the action shows signs of being fully contested, with large costs involved, a speculative solicitor can always advise his client to discontinue".—[Official Report, 5/2/90; col. 536.]
It will be said that that is all water under the bridge. The policy of allowing speculative litigation in the manner permitted at present has been approved by Parliament. But in my submission that is not a situation in which one sits back and does nothing. The purpose of the rule against speculative litigation, which made speculative litigation agreements unenforceable as being contrary to public policy, was twofold: first, to prevent the exploitation of the litigant; and, secondly, to promote the interests of justice.
The question therefore remains: how does one ensure that the consumer is properly protected? That was a matter very much uppermost in the mind of the Lord Chancellor's very own Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct. It has been strongly at odds with the Lord Chancellor with regard to his 100 per cent. uplift policy. It went public about that on the basis that it was a statutory committee and should tell the public how it felt.
In a lengthy letter to my noble and learned friend in April 1995, my noble and learned friend Lord Steyn, the Chairman of that committee, dealt with, inter alia, the question of monitoring. He wrote:
"Given the novelty and potential risk for the litigant inherent in setting up a system of conditional fee agreements, the committee remains concerned that there must be effective monitoring of the results. The need for effective monitoring would be even greater if, contrary to the committee's advice, you"—
that is my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor—
"were to permit a maximum uplift to 100 per cent. The committee does not believe that monitoring will be effective if it has to rely on a sample which may well be unrepresentative. The committee believes that it should be possible, given co-operation between the professional bodies, to require registration of every case with the Law Society, for example, without requiring the disclosure of the parties' names".

1619
A separate letter dated 7th April 1995 to my noble and learned friend's department set out, with some particularity, the information which should be provided. That included the type of proceedings to which the agreement relates; the legal representative's estimate of the chances of success, the legal representative's estimate of the amount of damages; the extent of percentage uplift on fees and expenses specified; any variation subsequently made to the agreement; the outcome of the proceedings; the actual amount of damages, if any, recovered on behalf of the client; the amount of the legal representative's fees and expenses, less any increase; and the amount of the fees and expenses paid by the client under the agreement.
I understand that research on a fairly moderate scale will be funded, because all that is being provided by way of grant from the Lord Chancellor's Department is some £20,000. It will be carried out by the Policy Studies Institute. It does not involve any follow-up. It is based merely upon a sample. I would submit that that is quite inadequate.
I have the impression, because monitoring was not something which was offered by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in response to the fairly firm criticism which was made in the debate in June, that monitoring is not taken at all seriously. In that debate, the Lord Chief Justice described the legitimation of such speculative litigation as letting loose:
"an alien creature in our justice system".—[Official Report, 12/6/95; col. 1559–60.]
I should have thought that that fully justifies monitoring and I would suggest monitoring not only from the point of view of the litigant himself—the consumer—but from the point of view of the defendant in order to see to what extent there is an abuse against a professional because of the threat which exists where one finds a solicitor prepared to take up speculative litigation.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and enigmatic Lord, the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, for introducing this debate this afternoon. I should also like to express some sympathy for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. The debate has tended to become slightly medical and therefore I too shall confine my remarks to the practice of medicine and dentistry. Here I must declare an interest. As well as being a practising dentist, I am a council member of the Medical Protection Society. That is a mutual defence organisation which has 82,000 members practising in the United Kingdom and 150,000 members throughout the world. I am also chairman of Dental Protection, the dental defence scheme, which has 35,000 dental members in all parts of the world. I am an adviser on both medical and dental cases committees.
When we talk about professional negligence, we are not discussing a new phenomenon. The first reported malpractice case in English law occurred more than 600 years ago. The MPS (Medical Protection Society)
1620
has been in existence for over 100 years and is run exclusively by doctors and dentists in order to protect and safeguard the interests of their colleagues.
A classic definition of negligence, as stated in the case of Donaghue v. Stephenson in 1932, is the omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, stated that in order to test whether an error of judgment by a professional person amounted to negligence:
"You ask the average competent and careful practitioner: is this the sort of mistake which you yourself might make? If he says, 'Yes, even doing the best I could, it might have happened to me', then it is not negligent".
From that judgment flows the test standard of whether a doctor or dentist has been negligent in diagnosis, advice and treatment: is it that of the reasonable practitioner of similar training and experience? That implies that the standard of care demanded by the profession is not static but changes with the state of the art at the material time and must keep pace with changes in medical practice and technological advances.
The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, warned us that the increase in litigation may well prevent many would-be surgeons, doctors and dentists from entering the professions. However, I am informed by the specialists at the Medical Protection Society that there is little evidence for this.
It is worth remembering that the surest way of reducing the incidence of claims is to improve the standard of delivery of healthcare. Public perceptions are of considerable importance. The belief of the hospital, health authority or medical and dental staff that they are providing a superb clinical service will count for little if the public perception in the community is of a poor standard of service.
Good communications remain of considerable importance if serious inroads are to be made into the level of complaints and claims. The hospital or health authority must do its best to create an environment conducive to the provision of caring and competent healthcare provided in an atmosphere of sympathetic understanding, kindness and tolerance in dealings between staff and patients. Communication is a two-way process and requires that the practitioner has time to listen to what the patient wishes to tell him or her.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said in the inaugural address to the Professional Bar Association in April 1991:
"There are very few professionals who can honestly claim that they have never made any negligent mistakes, usually it has been put right before the damage occurs but whether this is or isn't the case is largely a matter of pure chance".
One reason why patients are becoming more litigious is that there are many hungry lawyers, some of whom actively encourage their clients to litigate and others who advertise for likely clients. Noble Lords will be aware of that from the popular press. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, about the advertising on

1621
appointment cards, and I am aware of groups of lawyers who are actually setting up offices within hospital premises.
Sadly, the volume of claims may be nowhere near the actual number of incidents. Studies in a large American hospital found that only one person in 65 injured by the negligence of a health worker went on to seek compensation. A study by the Harvard Medical Group found that only one person in eight made any claim. The Journal of Clinical Pathology, in 1991, wrote,
"All adult deaths at Peterborough District Hospital over a six month period were examined for discrepancies between clinical and pathological findings and for performance as judged by clinicians. 80% provided additional information, unsuspected diagnoses were found in 30% and in 13% the cause of death was 'completely wrong'".
The Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine in 1991 wrote,
"Monthly audit meetings of the surgical unit at Southampton identified 89 'avoidable' deaths over 10 years".
The question may be asked whether malpractice litigation has improved the quality of medical and dental care. No one can answer that question with any degree of certainty. It is difficult to see how the threat of malpractice litigation could result in the professional using less care than he would otherwise exercise. However, it is realistic to believe that the threat of being called to answer for wrongful conduct might have a salutary effect on practice. It certainly has a salutary effect on the practitioner. I remind noble Lords that in a practice span of 40 years, doctors and dentists can expect to be accused of negligence at least two or three times. That does not mean that they acted negligently; but even the accusation can be worrying. It is in that context that I prefer to think of negligence in terms of the concept of avoidable harm. If a patient is harmed and it was avoidable, then, if proved, that is called by lawyers "negligence" and the patient is compensated, usually in the form of money. In many ways the accusation of negligence to a professional person is as potentially damaging as the negligent act itself.
Prior to the introduction of Crown indemnity in 1990, defendants were in a much stronger position than plaintiffs, with a small number of competent lawyers—together with the defence organisations—handling claims. After the introduction of Crown indemnity, each hospital or health authority started handling its own claims, which led to a dissipation of expertise. At the same time, the plaintiffs started to get their acts together and, generally speaking, were better organised than the defendants.
Before Crown indemnity, doctors were represented by their defence organisation which had control of the claim. After Crown indemnity, control of the claim moved to the employer. Though there was some disquiet among the professions, no real evidence emerged to imply that that system caused problems with professional reputations. The previous system, whereby doctors subscribed to a defence organisation, was unsustainable because of the ever-rising cost of belonging to the organisation.
Settlements in the NHS hospital sector are currently running at around £150 million per annum with outstanding liabilities—those that have been incurred
1622
but not reported—unknown, but estimated to be around £1 billion (about 2.7 per cent. of the total healthcare budget).
Noble Lords may be aware that the Government recently created a new scheme for dealing with that, the aim being to try to contain or reduce the costs of clinical negligence. It is called CNST—Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts. The Medical Protection Society, in conjunction with the insurers Willis Corroon, were chosen as the most experienced organisation to run it. The Government set up the NHS Litigation Authority which will be operational in January 1996. However, there are factors which may make the cost of clinical negligence even higher.
Conditional fees for lawyers which are likely to affect claims valued at less than £100,000 means that seven out of eight patients who do not currently sue, may now be tempted. In my view this "no fault" compensation will both increase the costs of compensation and the pressure on the professions. The experience in New Zealand has shown that, despite the "no fault" element, patients still want their pound of flesh and complaints have increased dramatically since its introduction in 1974. "No fault" is only about compensation; it is important to distinguish it from accountability issues.
Changes to the way in which special damages are calculated by the courts are likely to put up the cost of high value claims. Some of the proposals of the Woolf Inquiry, which appears to be very much plaintiff-driven, are likely to make it more difficult to defend claims and increase costs. The continuing government promotion of consumerism with patient's charters, details of how to complain and the Wilson inquiry, all carry a price tag in the form of increased numbers of complaints which may lead to claims.
It is prompt action which enables early settlement of many claims and I am uneasy that the introduction of allowing medical claims to be made to the ombudsman in the near future may be a further delaying factor. The fundamental principle of English claims is that the claimant is entitled to a once-and-for-all lump sum payment. In claims of maximum severity, such as brain damage, there are profound implications for health authorities and defence organisations where sums of between £0.5 million and £1.5 million may be involved.
There is some pressure to reform the law and structured settlements may have something to offer in that regard. Also, in the past five years or so, it has been possible for courts to make orders for provisional damages with a right for plaintiffs to return at a later date for supplementary awards depending on changes in circumstances. A move away from lump sum payments to annuity-type payments may be considered to be more just, despite the fact that such a system would lead to greater uncertainties in the funding of such awards.
The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, drew our attention to the increase in litigation. Nothing can be certain, but it seems unlikely that the appetite of the media and the knowledge of the public with its wish to understand and question the care that the medical and dental professions provide, will reduce.

1623
There is increasing pressure on the professions. The increase in litigation must demand higher standards, more openness and guarantees that the care and treatment that is received is appropriate and effective. Government changes to the legal framework are likely to increase numbers of claims and complaints over and above the amount that may be expected as a result of increasing consumerism.
4.19 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, on previous occasions your Lordships have debated the effect of modern litigation on professions, particularly the accountancy and medical professions. Although those debates demonstrated a clear consensus in the House that there was a serious problem which was getting worse, on those occasions the Government seemed reluctant to do anything about it. I hope that today we are going to get better news.
The fact that there is a serious problem has been highlighted recently by the much reported case where every partner in a major firm of chartered accountants faces a massive personal liability not covered by insurance from a fault which was nothing to do with the principal partner but was the fault either of one of his partners or probably an employee in the firm. Today the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, has widened the scope of the debate to cover other professions, particularly the caring professions. The House will be very grateful to him for doing so. In the light of the wide scope of the debate my remarks will be somewhat random, though I shall not follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in his continuing and courageous battle on the topic of contingency fees. While he may well be right that they are liable to make the problem worse, I doubt that so far they have had much to do with the problem, and even without contingency fees the problem would be very serious.
In making my remarks I must declare an interest or, to be somewhat more accurate, I must declare two conflicting interests. First, I am a practising barrister who, in view of his total ignorance of the law, must be very liable to frequent claims for negligence. On the other hand, most of my practice consists of professional liability work, either suing or defending accountants and such like. Therefore, if my speech today is successful in curbing this danger, I shall be kicking myself in the financial teeth.
Although the malconsequences of this problem may manifest themselves differently in different professions, the problem is basically the same for all. There are two causes. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, said, there is a modern philosophy, or lack of philosophy, which says that whenever anything goes wrong someone must be blamed for it. That philosophy is undoubtedly fanned by the media, but it is now a general attitude. No longer when an operation is not a success does someone say that the doctor tried enormously hard but unfortunately it did not work. He says, "I wasn't cured', or, "I've got something else. Who do I sue? Who is to blame?". That theme is taken up by the press and so on.
1624
Secondly, the other basic cause is that the law of negligence has been extended to new fields and, in practice, whatever high and learned judges may say, the test of what constitutes negligence is now very low. When one examines, as cases now do, for many days a routine procedure which was conducted in as many minutes as the case takes days, it is very easy to find something which was not according to the rules or which, with the benefit of cold hindsight, does not seem to have been perfectly done, although at the time probably no one would have thought that there was anything wrong with it. Whatever the tests may say—that it has to be a shocking case where another professional would throw up his hands in horror—it is now very easy to prove negligence, or there is a serious risk that a professional sued for negligence will be found to blame, although at the time probably no one watching him doing it would have thought that he was doing anything wrong.
It is no good blaming the present state of affairs on lawyers, with the possible exception of the few ambulance chasers mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. If the law is in a state where it gives a reasonable prospect of success to a plaintiff, it is the lawyer's job to advise him of that and do everything to pursue the case. Though it is always nice to blame lawyers for everything, one cannot blame lawyers for the fact that they advise their clients that they stand a decent chance of getting substantial damages, if that is the actual state of affairs.
The other problem is that when something goes wrong the professional man bears the massive brunt of the claim because he is probably the one person with either the insurance or the assets to pay the substantial sum. Therefore, even though he may bear only a small part of the fault, he may well find himself bearing all the damages, while the others who were much more at fault but have no readily available insurance or assets escape. The professional man is then sued. Not only does he have an enormous bill to pay but the highlight of the blame is on him. I suggest that it is only in the professions that we have this whole concept of a massive disaster falling upon one because of a single fault of a moment committed for the first time in one's life.
That treatment of professionals conflicts with the whole thinking of our treatment of others. The thesis of the criminal law seems to be that a first offender must not be sent to prison. Indeed, the first time that one's employee makes a mistake, unless it is a dramatic one, he cannot possibly be dismissed. In all other spheres of life one is to be helped over one's single first mistake, whereas the professional who makes a single mistake and all those who may be in partnership with him may find themselves struck with disaster because of it.
It might well be thought that this was a bleat that professionals would set up. But I suggest to the House that it is by no means solely a concern of persons who may be sued. Although some individuals receive substantial sums, the cost of those and of the claims is borne by the world at large. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, pointed out, more and more awards mean higher insurance costs and those insurance costs are

1625
passed on to everyone—if it is a paid profession, directly in the fees, or if it is the National Health Service, in the cost to the taxpayer. We know of the example of the United States where, if you can get insurance at all if you are a professional, the cost is massive. In some states of America a GP pays as much in professional insurance as a GP earns in total in this country. That means that his fees have to be very high.
Secondly, that generates the entire prophylactic attitude, where the professional man finds himself doing things not because he thinks they are good for the client but because it says so in the rules and if he does not do it he may be sued. It encourages him to hedge and to avoid pursuing bold and clear conduct or giving bold and clear advice. It does not make a good professional operate better. Doctors do not say to themselves, "This patient will not sue me. Let's slash at this one any old how and get it over quickly". Lawyers do not say, "This client cannot sue me. I won't bother to read the papers". Professionals go into their professions to do their job well and they do not do it better because they may be sued.
Thirdly, there is the enormous time spent and the cost involved in the procedures which are designed to guard against a claim, such as filling in forms, recording and so on. People went into the professions to do the work of the professions and not to keep dreary records. Devoted and enthusiastic nurses like my young daughter find it very discouraging that a large part of their time is spent filling in pieces of useless bumf to be filed away in case some dreary lawyer comes along five years later and says, "You did not treat that case properly". They would much rather get on and do the job of nursing, which is why they went into the profession.
Then one is going to find more and more that people will not take responsibility. There is a strong feeling now that a person is mad to take a partnership in a firm of accountants: why not just be salaried and avoid the responsibility? It is no answer to say, "If they were not at fault at all, it will all come right in the end because the judge will get it right". There is an enormous amount of hassle, concern, worry and waste of time spent in dealing with such cases.
Another disadvantage is the sheer dilemma that one faces. If one is a social worker it must be difficult enough, if one believes that a child is being maltreated, to know whether the child should be taken away from its parents. If the child is taken away the parents may sue; if the child is not taken away and is injured, the newspapers may criticise and there may be a prosecution. That makes the decision of the social worker more difficult; I do not believe that it makes the decision better.
It has been suggested that where something has gone wrong very often patients simply want a sensible explanation and an apology, if that is appropriate—then one will find out what one's insurer will say if one has given a sensible apology to someone and it turns out that it is being used as evidence of one's liability!
The speeches today have demonstrated quite clearly that there is a problem, but it is fair to say that they have been pretty short on remedy. I see that the noble and
1626
learned Lord on the Woolsack is rather agreeing with that. I suggest to him, at least for serious consideration, some possible remedies. I suggest that the time has come to have a comprehensive review of the whole concept of the level and test of fault liability. I do not believe that we should switch to no-fault liability. But we should consider whether what is blameworthy negligence has gone too far and whether in practical terms the test of where one should be held liable should be raised.
Secondly, I urge on the noble and learned Lord a system for the limitation of liability to the levels of compulsory insurance. The professionals should be compelled to take out insurance at various levels if they practise in various fields and their liability should be limited to those levels.
Thirdly, I suggest that we should contemplate what I believe some Americans are contemplating—restricting the extent of a professional's liability to the extent to which he is to blame. If an accountant is 25 per cent. to blame and the directors are 75 per cent. to blame but have no money, why should the accountant bear more than 25 per cent. of the overall loss?
Finally, surely we need to do something to encourage a proper appreciation of the unsung work done by the professionals as opposed to homing in on the occasions when things go wrong.
4.34 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, when I was
a dental student we studied a subject called "dental jurisprudence". We were taught that if one became a general dental practitioner, one's responsibility was to do one's best for the patient within the limits of one's training and experience. If one was incapable of doing a specialist's job, then the patient should be referred to a specialist who had a greater responsibility.
That practice seems to have gone completely now. It now seems that everyone expects everything to be done perfectly all the time. The point has also been reached where none of us wants to accept responsibility for our own actions in life. There is the matter of pension advice, and the case of the man who tripped on Brighton Pier who said that the council should have displayed a notice; I believe that he was awarded£75,000. Whether or not it is because of television, we are all a little litigation-happy; we look to someone else to lift the problems off our shoulders and give us a nice cash handout. It is very worrying.
I am chairman of the Royal Free Hospital, which is the largest single-site teaching hospital in London; we receive a great many complaints each year: in fact, I encourage them. I do not look on them as complaints as much as feedback. One does not know that a person had difficulty getting to the lift unless that person writes in and says so. One does not know that someone did not like a sandwich. Some of the complaints are very easily dealt with. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, was very clear on that. Many patients are simply looking for a solution so that a particular incident does not happen again to someone else. They like to know, for example, that there is a porter near the lift to

1627
see people get in and out or that the freshness of a sandwich is checked. Many people's complaints fall into those categories and they are very easily resolved.
There are also some very serious complaints. Some of them are serious right from the outset, and clearly so. Every complaint made to the hospital is investigated. There may be a major issue, such as a case I know of where a patient was shot in the hospital by a contract killer. That required a full internal hospital investigation. I do not know whether such an incident has ever happened elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That occurred just before I took up my appointment as chairman at the hospital. There was a coroner's inquest because it was a major incident. All kinds of experts were required to give opinions and advice. I believe the police had their own inquiry: almost everyone had an inquiry on this matter. That is a rare incident that no one could have foreseen and, apart from the killer, no one could be blamed because nothing could be done.
However, if a similar case occurred and it came out at the inquiry that someone could have done something—for example, perhaps an operation was an hour late or the wrong blood was given—we would certainly wish to deal with that within the hospital straightaway. It might be that that particular patient had grounds for bringing an action.
What worries us very much is that in any litigation, under the rules of disclosure, the details of the internal inquiry of the hospital could be demanded by the other side. We are very worried about that because it means that there is a great disincentive to hold full internal inquiries. Concern is expressed by various practitioners at the hospital as to whether their defence unions—we have heard two speeches on that point today—will allow them to give evidence. The unions may say that they do not want their staff to give evidence if they may be involved. Shall we reach a point where we shall be unable to have a really frank, open and valuable inquiry that will provide the information that we need in order to deal with an issue and to make sure that it does not recur, without creating a ready-made legal case for someone and handing it to them on a plate? Therefore, it is a cause for concern.
I have a number of questions for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as to how one screens out those who might be litigious from those who are not. That is a question that needs to be answered. New National Health complaints procedures are just being introduced. That is why I am so pleased that this debate is being held today because it is timely. There is a major report by the review committee on NHS complaints procedures entitled Being Heard. It is now referred to as the Wilson Report, and it is just coming into force. There is a section in that report—paragraph 69—entitled "Fairness to practitioners and staff' with which we all agree. The next heading is, "Avoidance of unnecessary litigation", which states,
"Complaints procedures have sometimes been presented as an alternative to, or [a] way of avoiding, civil litigation. This motivation has affected how the procedures themselves have developed and how complaints are handled under them.
1628
One effect of this has been a reluctance, particularly by doctors, to provide any statement which might be taken as an admission of liability. Although an apology need not be such an admission, this has sometimes meant apologies have been delayed or denied to complainants. In fact, the policies of the medical defence organisations now encourage apologies to be made".
Another part of the report says that impartiality is what is looked for in the investigation of complaints. Of course we all want there to be impartiality, but how impartial can we be if we have to be defensive at the same time? Not only does the authority have to be defensive, but the very people upon whom we rely to give us honest and accurate reports of what has happened are also being defensive.
The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, mentioned the number of probably unnecessary hospital tests that are done. As a major teaching hospital, we could probably undertake some research into what tests are unnecessary and unrelated to certain conditions. If there were evidence to prove that tests were unnecessary that could be a defence, and doctors would not feel obliged to carry out 100 tests when five were all that were needed. That is another interesting point.
My concern relates to the rules on disclosure. The Wilson Report and the NHS have made interim proposals which are to be considered. They are informal measures to try to resolve difficult and delicate issues where all the parties involved are under stress. Anyone who complains is under stress because of what has happened, their state of health, or how they were treated. However, which of those cases will result in legal action? How do we reconcile the dilemma of disclosure with the lay person's suspicion that something is being hidden? Legal minds should be devoted to trying to reconcile those two positions. Clear guidelines are needed to protect all parties. The intention should be to ensure that information is properly and accurately recorded, and, above all, to resolve the original issues speedily and effectively to the greatest satisfaction possible, without turning the matter into a legal complaint.
My questions relate to privileged information. At one time our legal advisers told us that if our inquiries were chaired by a lawyer (a solicitor or a barrister, but I am not sure which) that might make the information privileged. However, I have been told that there have been court cases subsequently which have disproved that, and even if the inquiry is conducted by a lawyer, on behalf of the hospital, the information would not be privileged. Will my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor tell us whether there is any way in which we could have such inquiries so that they would be privileged?
Under stage 2 of the Wilson Report, legal representation will not be permitted. Stage 2 of the complaints procedure is when the matter passes from the hospital because it has not been possible to resolve it. A vast number of complaints are resolved simply at the early stages. When the complaint passes beyond that, it goes to an external group, and a person is allowed to have a friend present but not a lawyer. However, there is nothing to say that the friend cannot be a lawyer. So that legal element again comes into the matter. The

1629
friend can he legally qualified. No restriction is placed upon who can be one's friend. How can we ensure having proper, open, frank inquiries, designed to prevent the recurrence of whatever problem there may be, if the parties involved will not participate?
Will the NHS be able to subpoena doctors to give evidence designed to throw light on an issue which may implicate them? Will the new procedure be an encouragement to keep inadequate records so as to avoid disclosing the information which should be available? Where does the Data Protection Act come into all this? Does even material held on computers have to be disclosed? What about the confidentiality of records?
Everyone in the NHS wants to know the truth lying behind any untoward incident. I believe strongly in transparency, but I ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to ensure that at this time of major administrative change within the NHS complaints procedure, the new procedures will be carefully and fully studied from the legal point of view to ensure that any guidelines issued by the NHS and the national health authorities will bear in mind the legal implications of what is to happen.
On television I see people in the United States claiming the fifth amendment if they do not want to be implicated in a matter. Is there anything equivalent in the UK? What rights do people have here to refuse to give evidence? Do bodies such as the medical defence organisations or the trade unions have the right to prevent their members from taking part in inquiries? Is the answer to all of this litigation to keep no records, or would one then face further litigation for failing to keep records?
4.46 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, for introducing this important subject. I am grateful to him for not having voiced his well-known aversion to members of my profession, the legal profession, to which I am proud to belong. It is of course easy to make jibes at the expense of the legal profession, whose public standing is only slightly higher than that of the noble Lord's own profession, the politicians, or that of journalists.
I have a rich collection of anti-lawyer jokes, and I commend to the noble Lord for his seasonal merriment the New York book of lawyer cartoons. There he will find a cartoon showing a concert pianist being introduced as, "Edwin Neils accompanied, as always, by his lawyer". The noble Lord will also see the cartoon of the attorney observing to his client, "You have a pretty good case, Mr. Pitkin. How much justice can you afford?".
Joking apart, what of the substance of the Motion? The debate has been unbalanced. None of the noble Lords who have spoken has talked from a plaintiff-driven perspective. The debate has been almost entirely defendant-driven. I have no personal interest in personal injuries litigation, and I shall attempt to give some facts and figures to provide a fairer balance to the debate.
1630
To place the matter in perspective, according to the 1994 annual report of the Lord Chancellor's Department, the overall volume of civil litigation in this country is declining and not increasing. The county court has seen the most dramatic decrease in litigation. The number of plaints entered has fallen by about 28 per cent. since 1991. In the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court the number of writs and originating summonses issued has more than halved since 1990. They declined by a quarter between 1993 and 1994. In the Chancery Division 10 per cent. fewer proceedings were commenced in 1994 compared with the previous year.
Litigation has not, however, declined in every area of law. One area in which the volume of litigation has increased substantially has been in applications for the judicial review of decisions taken by Ministers, government departments, local authorities and other public authorities. I declare an interest because I practise in that field. The number of applications for judicial review, unlike those other areas, has increased hugely during the past 20 years. More than 3,200 applications were received last year, an 11 per cent. increase on 1993. Only about 10 per cent. succeed. But whether they succeed or fail, they are an essential safeguard of democratic government according to law.
The growth of judicial review has not been because of so-called judicial activism, nor has it been because of lawyers' greed. It has to do with the vastly expanded reach of government. The judges have not been activist in the sense of seeking to usurp the functions of Parliament or of government. Our courts have been scrupulously careful not to exceed their judicial powers or to trespass into the area of politics. The judges apply the law laid down by Parliament. They are extremely careful to respect the supremacy of Parliament under our constitutional system of government.
Just as liability for negligent conduct, to which I shall turn in a moment, is essential to the rights of the victims of negligence and other tortious conduct, so judicial review is of great importance in protecting the individual against the misuse of public powers and in ensuring high standards of public administration. I shall not give many examples—your Lordships will have read them in the newspapers—of the important issues decided in the past year in judicial review cases. However, perhaps I may give a few.
The first is whether the Cambridge District Health Authority could refuse life-giving treatment to a child dying of leukaemia; secondly, whether the Home Secretary could under his prerogative power introduce a scheme for compensating victims of crime inconsistent with a scheme enacted by Parliament and never brought into force; thirdly, whether the two-year employment retirement for benefits under the employment protection legislation unjustifiably discriminated against women workers; fourthly, whether the Defence Secretary could ban avowed homosexual men from the Armed Forces; fifthly—heard last Friday—whether the rail passenger franchises could be sold allowing private operators to make substantial cuts in service levels. Our fellow citizens have sought access to justice in these and other important cases in spite of the great impediments to

1631
justice in our legal system, including the cost, inadequately met, through the current legal aid provision, unacceptable delay and the complexity of the law.
Perhaps I may take legal aid as one example. In recent years there has been a steady decline in the number of people qualifying for legal aid. Applications for legal aid have also declined; for example, in the past two years there has been a fall of 10 per cent. Lord Justice Otton's working party recently found that one in three applicants to the Court of Appeal are unrepresented compared with one in 10 between 1989 and 1990. The problem has not been of too much litigation but rather of inadequate public funding to enable individuals of moderate means to have effective access to justice. That is the reason why I, unlike some noble Lords, greatly welcome the work being done by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and his interim proposals to improve effective access to justice. We all await his final proposals with impatience.
The debate has concentrated on the threat to professionals—for example, health care professionals, accountants, surveyors, architects, barristers, solicitors and so forth—of negligence claims. I submit that the victims of negligence are as much deserving of public protection and of public sympathy as the victims of crime. That is why the House was so concerned when the Home Secretary sought to dilute the scheme for compensating the victims of crime.
Several noble Lords referred to American nightmares. I agree that in the United States there is a nightmare situation of excessive litigation, far too many lawyers and astronomical damages awards. However, I do not see that applying in this country, and perhaps I may briefly explain why. First, since 1933 jury trials for negligence cases have been abolished in this country. One of the main reasons why negligence awards are so high in the United States is that it has preserved trial by jury.
Secondly, in the United States there are class actions coupled with contingency fee systems. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in his concern about the recently introduced contingency fee regulations in this country, and I also agree that there is a need for careful monitoring in order to avoid the vice of speculative litigation. However, having heard the views of the House on that matter, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will ensure that there is extremely careful monitoring.
We are very far indeed from the American situation of class actions, with speculative fees and with no liability for costs, where the loser has to pay the winner. In this country one of the great sanctions against frivolous, vexatious or unreasonable litigation is the Draconian cost rules to punish the plaintiff who loses.
The Medical Defence Union has been mentioned. Dr. Michael Saunders, chief executive, on being appointed in June 1995 said that complaints against the medical profession are likely to increase, not least because of the Department of Health's commitment to introducing a more accessible and responsive
1632
complaints system for patients. We should surely welcome that. We should welcome the fact that the Government have become committed to a more accessible and responsive complaints system. If that leads to more complaints, so be it; it helps to ensure the accountability of the medical profession.
Medical premiums are rising, but they have not reached American levels. According to the Medical Defence Union, a general practitioner earning £40,000 a year will pay an annual premium of about£1,500. In my view, that is not an excessive burden to impose upon a qualified professional lest his negligent conduct imposes severe loss or injury on one of his or her patients. Surely it is for the good that the public are increasingly calling the professions, including my own, to account when things go wrong. Those professionals concerned may be doctors, lawyers, accountants or whatever.
As regards the courts in this country, there is no substance in the view expressed by some that our judges have diluted the threshold in negligence claims. So far as I am aware, the duty of care has been the same since it was formulated before Donoghue and Stevenson; and the courts have been extremely careful to ensure that no excessive liability is placed upon defendants. Indeed, in the recent case of Caparo Industries, the Law Lords made quite clear that accountants, for example, would not be liable for economic loss except in very special circumstances.
I am aware of no evidence that personal injury awards made by judges have been excessive. Indeed, last week Mr. John Monks, General Secretary of the TUC, wrote to The Times in the wake of the admirable decision of the Court of Appeal to limit damages awards in libel cases. He pointed out that so far as concerns trade unions and their members, awards for damages for personal injury are far too low.
It is not self-evident to me that the lack of nurses or other health care professionals is caused by the effects of negligence litigation or the risks of litigation. What, I ask myself, about low pay or poor working conditions as more probable reasons if those professions are understaffed.
I agree with noble Lords who referred to the need to avoid unnecessary litigation. I believe that our legal system does that well. I believe also that we should pursue alternative dispute resolutions; and I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, among others, has been in the vanguard of seeking to do that.
Therefore, with respect to those of your Lordships who have spoken thus far, I am not persuaded that there is a very serious mischief calling for the kind of rather extreme remedies which have been advocated in the course of this debate. It seems to me that our system of justice is fairly balanced between plaintiff and defendant. I can see a case for firms of accountants, for example, being permitted to incorporate and to limit their liability and matters of that kind. But I do not share the view, which I think was the view which motivated the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, that here is a serious social evil which calls for some kind of emergency action.
5 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I too must declare an interest. I am a lay member of the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. I emphasise the word "lay".
I thank my noble friend for introducing this important and interesting discussion. My point of departure is slightly different. It is the fact that in recent years, the professions have been subject to attack and there is even a sense of crisis in some of them. There are several origins of that onslaught but the two which immediately come to mind are the Government and the consumer movement. The professions are worried that people no longer trust them and are losing confidence in them. Those outside the professions seem to believe that they should be subject to the most critical scrutiny. In fact, the evidence of a decline in the public support for the professions is non-existent. As has already been pointed out, doctors—the most obvious example—are extremely highly rated by the public, rated far higher than the politicians who attack them.
My purpose is to say a few words in economics terms about what is meant by the professions and to assess whether professional ideals and ethics and all that may be said to comprise a profession are compatible with the welfare and interests of households. In that connection, I emphasise that in my judgment, professions are not valuable in themselves. They are valuable for what they do. They are valuable if they please the customers, households and clients that use them.
Therefore, in asking whether the professions are compatible with the welfare and interests of households, we must ask whether it is true, as some critics allege, that the professions are just a high-flown way of engaging in restrictive practices or in certain areas, or whether they are fundamental to the protection of consumers and the maintenance of their welfare. Are education and validation of qualifications merely the means of restricting supply and raising fees or are they a guarantee of quality and a path to redress for poor service?
I regard all those topics as highly controversial and none of us will be able to answer the questions which I have raised or that other noble Lords have raised with a simple yes or no. But I hope that what I say will at least help noble Lords to take a view.
As I say, it is probable that in no circumstances would it be valid to take a strong position and I do not doubt that the professions are worthy of critical scrutiny. But my main question is to ask whether changes are desirable. In particular, I must ask whether it is possible for the professions to take the consumer more seriously and to operate in a more market-dominated environment but without destroying professional ideals.
I must make a few remarks on the meaning of the word "professional". In common parlance, the word takes on a meaning as the opposite of amateur. That implies both a concern with money and a high degree of seriousness of approach. For example, in sport it is associated with effective behaviour which can often be regarded as unethical. One may refer to the professional foul in football; and, in cricket, the batsmen who never
1634
walk. Perhaps I may say en passant that I have never known a time in my life when ethical standards in sport on or off the field have been as low as they are at present.
But our concern is not with professionalism in those pejorative senses. We must distinguish between professional motivation which brings a good monetary reward and monetary motivation per se.I believe that we all agree that the essence of a profession is its ethic. To reply in part to the question which I asked, I believe that that ethic, far from being anti-consumer, properly interpreted and put into practice must be for the benefit of consumers. I do not say that that is always so but that it should be so.
Another aspect which I must raise is professional autonomy. That is connected with self-regulation which is demanded by all sorts of people such as those providing financial services who are not professionals in the traditional sense. But it is also to do with the right to make an independent professional judgment. A classic example is the clinical freedom so dear to the medical profession. Whatever else one says, I should not like to see any developments which undermine that kind of professional independence.
What then do the economists say generally about that? It will not surprise your Lordships that viewing the professionals as they are normally organised, the economist's immediate response is to dislike the restrictive practices involved with having a profession. But the general view which I think most of us accept is that in this case, what we might call the departures from free competition, although they look like a restrictive cartel, whether we are discussing doctors, lawyers or anybody else, are palatable to the public and the only way in which they become palatable to the public is because of the assurance of a high quality service which the professions give. I argue that a competitive model would not give that. But it seems to me that that places the emphasis where it should be placed; namely, less on theoretical questions and much more on practical questions such as what the professionals actually achieve.
As I see it, the central question is one of—if your Lordships will forgive the language—asymmetric information between buyer and seller. By definition, the seller is an expert professional and the buyer is not. Of course, that is how it should be, otherwise we should not have the division of labour that we want. It would be absurd if the market or anybody else required the patient to know as much as the doctor or the client to know as much as the lawyer. But the position is worse than that because if a consumer is sold a dud second-hand car, that soon becomes apparent to him. That is equally so as regards a bad meal or an unbecoming haircut. But in relation to professional services, performance is difficult to judge even ex post facto. Other noble Lords have alluded to those examples. The fact that one loses a case or fails to recover satisfactorily from medical treatment does not mean that the lawyer or doctor did not do his professional best. The problem is how one knows that.

1635
That problem gives rise to the need for externally constrained rules of contract and why we must have statutory restrictions on entry to the professions.
That is also why professionals should be treated differently from other people providing a service. The essential point is that if the professional does his best and is not negligent, he may still be subject to litigation and costly insurance. That is why control of entry to the professions is so important and is also why the maintenance of professional standards within them is equally important.
A further point to bear in mind is that if anyone can practice a profession or, indeed, there are professionals who act with less than the highest ethical motives, that imposes a cost on their fellow professionals. Again, that is why ethics committees are so important. I am interested in the concern that solicitors are having at present in relation to low-cost conveyancing. As an economist, that is fascinating to me because if the behaviour of those carrying out low-cost conveyancing characterises everybody who is carrying out conveyancing, then that has a deleterious effect on the public view of all people doing conveyancing which could raise the insurance costs for everyone.
Therefore, although I accept the fact that one worries about restrictive practices in that respect, I well understand the dilemma that faces solicitors. I believe that the same point applies to all the professions. A pharmacist who acts improperly damages the reputation of all pharmacists; indeed, that is also true of doctors and everyone else. That is why we have to take the matter seriously.
I turn now to my next point upon which I have made one or two remarks; namely, that there is a certain lack of balance. Of course I agree with those who condemn the sort of person who argues in every case that someone must be to blame. I take the view that we do not want that to happen. However, logically we should not go to the other extreme and argue that it is never the case that someone is to blame. The real problem is precisely—to use a word that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, used; and I agree very much with what she said—to seek some kind of balance.
In saying that it is a matter of balance and reminding ourselves that we are discussing a wide variety of professions, I am afraid that we cannot avoid discussing lawyers and the practice of law specifically. I speak as someone who, as an undergraduate, was offered a choice between law and mathematics as an ancillary subject. I chose mathematics, and have never regretted doing so. But we must accept that there is a problem so far as concerns the cost of using the law. Although I agreed with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, had to say, I was somewhat disappointed at one or two of his remarks which did not seem to be quite as critical of his colleagues as perhaps they ought to have been. Most ordinary people are not eligible for legal aid, but they also cannot meet the cost of legal proceedings. Even going to a solicitor for something simple may appear to be open ended in the sense that one does not know beforehand what the cost will be.
1636
I am not saying that lawyers are failing to meet professional standards or that they are overcharging clients; but I am saying that there is a good deal of uncertainty involved. In saying that, I must tell your Lordships that I spoke to several lawyers on the matter. They rather laughed at me and asked me whether I knew the standard joke that whereas an accountant can afford to use an accountant and a doctor can afford to use a doctor, not even a lawyer can afford to use a lawyer. I would not quite go that far, but I am quoting from legal friends.
My own view is that if the law is too expensive, then surely that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and one which must lead to a sense of grievance which is actually harmful to all our democratic processes. I have to say that the problem is not so much recompense for damage done, but much more a feeling of injustice that someone has got away with something and is therefore above the law—that they are, if you like, laughing at the rest of us.
Perhaps I may refer to a personal experience. I have had the experience of being defamed by a Sunday newspaper. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is sitting in his place because I am about to make a critical remark or two which, as he knows, is very unusual for me. My lawyers told me that, without a shadow of a doubt, it was defamatory; but they also begged me and strongly advised me not to go to law unless I had virtually unlimited sums of money to commit. I can shrug my shoulders about that, but I am not alone in having had such an experience. In noting the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, in the Chamber, I have to say that the Press Complaints Commission is quite pathetic in its lack of response to the scale of insinuation and libel which permeates our newspapers.
I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has published a paper on fast-track proceedings with respect to libel. I wish him well, just as I am supportive of the lines that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, wishes .to develop. However, there is the general problem which is more than just the specific aspect of libel law. I refer to the need of trying to get something simple and straightforward, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said, when dealing with all sorts of grievances. We wish somehow to cope with the behaviour of the professions where, in a tiny minority of cases, they are not doing quite what one has in mind. But one does not wish to deal with the complaints which arise on the basis of a large and expensive resort to the law. That is just what one does not want to do.
In my own judgment—and I speak both as a consumer and a lay person—those who have senior positions in the law and senior positions in the professions need themselves to address the matter and provide us with procedures which are simple and inexpensive and which, above all, give the public greater faith in self-regulation. I reiterate: I do not want to see more litigation; and I do not wish to see the professions more tightly regulated. Moreover, in echoing the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Cocks, I certainly do not want people to be deterred from

1637
entering the professions because of the need to protect themselves against the continuing risk of legal confrontation.s
However, having said that, the public have genuine concerns, and in my view, they need more protection than they currently get or feel that they are getting. Therefore, I must conclude by asking: is it not right to consider whether our existing procedures in all those professional areas, even though they may have been reasonably good in the past, are perhaps not quite apposite for the present, let alone for doing the job for a very complicated, developing future?
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, it is with gratitude that I acknowledge the kindness of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, in introducing today's debate. Obviously it is a matter of very considerable importance and it is right that your Lordships should have an opportunity to discuss it, such as is provided by this short debate.s
In the earlier parts of the debate, it might be said that the solutions to the problems were not so evident as statements about what the problems are. I believe that the general law which regulates the reliability of the professional person is that that person has to show a standard of reasonable care which is appropriate to that person's position in the profession. Perhaps I may take the point made by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. For example, a junior doctor is not expected to have the standard of care that would be exhibited by a very senior consultant in the profession. On the other hand, if a junior doctor has charge of a case, he has the responsibility for knowing when he should hand it over to someone more experienced. Indeed, there have been cases in the courts when junior doctors have failed in that respect. However, in my view, there is no doubt at all that the law does properly discriminate between such matters.
I also believe that the general law is unexceptionable. I do not know anyone who has formulated a better basic rule than the rule of reasonable care, having regard to the professional competence in question. Therefore, although the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, indicated that at senior levels in the judiciary the law was thought to be "x", I believe that he also suggested that at lower levels in the judiciary the law was, perhaps, less than "x". Well, there are appeals systems which should redress that situation if it were so. Certainly I would take issue with that as a general principle. Obviously, sometimes a litigant is unhappy with a decision against him or her at first instance and might think that the law had been misapplied. But, so far as liability is concerned, I should have thought that the general law on the subject is unexceptionable.
I also believe that the general law on other subject matters that have been raised is unexceptionable. I have in mind the law relating to judicial review. Although it is a developing law in which it may not always be possible for a person likely to be subject to an application for judicial review to forecast its outcome—as, indeed, some of the cases that the noble Lord, Lord
1638
Lester of Herne Hill, referred to amply demonstrate—it is, in its general structure, a balanced law which I believe would command respect from all.
There are of course special questions in relation to liability as between different people. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, referred to that, in particular in relation to accountancy firms. On that matter there is a question whether what is referred to as joint and several liability is always fair. On the other hand, from the point of view of the injured or damaged person, the fact that there has been a fault which has given rise to a certain damage is the fundamental matter. It does not appear to me to matter too much to that person whether two or three others are also implicated as well as the person whom he or she chose to litigate against in the first place. There is a degree of question about this matter and I believe that the Law Commission is considering this as a general question at the present time. However, I do not think it is at all self-evident that the law would be a fair law which would make the liability of a wrongdoer only in that proportion which he would have with other wrongdoers as a measure of his liability to the plaintiff. I do not think that is established.
These are the main matters of law underlying this subject matter. As I say, as far as I have heard, these are not really capable of being seriously objected to. As my noble friend Lord Colwyn said, the obvious answer therefore, if this is the law, is that so long as the practice is a good practice there is nothing to fear. As he pointed out, the pressure to conform with good practice cannot be a bad thing. It cannot lower standards in any event. It is also important that complaints procedures should be good so that people can raise questions before there is any litigation. However, when it comes to a serious fault and something has gone wrong which is due to blame or negligence on the part of a professional person, it appears to me that, unless that is agreed, some form of procedure is necessary for resolving it. The courts are the ultimate forum for resolving these matters. However, I certainly believe that there are other ways of doing it which are appropriate to particular circumstances. The field of alternative dispute resolution is a wide one which contains many different possibilities. I believe there are possibilities within the medical profession, the dental profession, among accountants and others. In the ultimate there must be a court to decide matters if parties cannot otherwise resolve their differences.
This brings me to a matter that was raised by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. One of the difficulties and one of the essential prerequisites of a profession is what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to as the asymmetric character of the information that the parties have. One does not expect the patient to know as much as the doctor because if that were the case at least the advice might not be necessary, although no doubt the operation might still require to be done by the doctor. This is one of the problems that gives rise to suspicion. If I go into hospital for an operation and I look all right when I go in but I come out with serious injuries in a part that did not appear to be affected originally by the illness for which I went into hospital, I would be apt to think as a natural consequence that

1639
something had gone wrong. However, I may not find it easy to say what has gone wrong. If the doctor is able to explain to me in terms which I can understand what has gone wrong, and that that was nothing to do with him but was the result of a natural condition that had suddenly developed coincidentally at the time when he happened to be operating, that would be all well and good. However, if when I complain a complete blind comes down and I cannot find out what on earth went wrong or what went on when I was in hospital, my suspicions are raised. There is no doubt in my mind that a good deal of trouble arises from such situations. The proposals to be made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health which were referred to are intended, at least to some extent, to deal with that point.
I do not believe that legal professional privilege or any other form of privilege is likely to attach to the sort of inquiry that my noble friend referred to as regards a hospital. After all, the patient in a case where something has gone wrong is the person in respect of whom something has gone wrong and is the person whom we might think has the most important interest of all. I am not sure why it should be thought proper or wise to restrict the patient's access to knowledge of what has gone wrong. I believe that better complaints procedures have a part to play in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, mentioned some figures with regard to the level of litigation. These figures tend to indicate that perhaps there is not as much litigation as some may think. On the other hand the more complaints are dealt with and resolved without litigation, the better. I believe that the more we can do in that connection, the better things will be for everyone.
The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, referred to an attitude which suggests that, if something has gone wrong, someone must be to blame. That is certainly not the law. The law makes it clear that one cannot generally attack someone and receive compensation from that person. There are certain areas of strict liability but generally speaking the law states that one can only receive compensation in respect of a fault which has been proved to cause the loss in respect of which one is claiming. Therefore the attitude I have referred to is not the attitude of the law. Perhaps my profession should try to make that plainer and try at least to redress the balance and counter the suggestion that whenever something goes wrong someone must be to blame.
My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, referred to conditional fees. These were introduced last summer in a limited class of case. I do not believe that they have contributed as yet to anything of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, mentioned. There is one extremely important point that arises in this connection which was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill; namely, that in our country the courts as a general rule award costs against the unsuccessful party. Therefore those who litigate on an unfounded basis are running the risk of incurring considerable costs. Where legal aid is awarded—as has been pointed out—there are quite severe limitations in that respect. That is one reason why a litigant who is
1640
opposed by a litigant with legal aid is in quite a difficult situation, because often the chance of recovering any costs is small. Even if the likelihood of liability is not severe, it may be economic to settle the action if it concerns a small amount. That would not, of course, apply if large amounts were involved. Therefore legal aid is not an unmitigated benefit to all. It may have serious effects as regards those sued with the benefit of legal aid on the other side. That is a matter which I am seeking to address in the Green Paper published earlier in the year. Any noble Lords who have useful thoughts to contribute on that subject matter are warmly invited to do so.
As regards procedures, I am strongly in favour of the view that we should do what we can to improve our procedures. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has given us an exciting taste of what is to come in his interim report. When someone suggests a simplification in legal procedure a host of people explain why it should not apply to their particular case because they want a full hearing. That was one of the points made by my noble friend Lady Hooper in relation to doctors, who may be slightly uneasy about a very simple form of procedure because they feel that it does not give them a chance fully to vindicate their professional reputation. It is difficult to move to simplification in every case when there are problems of that kind to deal with.
However, I believe that we should persevere. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, is persevering and I am looking forward with eager anticipation to his final report, which I hope will emerge in the course of this year. All of your Lordships are grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, for the time and effort that he has put into that work. The extent to which his proposals have been seen as valuable and going in the right direction has been encouraging for him.
Those are the main matters to which I wished to refer. It may have been of some consequence that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, chose mathematics as his extra subject rather than law. That is a valuable basis on which to approach questions about the professions.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, can he inform the House, in the light of the advice from his advisory committee to which I referred, what action he is taking or proposes to take in order to monitor the implementation of the conditional fee system to ensure that the consumer is properly and fully protected from potential exploitation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend mentioned, I have arranged for a research project to be carried out under the authority of my advisory committee. In the light of what transpires there I shall consider what else may be required.
As I said, and as my noble and learned friend mentioned, that project was limited in scope. I shall require to take some time before a decision is made as to its effect and whether it should be extended. My

1641
noble and learned friend said that there would be no reason in logic for not extending it. That is a question to he determined in the light of experience of its operation.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, can he comment on the rights or otherwise of individuals to refuse to give evidence to inquiries and whether doctors could be subpoenaed by the National Health Service?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, except in so far as there is statutory authority—and in some types of inquiry there is authority for the issue of subpoenas—there would not normally be any right to issue a subpoena nor any obligation to comply with one. There are sometimes contractual conditions which require people to give evidence or information. I have no doubt that at least some of the inquiries to which my noble friend referred will have characteristics of that kind which will apply in respect of at least some of the officers involved.
In most cases it will depend entirely on the wish of the individual and what the individual thinks right. I should have thought that most of those who hold responsible positions in hospitals where something has gone wrong would wish to co-operate as fully as possible with those who are inquiring into the matter.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I should like to thank all colleagues who have taken part in the debate. In view of the concentration on medical matters, I should perhaps have declared an interest as a lifelong hypochondriac. I hope that those colleagues who concentrated on the medical aspect will bear in mind the problems of recruitment into the other callings that I mentioned.
With regard to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, probably the simplest thing would be for me to plead guilty as charged and throw myself on his mercy. I shall certainly try to obtain the book recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Cheque-book Journalism
5.34 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith rose to call attention to the case for statutory limitation on the use of cheque-book journalism; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper I look forward to what I hope will be an interesting debate on this matter. In particular, I look forward to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, in what will be his first speech to the House since he stood down as its Leader. I look forward to the response to the debate by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Both have kindly assisted me in my
1642
preparations. In addition, I particularly look forward to the contribution from the noble Viscount, Lord Exmouth, in what will be his maiden speech.
I was hesitant about putting this Motion down for debate, but the more I thought about the trial of Rosemary West, recently completed in Winchester, where witness after witness who appeared in the trial was under contract to sell his or her story to this or that newspaper, the more convinced I became that this is a proper subject for us to discuss.
I recognise that we are walking on eggs this afternoon, not because of what the press might say about the debate—the press will say what it must say and do what it must do—and so should we. Rather, we must tread with caution and consider carefully, because it is the press itself that has recorded what is going on and informed us of it. Any action which might inhibit responsible journalism must be avoided.
I do not wish to dwell for too long on the trial of Rosemary West, but as that trial developed it seemed that it was more and more possible for defence counsel to question the veracity of witnesses because they were under contract to the press. Indeed, one witness, Janet Leach, who at first denied that she was under contract, damaged her integrity as a witness when it was shown that she had such a contractual relationship.
It is inevitable that when one researches a subject such as this one finds oneself tilling fertile soil that has already been well cultivated. In December 1974 a committee appointed to consider contempt of court under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Phillimore reported to the House. At paragraph 55 the report states:
"Press interviews caused us some anxiety … The real danger of such interviews is that witnesses whose evidence is vital to the matter under investigation are questioned without any of the safeguards which obtain in our Courts of Law or Tribunals of Enquiry … Witnesses might also be tempted to give a version of the facts which they thought most newsworthy—particularly if a fee were being paid for the interview. When such a witness came to give evidence before the Tribunal they would either 'have to stick by what they had said, however inaccurate it might be—or reveal the true facts. In the latter event the weight of their evidence might be considerably shaken by the discrepancy between what they are telling the Tribunal and what they said previously".
At paragraph 56 the report considers the specific issue of payment of witnesses. It states:
"One particular situation with witnesses deserves special mention. It arose in connection with the Moors murder case in 1966 where two witnesses were offered sums of money by a newspaper for their stories (for publication after the Trial); but the amount to be paid was expressly made dependent upon whether or not a conviction was secured. A similar question arises with rewards (perhaps less common than they used to be) which are publicly offered for information leading to a conviction. If the information comes, as in many cases it will, from a potential witness in the case, he may be regarded as having an interest in the outcome and therefore might be under some pressure or temptation to shape his evidence in order to achieve the desired result".
At paragraph 79, the report returns to this issue:
"Widespread and, in our view, justifiable concern was expressed at what happened in the Moors Murder case in 1966".
Further down the report states:
"We have no evidence as to the extent to which this practice has continued since 1966".
We now know that the practice certainly continues and has occurred in regard to other notorious cases too. The report continues:
"However, we regard the potential dangers as sufficiently grave to warrant further inquiry as to its prevalence and if found necessary legislation to restrain or wholly prohibit this practice. We recommend that such an inquiry be carried out".
That was the view expressed in 1974. I do not apologise for quoting the report extensively. As your Lordships would expect of a report to this House, it makes the point with greater elegance and precision of language than I might have been able to achieve.
Time passes, and the activities of the press have from time to time given rise to further concern. Today we have the Press Complaints Commission to monitor a code of practice that seeks to restrain unacceptable press behaviour. The code of practice was framed by the newspaper and periodical industry and subsequently ratified by the commission in 1993. The preamble states:
"Editors are responsible for the actions of journalists employed by their publications. They should satisfy themselves as far as possible that material accepted from non-staff members was obtained in accordance with this code. While recognising that this involves a substantial element of self-restraint by editors and journalists, it is designed to be acceptable in the context of a system of self-regulation. The code applies in the spirit as well as the letter".
Paragraph 9 of the code states:
"Payments or offers of payment for stories, pictures or information should not be made directly or through agents to witnesses in current or criminal proceedings or to people engaged in crime or to their associates—which includes family, friends, neighbours and colleagues, except where the material concerned ought to be published in the public interest and the payment is necessary for that to be done".
Paragraph 18 of the code gives three definitions of public interest, of which I mention only one:
"Detecting or exposing a crime or serious misdemeanour".
I may be misinformed, but I am not aware that the original revelations that led to the exposure of the Wests' crimes was the result of press investigation; rather, it came as a result of a chance conversation by a local policeman and his persistence in following the matter up. As subsequent investigation revealed the enormity of what had been done behind the innocent façade of an ordinary house and in other places, it was both proper and necessary for the press to report the progress of the investigation as it was brought towards a successful conclusion.
I fully understand the necessity for detailed and complete reporting of the trial of Mrs. West, distasteful though that was. All of this is clearly in the public interest. But I am a relatively simple man and I do not understand how this proper function necessitated what I can only describe as an auction to purchase the stories of witnesses. I would prefer to see this practice banned, although I see all too well the problems of drafting such a regulation. At the very least, such arrangements with witnesses should be required to be declared to the courts before any proceedings commence.
That thought provokes a parallel point. Following the death of Mr. West and the conviction of Mrs. West, the Official Solicitor became burdened with administering
1644
the affairs of the family in the interests of all the family. Indeed, it is his duty to maximise any value obtainable. It transpires that the greatest asset left by the West parents turns out to be their life story, and there are reports of great sums being offered for the copyright. I have the greatest sympathy with the predicament of the Wests' children, but I must confess that it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth that the Official Solicitor should have to bear such a burden—and that such a story could apparently have a value which matches a divided main lottery prize. What has our sense of values come to?
To return to the main point, I do not see this as an issue that affects in any way the freedom of the press to report events properly. Nor do I wish to place any restraint on investigative journalism, which from time to time serves society as a whole very well. But there is a case to answer. Society has found it necessary to initiate statutory regulation in so many fields in recent time where it was thought impossible in earlier days. Is regulation of one of the commercial practices of the press so impossible to consider? When actions taken to further the commercial interest of a specific sector of society can put at risk an already hazardous judicial process it is time to call a halt. I beg to move for Papers.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on giving us the opportunity to debate a subject of significant public concern. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to that debate. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, will speak after me. I should have found it easier and preferable to have heard his comments first; but, alas, that is the order in which I have been asked to make a contribution.
Cheque-book journalism has been a long-standing cause of concern. Although it has had a new focus of attention through the West trial, it has been under scrutiny and criticism for many years. I could add many examples to those referred to by the noble Lord, going back to the Christine Keeler case. There are many others, all of which have given rise to anxiety lest the practice of cheque-book journalism should undermine the cause of justice in a series of cases.
Eleven years ago I had the opportunity in the other place to introduce a Private Member's Bill dealing with the subject. It was quite embarrassing to read what I said. I shall certainly not quote myself here. It was a matter of concern then. I believe that it was the Sutcliffe case which gave rise to widespread feelings on the issue.
Perhaps I may say this at the outset. I believe that a free press is absolutely vital in our society. We all have to accept many practices on the part of the press which individually we deplore because dealing with such instances might undermine a free press, and that would be the worst outcome of all. So we have to live with the press; and I am as unhappy as any other Member of this House at what the press sometimes gets up to. However, a free press is an important fundamental principle. The problem with cheque-book journalism is that it puts the press in a dilemma between commercial and journalistic interests.

1645
Newspapers quite often bid for stories from individuals in the interests of their circulation. They believe that those stories will add to their circulation rather than that they will necessarily add a great deal to their journalistic coverage. Therefore, when we look at the freedom of the press we must also consider the circulation wars going on intensely at the present time and understand—and regret—the reasons why cheque-book journalism plays such a part in the commercial motives of keeping a newspaper's circulation up.
The noble Lord referred to the problem of payments to witnesses in court actions. I wish to give a few examples of other instances where cheque-book journalism occurs, although the most serious are those to do with payments to witnesses. It has been indicated that sometimes individual witnesses are given a bonus or offered money only if the outcome of a court hearing is that a defendant is found guilty. That is highly undesirable and it seems to me to breach the principle of a fair trial. It has been suggested that one way round the problem would be to have witnesses declare in court that they have been offered sums of money for their stories after the case has been concluded. But I must say that I am not happy about that. It might have some benefits, but I am not happy that that is the way to deal with the difficulty.
Then there is the situation where payments are offered to criminals or people closely associated with criminal activity for their stories. The difficulty there is that it would seem to me to be almost a life-long imposition. It is highly undesirable that anyone should benefit in that way from the results of criminal activity. On the other hand, are we able to say, when someone has spent 10 or 15 years in gaol, that they should still be barred from giving their story to the papers? I find that difficult. I should be unhappy if at any point a criminal were to benefit, and yet I find it equally difficult to suggest that criminals should never be allowed the freedom to sell their story when they have served their sentence, however long it may be.
There are also instances where individuals are paid money because a newspaper wishes to have a monopoly in publishing a story. That seems understandable as a commercial motive but clearly against the interests of a free press, where all papers can publish stories. However, I can see why it may happen and it may be difficult to do much about it.
Sometimes individuals who are the victims of disasters or are closely associated with disasters may be offered money to tell their stories. There I believe that the agony is for the individual to balance the offer of what may be a large sum of money against the wish to retain his privacy and not reveal the agonies he has gone through. I believe that relatives of victims of the Hillsborough tragedy, for example, were offered Inducements to tell their stories after the event. That must be for the individual to decide, but it is not always a desirable activity to wave large sums of money in front of poor people to make them reveal things about their past which probably they would not wish to reveal.
1646
Then there are instances where newspapers pay individuals to reveal sexual scandals in which they themselves may have been implicated in order that a person in public life is exposed in the headlines for whatever that person has been getting up to. There have been so many instances of that recently that I shall not bore the House by giving examples.
There is one further aspect of cheque-book journalism which bothers me as regards the individuals who are offered money. It is close to the example that I gave earlier of individuals who have been the victims of a disaster but it is not identical. People may be offered money at a time when they are under emotional stress and when they have to make a quick decision, often without legal or other advice as to how they should conduct themselves. The result may be that they sell their story far too cheaply, simply because they do not realise its value and the benefit to them of retaining the copyright rather than letting the newspaper have it.
Those are all examples, some of which I fear we can do little about. However, they all affect the practice of journalism and offering money to individuals. I welcome the fact that the Government are considering taking action following the West trial. I have read articles suggesting that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary are all involved in discussions on how to proceed. I notice that the Association of Chief Police Officers also issued a statement last month. Mr. Sharpies, the Chief Constable of Merseyside and president of the association said:
"This type of activity has the potential at best to cast doubt on the credibility of witnesses and at worst to pervert the course of justice".
That is a fairly clear statement from the police.
I have looked with interest at the various codes that exist. The National Union of Journalists has a code of conduct which covers cheque-book journalism and so has the Press Complaints Commission. One has already been read out, but both codes refer to consideration of the public interest. I very much support a public interest defence in many instances. On the other hand, it seems to me to have become a bit of an excuse for some newspapers, when there could not be a public interest in some of the witnesses' stories; for example, in the West case, where much of it came out in open court anyway. So I am not totally clear how public interest comes into it in instances where we are dealing with witnesses in current or criminal proceedings or dealing with people who have been engaged in crime or their associates. It is difficult to see a public interest defence. There may be one on occasions, but not often.
I welcome the fact that the Daily Mail came out clearly at the end of November on the subject. I quote from a leading article of 24th November 1995:
"But as the West trial shows, the rules can be bent. What is needed is firm, clear guidance from the Press Complaints Commission and, if all else fails, our legislators too".
I have to confess that we are in difficulty. When I spoke about this in the other place 11 years ago I was fairly clear about the way ahead, but the passage of years has made me less certain that there are clear ways

1647
ahead. We could make it an offence possibly under contempt of court legislation or other legislation so that no one, no witness should be offered any payment connected with any court proceedings. That could be clear and absolute and I do not see why we should not move that way. Although it is highly desirable that criminals should not benefit from their crimes through being given money by newspapers for telling their stories, I find it difficult to see how we could give force to that, except through codes enforced by the Press Complaints Commission.
There is one other suggestion which I wish to make. To my mind it would be desirable and helpful if newspapers had to indicate that a particular story had been the subject of cheque-book journalism. They need not necessarily give the amount, although that would be interesting and illuminating. Perhaps newspapers should be compelled, through codes or through the Press Complaints Commission code, to indicate that a particular story had been the subject of cheque-book journalism—it could be described more elegantly—rather than that it was by a journalist or by a regular contributor. That would enable us to judge the strength and force of any story or contribution.
I believe that there is a way ahead, but it is limited. I am bound to say that there are many examples of cheque-book journalism where I fear we shall do very little except rely on the self-restraint of the press.
5.59 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, first, I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith on bringing forward this most important Motion for us to discuss this evening. The whole House will share with the noble Viscount, Lord Exmouth, the experience of making a maiden speech. I wish him well and would like to hear him many more times in the future.
I feel slightly strange. It is the first time that I have spoken in either House, other than from the Government Front Bench, since the day when my noble friend Lady Thatcher formed her first Administration. It seems an absolute lifetime ago.
This debate raises many important and serious issues with which I, as the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, have a significant concern. The issues are complicated, in which many bodies and institutions as well as the press, and those who seek to regulate it, have a legitimate interest.
My task is to seek to make press self-regulation more effective. However, it may not be right to expect a self-regulatory body to seek to enforce procedures designed to protect the legal system. Some may well conclude that these are matters for the courts, the Attorney-General or ultimately, if the law is failing, for Parliament.
I shall not—and I hope the House will understand—refer to any particular recent case, both because the legal process may not yet be complete and also because the Press Complaints Commission may yet receive a complaint. It would be quite wrong of me to discuss a case upon which I may be called to adjudicate.
1648
The code of practice which the PCC seeks to administer is a code that has been fully and freely endorsed by members of the press. They drew up the code, and it is in a very real sense their code, not mine. The PCC deals with some 3,000 complaints a year, overwhelmingly from ordinary members of the public. The vast majority of complaints are resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant. But in the five years of its existence, the Press Complaints Commission has not received one single complaint on the subject of payments to witnesses.
My noble friend referred to paragraph 9 of the code which states (I paraphrase) that payments should not be made to witnesses or potential witnesses except where the material ought to be published in the public interest. He quoted one of the three cases of public interest; namely, "detecting or exposing of crime or a serious misdemeanour". The second is: "protecting public health and safety"; and the third: "preventing the public from being misled by some statements or actions of an individual or organisation".
I have to say to my noble friend that I am pretty certain that a great many newspapers would seek to defend their actions, were they to be challenged, on a wider basis than just the first case, as mentioned by my noble friend.
The code itself seems on the face of it clear. But I am aware that it is considered ambiguous, because of the uncertainty of knowing what a "potential" witness is in the initial period after arrests are made. It is often inevitably impossible at that stage of judicial proceeding to foretell how the prosecution and defence cases are likely to develop. I do not think there is an easy way round that difficulty.
There is also the problem of knowing how the public interest—which certainly does not mean whatever interests the public—is applied. There have been instances where people who ultimately became witnesses have spoken to a reporter without a full appreciation of the importance of their evidence. As a result, reporters informed the prosecuting authorities, who may otherwise not have known about a witness's existence. We have examples of that.
There is also a clear flaw in the argument that we can solve the problem by having rules that forbid payments or offers of payments to witnesses or potential witnesses prior to the conclusion of the proceedings so as to ensure that their evidence is not tainted.
It is not, I think, suggested that the making of all payments after proceedings have been concluded should be outlawed, whether in respect of books, the serialisation of books in newspapers, newspaper reports or television documentaries. It must follow that if there is a risk that a witness may slant his evidence in the light of payment or offers of payment made prior to the conclusion of proceedings, that risk would still exist if the witness knew that offers of payment might be forthcoming once the proceedings had been concluded. As my noble friend reminded us, this is not a new matter. The cases of the Moors murderers, Jeremy Thorpe and Peter Sutcliffe come to mind.

1649
Other media may have to consider this issue as well as the press. But one way in which I believe it might be possible for press self-regulation to move forward is for there to be a new protocol to the code of practice for the press to ensure that where newspapers or magazines, having given proper consideration to the public interest, have financial dealings with potential witnesses, they must take every possible step, first, to demonstrate that there is a legitimate public interest at stake involving matters that the public have a right to know; secondly, to ensure that no dealings have influence on the evidence that those witnesses may give; and, thirdly, that the payment or offer of payment to any witness who is actually called in proceedings should be disclosable to the prosecution and the defence.
It is clear to me that some witnesses in criminal cases do have a story to tell, and demand money for telling it. The public may have a right to hear stories about, for example, failings in the conduct of a police force in helping bring particular criminals to account, or the failings of a social services department. Because of the legitimate commercial pressures within and between different parts of the media and the desire to ensure exclusivity, there is inevitably competition between newspapers, between newspapers and book publishers and with broadcasters. However, if there are to be payments, there must be a clear public interest in that transaction which must be transparent and open to scrutiny. The protocol that I propose will have to set out those principles.
My job is to encourage newspapers and magazines to develop their own effective rules, which must be clear, consistent and based on the increasing success of the PCC's own code of practice in other areas, and be supported by the entire press. I have therefore begun discussions with editors and proprietors of newspapers and magazines to help facilitate a solution to this serious issue based on the protocol that I have outlined today. Proprietors have an especially important role to play, as it is their money that is being spent; and it is to them that editors must account, given their contractual duty to observe the code. The intention of the new protocol must not contain any doubt. And the industry's commitment to voluntary control in this area, as in all others, must be fulfilled in deed as well as in word.
I do not guarantee that I will be able to negotiate a satisfactory protocol, but I will have a determined attempt. A free press is an integral part of a free and democratic society. I for one will do all I can to avoid any form of statutory controls. But a free press also needs to be a responsible press—and its response in this area may prove to be another touchstone of that responsibility.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
6.9 p.m.
Viscount Exmouth: My Lords, although my interests are associated principally with the tourist industry, I felt it appropriate to make my first contribution during a debate that is of considerable public concern. I am in agreement with many of the points raised by noble Lords.
1650
What has become known as cheque-book journalism, or the obtaining of information through payment, sometimes known as blood money, is largely a moral issue. There are of course legal and political questions which also arise on close examination of this practice.
The practice is an old one, and dates back to the 19th century, if not before. Examples are found wherever mass market media exist. It is generally accepted that all types of information have a monetary value, and that every man has his price. A photographer, journalist or contributor expects to be paid for material submitted for publication. Without such reward the quality and content of our leading national newspapers would seriously decline.
We must, accept the fact that leading British newspapers are arguably the best in Europe. Are we therefore to suppose that payments made to people not connected with journalism in order to guarantee exclusive rights to a particular story, should be considered improper or immoral? The moral question is quite clear: should the perpetrator of some horrendous crime benefit from the misfortunes of others?
If restrictions on cheque-book journalism are not imposed, a crime could be designed in such a way as expressly to enable individuals to benefit from the proceeds to be realised from the sale of a story. That is something akin to the physical mutilation of a child by its family in order purposely to generate sympathy for purposes of begging, a practice not uncommon in certain countries of the Indian subcontinent.
Noble Lords might wish to consider the legal implications of continuing to allow unrestricted use of the cheque book when reporting on cases already before the courts. However, questions that need to be asked in criminal cases are: is there any evidence of a wrong verdict being reached or has the course of justice been perverted as a result of payments to witnesses? Unregulated use of the cheque book could result in the danger of undermining the criminal justice system and could possibly cause the collapse of a major trial.
The political issues which arise from any restrictive practices imposed on the press and media revolve around the subject of freedom of the press. Any restriction represents lack of freedom. A democratic society such as ours expects a free press, just as freedom of speech and freedom of movement are taken for granted. I believe that the imposition of controls on editorial would amount to censorship and a negation of our basic freedom.
However, there is no doubt that lack of any effective editorial control leaves the way open for the publication of sordid material which might have a lasting and damaging effect on the mind of some readers; and in some instances it might result in mirror image crimes being carried out. It must surely be the duty of a parliamentary democracy to protect its citizens from unacceptable practices of that nature.
Although the Press Complaints Commission offers some public redress, it is only effective once the horse has bolted and the damage has already been done. More importantly, the commission does not represent an independent body, since it is entirely funded by and acts

1651
in the interests of the media and newspaper industry. Never has the refrain "power corrupts" been more appropriately applied. Therefore, the time has come to introduce and enforce certain guidelines and principles within the media in order to protect the very fabric of our society. That will avoid the possibility of witnesses being prejudiced by the sum of money on offer.
Therefore, I propose that the making of payments to witnesses or potential witnesses in criminal trials should be made illegal in the future.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, it is as great a privilege for me to be able to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Exmouth, on his maiden speech as it has been for your Lordships to hear it. I am aware that the noble Viscount has been a Member of your Lordships' House for 25 years and it is only now that he has made his maiden speech. That makes some of us who are very recent arrivals and who leapt to our feet after a matter of only weeks appear most precipitate, almost impertinent, in doing so. But the noble Viscount comes from a most distinguished lineage. We all know that wine from distinguished vineyards keeps well in the bottle and is all the better after a time. I hope that the noble Viscount will allow us to enjoy other bottles in the future.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend and thank him for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. I start by declaring an interest as an independent national director of Times Newspapers Limited. I should also declare my experience of having been for 16 years until 1991 a working journalist with the Economist newspaper, working mainly in the Lobby of the other place.
Therefore, as your Lordships will not be surprised, I start from the proposition that the Fourth Estate has and has had for centuries a very crucial role in maintaining standards of behaviour in this country—standards of behaviour of the legislature, the executive, even the judiciary and indeed those who are able to influence the lives of others. Its activities have often been unwelcome, inconvenient, unattractive, intrusive and indeed on occasions unfair to those on whose activities it comments. But I believe that that is a price well worth paying for the safeguards against the abuse of power and responsibility, for which it is often the only guardian.
Therefore, I start from the position of opposition to any legislation which would affect the unfettered freedom of the press. Because I do not believe that self-regulation necessarily always works, I feel that I must go a little further. As a Tory, I strongly believe that a crucial role of the state is to regulate the behaviour of those who might otherwise exploit or ill treat people, whether they be consumers, employees, investors or just ordinary citizens.
I am afraid that I am not prepared to have quite the trust that my noble friend Lord Wakeham has in the self-regulatory route for the matter which we are discussing today. I pay enormous tribute to him as one of the greatest political persuaders that we have had in
1652
either House of Parliament, certainly in my lifetime. But I suspect that even he may find it hard to achieve in certain crucial respects the behaviour to which I believe we are entitled. It is simply against human nature. I believe that human nature will out.
There was a reference by my noble friend to proprietors spending their money. The simple fact is that it is usually money well spent. We all know that, however much we might pay obeisance to the moral imperatives, there are many forms of behaviour in which we would indulge if we were not constrained by something stronger than the moral imperative. Perhaps the most obvious that comes to mind at this time is drinking and driving. Frankly, there is a similarity. There will ,be the tendency to use cheque-book journalism if it is allowed and if it is profitable.
Having said that I am opposed in general to constraints on the press—I would strongly oppose any general legislation on it—I believe that, in the one single matter of payment to witnesses, something must be done fairly soon. Therefore, in my brief intervention in your Lordships' debate, I propose that we consider—I look forward to hearing my noble and learned friend's comments on this—an amendment to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill which is at present before your Lordships' House. As an amateur, I had a shot at drafting the sort of thing which may cover the issue and may be sufficiently restrictive to be acceptable. The amendment would read,
"No person or organisation shall approach any person who is known to be or might reasonably be expected to be a witness in any trial which is proceeding or likely to be commenced, for the purpose of offering or making an arrangement to offer any financial or other material reward in consideration of the publication in any newspaper magazine journal book computer-network or broadcast of any matter relating to or connected with the said trial".
That is a modest proposal which is not directly aimed at the press as such. It is aimed at ensuring that the sanctity of the courts as givers of good justice can prevail.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Birdwood: My Lords, it gives me enormous pleasure to add my voice to what will be a general applauding of the maiden offering of the noble Viscount, Lord Exmouth. I am always happy and encouraged to hear somebody in this Chamber dive straight into an airing of moral values, because these are issues which are thin gruel elsewhere. I particularly enjoyed the lucidity and logic with which the noble Viscount framed his arguments, ending with his proposition.
It is not often that I have the opportunity to participate in a debate in which one can use part of one's preparatory material as a visual aid in support of a fellow speaker. I draw your Lordships' attention to the Media article:
"Wakeham: a watchdog ready to bite".
I have read virtually every word that has been written on this subject in recent months and I have found no enormous unanimity among press correspondents in their opinions on the subject, but I propose to quote briefly from one of them.

1653
While we still have a free press in this country, it is utterly fanciful to think that we can legislate against buying the stories of people involved in court cases. There is a willing seller and a willing buyer, and it makes no sense to pretend that a newspaper should be debarred from initiating the transaction when, as my noble friend Lord Wakeham pointed out, the same would not apply to books or films.
What is troubling seems to be the sliding tariff, whereby the rate for a story is weighted by the outcome of the trial and one's suspicions that there is a financial inducement to a witness to manipulate evidence in the cause of greater reward. Does the trade at all introduce doubt about witness veracity, or at least objectivity? Yes, it does. Money does feel like an intrusion in a process which, by instinct, should be literally magisterial, if sometimes less than majestic. The law may not have the granite impermeability which once it had, but it is not yet a bendy toy in the media's playground.
I want to refer to an article in the Evening Standard last month when Peter Cole wrote:
"Let us start with the basic proposition that payments to witnesses tarnish their testimony, and thus make it less likely that justice will he done. It is, I think, a patronising position to presume that ordinary, innocent members of the public will perjure themselves, exaggerate, distort, or decorate their evidence because they have been paid for an interview. The solemnity of the court, the pressures towards accuracy and truthfulness, the awesome experience of having to give evidence and handle cross-examination, all militate against the witness polluting his or her testimony".
I wish I could put it as well as that.
I wish to make only one observation and ask my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack two questions. The observation is that cross-examining counsel now has an early, almost automatic inquiry to make of any witness along the lines of whether any contract exists, or even has been described, with an outside party. One can picture the colouring which an affirmative answer will have on a jury; and if a false answer is given under oath, presumably there are other consequences which start to involve other parties to the agreement to an uncomfortable degree of intimacy.
My two questions, to which I have no idea of the answers, relate to the obligations of the paying party to inform either the recipient or appropriate government departments of the financial consequences of such payments. First, I should like to know whether the Inland Revenue is informed of the payment as a matter of course. Secondly, are the benefit agencies also automatically put in the picture? If the person taking the payment is not told of the potential consequences of being in receipt of the money, it seems to me that the duty of care element in the trade is a little fragile. But, equally, a wilful attempt to conceal such payments from those state bodies which have a direct interest in the material welfare of the individual also seems to be a point of some delicacy.
I am sure that the answers to those questions will clear up the matter entirely, and there may be embedded in such questions the pointers to new conventions which may calm some of the anxieties that prompted today's debate. I have felt that underlying much of the rhetoric
1654
of outrage in this matter is the immediacy of the revelations of payments, in some cases of auctions. Two or three months after a notorious trial, who would care that a participant was paid for his or her experiences? It is the impression of hectic trading before and during events which so disturbs us. But it will be a bad day for us all if any regime—I say "regime" and not "government"—is ever silly enough to try to frame laws about offences against good taste. Such sanctions always have lain and always will lie in the tolerance, good humour and ultimately the good sense of the citizen. So, please, no more law.
6.29 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, it is with regret that I cannot declare an interest in the subject of this debate. Having served my noble friends Lord Hartwell and Lord Camrose for 32 years on the Daily Telegraph, I am now in these black days merely a pensioner of the company. My noble friend Lord Marlesford commented to me earlier this afternoon outside the Chamber that his experience of the industry was d'en bas and mine was d'en haut. That is wrong in both cases.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith on bringing this Motion before your Lordships' House, although I fear that, as with the Dangerous Dogs Act and pit bulls, it is to some extent a gut reaction to the West trial, in which context I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, commenting on so many other aspects of cheque-book journalism.
If it is the case that we are following up on the West trial, the cheque-book journalism to which the Motion refers concerns the payment of witnesses before, during and after a case in the courts. The most notorious case of this was the offer of the Sunday Telegraph to a witness in the Thorpe trial to double the money if Thorpe were convicted. With this exception, I have to say that the Telegraph has never offered witnesses money in a civil or criminal case.
There can be no justification for doing so and it has only a short-term benefit for circulation, if that is the object. I was trying to remember anything which had a long-term effect on circulation. The only case I can remember was the publication by the Sunday Times of Lord Montgomery's memoires. Otherwise, the circulation benefit merely lasts for the length of time that the subject is in the paper. Perhaps this lack of a long-term benefit is why the Telegraph has not done it.
In the West case the proposed payments were well publicised and, indeed, were matters of lengthy discussion in the court; in a sense they were critical to the case itself. But the effect of payments of this kind to witnesses must be to cast doubt upon the evidence, usually for the prosecution, since the witness will not be able to write anything which is contrary to the evidence which he or she has given in court. Newspapers—the Sun and the Mirror in the West case—buy exclusivity, but they must also buy the facts.
The evidence must also at least be marginally sensational to justify the proposed payment. If it is a prosecution witness, defence counsel is bound to bring

1655
these facts out and the jury is equally likely to consider that, because the witness has an interest in the nature of his evidence, there is at least a chance that that evidence may be tainted. If the jury does so consider, it may discount it, and even if what was said was perfectly correct, justice may not be done, the fact of payment acting against the prosecution.
In the last century, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Exmouth, referred, the.Telegraph and other papers paid criminals for their stories before they were hanged. Therefore, the criminal himself had no real benefit. The practice of buying witnesses' stories as it now exists basically dates back to the Moors murders. This is frequently quite open, even if it only exists in cases of the most sensational type. In the Yorkshire Ripper case, newspapers which were paying witnesses were required to make submission to the court, including the contracts that they had made with witnesses. It is notable with regard to the ethical nature of what was going on that these contracts were considered to be ethical and no action was taken.
While such matters are extremely serious and may interfere with the administration of justice, I believe that it is true to say that little or no statutory legislation is needed to stop the practice, if that is what is desired. Noble and learned Lords will, I hope, confirm that the Contempt of Court Act 1988 does not need any major amendment, if any, to give judges the power to punish media owners for criminal and ethical breaches of legislation by payments to witnesses. Certainly the judges can drop from a great height on any attempt to interfere with or alter evidence given in court.
I have taken some legal advice on this point, but probably not enough. If I read my newspapers aright, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has discussed with the Attorney-General the possibility of creating a new offence under criminal law. When he replies later this evening I hope that he will be able to comment in some way on his discussions and say whether he considers there is any possibility of improvement or benefit from making a new and specific offence of making payments to witnesses in a trial rather than using the Contempt of Court Act.
The Motion of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith in fact refers to cheque-book journalism in general and not only to paying witnesses. It is therefore relevant to point out how newspapers operate. They should act in accordance with their code of practice and, if they do so, there is no cause for complaint. In this matter I must confirm what my noble friend Lord Wakeham said. It is an industry agreed code, put together by the industry, and is not the creature of the Press Complaints Commission, of which he is such a distinguished chairman. The code is well written, clear and unequivocal. I do not believe that it needs any amendment.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith quoted the very relevant section 9 of the code and I am glad that my noble friend Lord Wakeham added sections 2 and 3 of clause 18. The Press Complaints Commission is very
1656
alert to possible breaches of the code. On 27th September this year it issued the following confidential note to editors regarding the West trial:
"The PCC has been approached on the above matter by PressWise, who have received a number of calls from relatives of victims involved in the Gloucester murder case which comes to Court on 3 October. Callers are apparently concerned about the behaviour and persistence of some journalists in seeking background information. PressWise have discussed the matter with Victim Support, the investigating police officers, representatives of both Gloucester County Council and Gloucester City Council and the Lord Chancellor's Department.
Other than the above, the PCC has received no information suggesting any breach of the Code of Practice. Nevertheless, in view of the concern that has been expressed the Commission reminds editors to be especially mindful of the Code of Practice in dealing with this entire matter. It is of course particularly important to ensure that relatives of the accused and witnesses are not harassed or caused unnecessary anxiety by otherwise legitimate news-gathering activities".
The code is there. The problem is to enforce it.
As one way of doing this, it has been suggested that all newspapers should pay into an industry fund from which any individual who suffers from a breach of the code can be compensated. That will not work. It was tried within the industry by the newspaper publishers' agreement in the 1970s and 1980s—a paper which was stopped by industrial action, usually initiated by the late Lord Briginshaw, should be compensated by the others. It did not work, and this one will not work, because the innocent, who are predictable, will not pay for the guilty, who are equally predictable.
A statutory requirement to obey the code is equally unenforceable. Apart from it being a lawyers' field day, one can envisage appeal after appeal, so that the origins of the complaint and the need for swift action which goes with it become totally lost. Hard-line supporters of statutory control—there are many in your Lordships' House—recommend the imprisonment of proprietors for breaches of the code. Even though the editor of the Mirror once went to prison, the appeals, if this were to be tried, would be particularly long-winded. Noble Lords may wish to inflict this punishment on certain proprietors, but that is merely wish-fulfilment.
In recent years there have been numerous campaigns to control the presentation of news by the newspaper industry in general or by individual newspapers in particular by enforcing the right of reply—giving it the same prominence as the original offence—or by stopping what are considered to be breaches of privacy. Both of those are already included in the code of practice but are not, I would consider, provable in court. Neither are they suitable vehicles for statutory legislation. It would be dangerous for this Government, or any government, to try to enforce statutory prevention of publication of news. Many of your Lordships will be aware of the sarky remark of the woman about her dressmaker—that when madam loses her temper you always find it again in the bill.
Response to what is an understandable gut reaction along the lines of, "This is wrong and something must be done", is itself wrong. A few years ago the press made an enormous fuss about the Official Secrets Act 1911 which it considered ridiculous and constricting.

1657
The Act was revised, but nobody was any the better. The old Act was so vague and imprecise that it could not be enforced—surely a case of be sure to,
"keep a-hold on Nurse
For fear of finding something worse".
In any case, newspapers and the other media have a most important role to fulfil as the watchdogs of the nation. It may not be the intention of any legislation so to do, but anything that restricts the publication of that which ought to be exposed is to be avoided at all costs. Turning the argument around, it was the ability of Maxwell to prevent other newspapers from exposing his iniquities which led to such ill-doing and distress.
It is not a cliché to mention, as noble Lords have done, the freedom of the press. The press must be free even if we have to accept something which most of us believe to be unacceptable. Cheque-book journalism involving witnesses in criminal cases or leaks of government memoranda is of course undesirable, but the former can at least be dealt with by contempt of court legislation. Payment for information or for stories—say, the climbing of Everest—which is also cheque-book journalism, lies at the foundation of a newspaper's business. Where would one draw the dividing line? Legislation is not the answer.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, we must all be very grateful to my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith for introducing this debate. I believe that the importance of it is proved by the fact that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is replying. We shall all await with very great anticipation what he has to say.
As regards the noble Viscount, Lord Exmouth, and his maiden speech, that he should have been silent for 25 years proves that he must have been very much less silent elsewhere because he spoke in the most practised and competent manner. We were all fascinated by what he had to say.
Some noble Lords will remember a little poem,
"You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
Thank God, the British journalist.
But seeing what the man will do,
Unbribed there's no occasion to".
On this occasion we are thinking not of the journalist as a potential "bribee", but as giving money to people. It is easy to poke fun and criticise journalists, but they are no better than the public. They would not be able to print what has been described as "distasteful" without the demand for it. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said—and how right he was! —that it is extremely unpleasant that the West family should actually benefit financially from their story. But why should they benefit financially except because people are going to buy the books and articles on which that story is based.
I heard a very interesting anecdote the other day about the ambivalence of public attitudes to this matter. The man I was talking to had been for a weekend in Scotland. Everybody was excoriating the Sunday Times for proposing to serialise the Andrew Morton book about the Princess of Wales. They all took a very high and mighty line. Then, apparently, they were all at
1658
Glasgow Airport where they made a beeline for the news stand to buy the Sunday Times only to find that it had sold out.
That seems to me to epitomise the ambivalence. It is a cliché to say that we are all guilty, but we are. We have this rather unpleasant curiosity and journalists have to satisfy it: that is what they are for. There is far more demand for entertainment than for information. I remember when I was very young the late Lord Boothby came to tea with my family. At the time he was political columnist for the News of the World In those days that paper was more wordy than at present, but it had rather similar content. He said, "It is wonderful to think that one is read every Sunday by 8 million people". One of us at the tea table said, "Are you sure that all of those people actually read your article?" He said, "Every reader of the News of the World reads every word". I do not believe that he was right, but that he was very likely to have been deluded. The primary desire of press readers at every level is far more for entertainment than for information.
However, entertainment and the desire for entertainment, must be controlled. Above all, it should not distort the process of law. People's lives and their fortunes are at stake in the courts. If it is to a witness's financial advantage to make his testimony more lurid—and that is what we are talking about—then that testimony is tainted. However true it may be, it might have been given in that form because of the hope of financial advantage.
It is perfectly clear that the laws of evidence should exclude such testimony. It is for wiser heads than mine to say whether that requires legislation or whether it should be rather an action for the courts and a change in their rules and practices. It could well be that legislation is too difficult to draft, but somehow such evidence ought to be excluded from cases.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps I may join in the congratulations to the noble Viscount on his very thoughtful and perceptive maiden speech. This debate has been enriched by contributions based on experience; the experience of journalists, the Press Complaints Commission and the experience of newspaper readers.
The House will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith for having initiated a very topical and complex debate and for the conspicuously moderate way in which he introduced the subject. I am sure that the noble Lord is right to have focused attention on the particular vice of cheque-book journalism in relation to witnesses in criminal trials.
All noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon agree—and I am sure the whole House agrees—that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential in a democratic society. Everyone agrees that those freedoms should be limited only to the extent really needed to protect the rights of others or to safeguard some clearly defined competing and compelling public interest, and in the present case, the extremely compelling public interest in ensuring a fair trial by jury.s

1659
It would be a wholly unacceptable interference with the right to free expression to seek to prevent or to penalise the press for cheque-book journalism in any generalised sense; that is, for paying informants and others for information and opinions. Such a restriction would greatly hamper investigative journalism and the task of the press in acting, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, as public watchdog, and would be an unnecessary restriction on free speech. At its most extreme, such a ban would apply even to the memoirs of noble Lords! It would also be an unacceptable restriction to penalise cheque-book journalism because of strong popular aversion to the author's views or even his conduct.
As the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, put it, we cannot legislate against bad taste. There was a dramatic example of that, which came to my mind when listening to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as regards the American "Son of Sam" case. In that case a psychopathic killer, who killed five people in New York, caused such public outrage that New York State hastily passed a well-intentioned law to cream off the profits of any criminal's books to the victims of his or her crime. The American Supreme Court had no difficulty in striking down that law as being content-based censorship that was discriminatory and over-broad, however well motivated the law might be. That shows that even in a hard case of that kind if a criminal, or former criminal, is seeking to profit from his memoirs, those who are concerned with protecting free speech must tread carefully lest they go too far.
But what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, raises, in drawing attention to the case for statutory limitation of the use of cheque-book journalism in connection with criminal trials, is not the spectre of state censorship of the contents of newspapers or books, but the important and difficult question whether new measures are needed to combat the unethical practice of offering to pay witnesses or potential witnesses in criminal trials for their stories an amount of money which may or may not depend upon the jury's verdict. Is there a sufficient mischief to require legislation? Is the existing law, notably on contempt of court, sufficient to deal with the mischief? Would any new legislation be workable? Would it be sufficiently carefully tailored to the need to protect the course of justice without unduly hampering free speech? Would more vigorous use of contempt proceedings, coupled with voluntary regulation via the Press Complaints Commission, be sufficient?
The problem, as several noble Lords have said, is not new. It arose notoriously in connection with the Moors murder trial 30 years ago, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred. Widespread and justifiable concern was expressed at what had happened in that case. The trial judge, Mr. Justice Fenton Atkinson, asked the Attorney-General of the day, Sir Elwyn Jones, to investigate what seemed to the judge to be:
"a gross interference with the course of justice";
in other words, a serious contempt of court.
The Attorney-General informed the other place in May 1966 that there was no evidence that the testimony of any witness had been affected by the payments in
1660
question. The Attorney-General therefore decided not to take contempt proceedings against the newspaper concerned because there was no sufficient evidence. But Sir Elwyn Jones made it clear that the practice of paying witnesses for information about the subject matter of a trial, and interviewing them about the information before they give evidence, could give rise to a criminal contempt of court. That is important, because it supports the view of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, which I share, that existing criminal contempt sanctions are readily available to deal with the worst instances of that kind of cheque-book journalism, if only the Attorney-General will make use of them.
Lord Justice Phillimore's Royal Commission on contempt of. court next discussed the problem in its report in 1974. What has not been mentioned is that the Phillimore Report recognised that there would be difficulties in framing legislation to prohibit the practice. "Clearly", it wrote:
"it would be going too far to prohibit all offers to witnesses, especially those which were not contingent upon the outcome of the case. Much would depend on the size and circumstances of the offer, and there would be obvious difficulties of proof if prohibition were confined to contingency payments, since the contingency aspect could easily be concealed".
The Royal Commission on the Press, chaired by Professor MacGregor, as he then was (my noble friend), then undertook the inquiry into cheque-book journalism that had been recommended by Phillimore. In its report in 1977, the Royal Commission expressed its belief that:
"those who write, or lend their names to, these stories are under considerable pressure to exaggerate their most sensational features. This tendency is likely to be increased when different papers compete for the same story".
The Royal Commission did not recommend legislative measures to deal with cheque-book journalism, but it urged the Press Council to keep a special watch to ensure that its declaration on the subject was obeyed, and to give an opinion when breaches occurred.
The problem was considered yet again, and in enormous detail in a report as long as a novel by the Press Council in the early 1980s, as a result of the Sutcliffe case. It was a comprehensive, masterly, hard-hitting report, probably the best authority on the subject. The council made it crystal clear that contingency payments are unacceptable by the established standards of conduct in the British press, and are liable to censure. The Press Council went on to censure an offending newspaper in relation to the Sutcliffe trial.
The Home Secretary, Mr. Whitelaw as he then was, meanwhile made it clear to Members of the other place that legislation would create considerable difficulties of definition and enforcement. In this House, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, then Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs, said on 14th May 1981 that:
"cheque-book journalism takes many forms, some of which are inherently distasteful. The Government believe that it is preferable for the practice to be controlled by voluntary restriction in the case of the press, through the influence of the Press Council".
At that time, Parliament was in process of enacting the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to give effect to Phillimore. No doubt because of the formidable problems of definition and enforcement, no separate

1661
offence was created to deal with that mischief. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 specifically preserved criminal liability for common law contempt; that is, conduct intended to impede or prejudice the administration of justice. The limits of common law contempt are set by the courts, flexibly and firmly, on a case-by-case basis, in deciding where the public interest lies. In the "Spycatcher" contempt proceedings, in which I should declare an interest, as unsuccessful counsel for The Sunday Times, the Court of Appeal made it clear that the necessary criminal intent would be inferred by the courts where interference with the administration of justice, as a result of the defendant's conduct, is a virtual certainty. As the "Spycatcher" case shows, it is therefore readily easy for the courts to infer that the editor or publisher of a newspaper has the necessary specific intent in such circumstances, because he will be taken to intend to bring about the virtually certain consequences of his actions.
It seems to me that there are powerful arguments for concluding that newspaper editors and publishers will be guilty of contempt of court where they indulge in the unethical practice of offering to pay witnesses or potential witnesses in criminal trials for their stories an amount of money which depends upon the jury's verdict. Conduct of this kind would seem to be virtually certain (as the Royal Commission found) to influence witnesses in some way in the kind of evidence they are likely to give. Where it is a virtual certainty that such conduct is likely to colour the witness's evidence in court, or that the jury's knowledge of the existence of such an arrangement is likely to affect its evaluation of the witness's evidence, the courts will surely infer the necessary specific intent to impede or prejudice the administration of justice.
We all await with great interest the opinion of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on this matter, as the Minister responsible for the law of contempt. If he will permit me to say so, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has demonstrated, again and again, his deep respect for free speech and a free press: in abolishing the restraints on the judges' freedom to write and to speak out of court; in refusing to allow draconian foreign libel laws to be invoked in our courts; in seeking to ease the unacceptable burdens and to reform the antique procedures of English libel law; and in refraining from introducing a new-fangled statutory privacy tort, leaving it instead to the courts to develop the common law, and the Press Complaints Commission to deal with complaints. The Lord Chancellor is also of course concerned to maintain the independence and the authority of the courts in administering justice in this matter and elsewhere.
In considering whether further legislation is needed, it is also important to have full regard to the very valuable work being undertaken in this field by the greatly strengthened Press Complaints Commission, about whose role its distinguished independent chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has spoken with such clarity and candour and whose other members include three distinguished, and equally independent, Members of this House—the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff and the noble Baronesses, Lady Dean of
1662
Thornton-le-Fylde, and Lady Smith of Gilmorehill—together with another strongly independent and legally qualified member, Lady Browne-Wilkinson.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, informed us of the tough stance taken by the current code of practice and the difficult problems which arise in framing clearly prescribed workable standards. He made an important suggestion for a new protocol to ensure that the commitment to voluntary control in this area is fulfilled in deed as well as word. Speaking for myself—and this is not a party-political matter—I strongly agree with the approach indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. I would add the pressing need for recourse to contempt proceedings by the Attorney-General it appropriate cases. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said that something should be done. I agree with him. What should be done is the bringing about of the new protocol, and the law of contempt of court should be invoked where cheque-book journalism is virtually certain to impede or prejudice the administration of justice. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, I doubt whether a blanket prohibition would be practicable. It would in any event have to be accompanied by a broad public interest offence which would create much uncertainty.
7 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I should declare a historic interest as a former journalist on four newspapers. I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for giving us this opportunity to debate the matter. I wish also to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Exmouth, on his excellent if belated entry into the proceedings of our Chamber. I hope that on hearing that other hereditary noble Lords who have delayed for the odd decade, or quarter or half century, before visiting us with their wisdom will come before us perhaps before the door is finally closed.
The subject before us tonight is not a new issue. Since the 1920s our newspapers have paid defendants, even providing fashionable QCs to defend them, and have paid witnesses, boyfriends, girlfriends and families. I noted that recently even the BBC paid a witness. Perhaps we should think of that matter when debating the BBC Charter after the Christmas Recess.
Recently there have been many cases in which newspapers have appeared to be in contempt of court—I am not a legal expert—but nothing has been done. The Law Officers have appeared to many observers to be "not over-active". I did not know which word to use in the presence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor so I used that expression. Governments have ignored Royal Commission reports for the past 20 years. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that commission did not recommend action in this respect.
I am concerned tonight about the payment of witnesses, although the cheque-book journalism issue goes much wider. I agree with the Chief Constable involved in the Rosemary West trial who afterwards said that the basic question was:
"Are we running criminal justice as an entertainment business, or as something that the public has confidence in and that will deliver justice?".

1663
That is the heart of the constitutional problem before us.
In that context, we must recognise that we should not express indignant surprise that cheque-book journalism is so virulent. Our newspapers are not particularly concerned with principles of the law and its fair conduct or the principles of a good society. Proprietors, at least those whom I have met—I must declare that two of them terminated my contract—are concerned with money and political influence; editors with circulation and opinions and journalists with stories, whether fact or fantasy. After all, cheque-books buy journalists and it is not surprising if they assume that others, including witnesses, should in turn be bought by cheque-books. It is too much to expect natural good behaviour in journalism. It is not a profession, although that word is often used. The noble Lord, Lord Deedes, who is not in his place, in his brilliant column often refers to journalism as a profession. I am always tempted to write to him. I admit that it has behavioural aspects in common with the oldest street profession and in my view shares with lawyers a major concern with money. However, it has no proper professional qualifications, standards or discipline and certainly little regard for what one ancient proprietor called the two F's of fairness and factuality, although it is of course concerned, almost obsessed, with the third F.
I make those observations after a 36-year on and off connection with journalism. It is important that noble Lords, and in particular noble and learned Lords, realise that if they require much better behaviour from journalism in this area for the better conduct of the law they will have to seek judicial means of imposing it. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, in his excellent and interesting speech, actually said that. It will not come naturally from journalism as a contribution to a better society, which is not one of its objectives. If a tabloid newspaper believes that paying a witness even to bend evidence, provided that that does not appear, will produce a sensational story and a higher circulation, that will often happen.
That is the reality of what we are dealing with. When talking of free speech, it is no good having a great Jeffersonian fantasy. That is the reality of a modern commercial business. In that context, I wish to consider the role of the Press Complaints Commission, the industry's self-regulator. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is working very hard for better self-regulation, and I wish to congratulate him on and encourage him in doing that. The noble Lord is doing a splendid job and he made a very good speech tonight. I look forward on another occasion to hear him announce further tougher rules on, for instance, rights of reply, privacy, doorstepping and various other aspects of what has been called media hooliganism.
However, I believe that as regards the paying of witnesses, one is being unfair and is expecting too much in expecting him to deliver voluntarily everything which the judiciary may require. We have yet to hear what it requires. The noble Lord has already achieved miracles, but that is beyond him. He can only secure voluntarily what the newspapers volunteer. Today's question is
1664
whether they will volunteer to stop writing cheques to gain circulation. I personally doubt that unless the law intervenes.
The Press Complaints Commission has its Clause 9 on the voluntary code which, on first reading, appears to ban such outrageous activity. It must in fact be ambiguous because it is so often breached. It was widely reported that the noble Lord's predecessor at the PCC allegedly—I do not know whether it is true—gave the green light to the Star to pay Rosemary West's stepdaughter, actually stating that the code was ambiguous. If it is ambiguous it must be made watertight.
Tonight the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, proposed a new protocol and I should like to welcome that—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord and wonder whether he will give way. Has he given notice of what he has just said to my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris? It seems to me a rather surprising statement to make.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, no, I have not. I did see him here earlier. If he reads my words, he will know that I said that it has been reported. I shall happily give him the newspaper extracts that say that. I did say that I did not know whether that was true.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble Lord has been critical of the press and I am sure that he will agree that one should make such a statement only after one has checked that it was said rather than merely reported that it has been reported.
Lord Birdwood: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify that. The very words which the noble Lord has just used were quoted specifically in the Economist on 25th November.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that helpful intervention. I saw it there and elsewhere. I insist that I bear no towards the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, who is an old friend and an old colleague. I merely quoted what appeared in a very reputable journal. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, nods his head because he worked for it for many years. I merely said that those words had been quoted and I did not know whether they were true. I would welcome clarification on that. The importance is that, if it is true that it is ambiguous—and I suspect from what was said earlier that it is true—it is quite right that it needs clarification.
Perhaps I may return to what I was saying about the new protocol. It states that it will be necessary to prove legitimate public interest. That does not mean just that it would interest the public. That is very helpful. I believe that the noble Lord said also that the amount of the payments should be published.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I said that the information about the cheque-book journalism should be made available to both the prosecution and the defence.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I would go beyond that. Any article published by means of cheque-book journalism—whether the old lag has published his recollections or the young bimbo has published her

1665
recollections—should at the end state that, "£50,000 was paid by the News of the World for this article". That would be extremely helpful in assessing the value of such articles.
But, on the whole, that protocol seems to me to demonstrate great and helpful progress. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has used this occasion very valuably. He has made significant progress in this difficult area. I wish him well in persuading the media industry to accept it, as I hope and as I am sure it will.
But I do not believe that that is enough. The noble Lord talked about not having received complaints on the issue. Many people are concerned that perhaps the Press Complaints Commission does not initiate investigations but awaits complaints. It would be a welcome move were it more often to initiate investigations, whether or not there are complaints from outside.
In that context I ask: who will complain? The newspaper will not complain; the recipient of the money will not complain; and nobody will know until it is too late. Therefore, I believe that that is an area where further progress can be made.
Some arguments are made in defence of newspaper freedom. I saw in The Times on 29th November an article by a journalist which said that any restrictions in this area would infringe free speech. It admitted that witnesses in court cases might lie "to make the story more saleable". But the article went on to say that infringing free speech is worse than that. I was quite shocked by that. The journalist was saying that infringing free speech is worse than perverting the course of justice. What nonsense that is. I felt that in that there was an arrogance of modern journalism—saying that its licence and unaccountability are more important than the process of justice.
It has been said also that such cheque-book journalism is defensible because it sometimes exposes crime. I do not accept that as a defence—that because it helps to expose people to the system of justice, it is excusable then to distort that system of justice. That is not acceptable. In any event, we pay the police to catch criminals. Down that slippery slope somewhere lies paying jurors. I wonder whether freedom of speech comes before that.
Another argument put in defence of cheque-book journalism was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, mentioned it; namely, that there is a willing seller and a willing buyer and the public buys what the press produces. In my experience, I did not feel that the newspapers were necessarily producing what the public wanted. On the whole, they were printing what the journalists wished to write.
I do not accept that a willing buyer and a willing seller is sufficient to justify it. I am not impressed by that—it is also true of the trade in hard drugs or in hard pornography. There are many willing sellers and willing buyers. Society can decide that some kinds of anti-social behaviour are unacceptable. Parliament and the public believe that that kind of cheque-book journalism is unacceptable. As I said, ultimately the only sure remedy is through the law. I was extremely interested in and
1666
sympathetic to the proposed amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and I hope that it is examined seriously.
I was also very impressed by the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. He pointed to the direction of legal action under current law. I join him in asking why those questions are not covered satisfactorily by the contempt of court legislation. I have read that the Scots regulate those matters, as many others, better, and I look forward to the comments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
But if the present law is inadequate—and recent experience suggests that it is—or is being applied inadequately, we must proceed to new law. I accept that it is not easy to draft new legislation. Several noble Lords have indicated the problems involved. It rarely is easy to legislate perfectly, but we should try. The present situation is intolerable in, a society based on the rule of law. I would support any reasonable amendments to prevent this misbehaviour.
We need stricter new laws or more strictly enforced existing laws. They must be enforced by diligent law officers to ensure fairness in the justice system. We also need more clarity and certainty as regards the rules of the PCC, and we must ensure that that aspect of press regulation is less ambiguous. But we have been greatly reassured about that this evening. Above all, the media needs that so that those who behave well—and there are newspapers that behave well—will not lose out because of competition from miscreants. Therefore, it is extremely important to support what is best in journalism. We have an opportunity to do that. I look forward with great interest to what the noble and learned Lord has to say this evening.
7.18 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith for introducing this extremely important and difficult subject to your Lordships for debate. I thank also all your Lordships who have taken part. In particular, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Exmouth, for an extremely thoughtful and instructive maiden speech. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who indicated that he would not wish—perhaps he did not go quite that far—to close the door to future opportunities and that it would be a pity to deprive our successors of opportunities to hear the speeches of such distinguished Members of this House on the basis of the title from which they speak.
These issues are extremely difficult and they have been brought to public attention in connection with the West trial. An appeal has been lodged in that case and your Lordships will therefore expect me to be extremely circumspect in what I say about it.
A great deal has been said about the background behind this sort of matter and the moral values which are at stake. We all appreciate those. The reason that particular things have value, or are judged to have value, is usually because people are willing to read them or at least to buy them. No doubt they read some of what they pay to buy although, possibly, not all of it.

1667
That brings me to the comment on Scotland made by noble friend Lord Moyne regarding the people who were interested in the serialisation of a certain book in a particular newspaper. I was glad to think that there are other than Scotsmen in Scotland and that, therefore, it was not necessarily an attack on the high standards of my countrymen.
I should like, first, to say a few words about the existing law. So far as concerns contempt of court, the existing law has been expressed. But it is only right that I should mention it again. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 provides that conduct tending.to interfere with the course of justice in a particular case amounts to contempt—that is to say, one has to show that the conduct tended to interfere with the course of justice. It applies to publications which are issued while proceedings are active.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, also mentioned the common law under which an act which is calculated to interfere with the administration of justice or prejudice the course of justice is a contempt of court. The application of that principle to payments to witnesses by the media has not been tested by the courts, but it appears reasonably clear that, in order to base proceedings under that head, it would be necessary to show an intention to prejudice the proceedings.
The enforcement of contempt of court has also been mentioned. I strongly believe that the present law officers do take action when it is justified under those headings. The only case that I know of in which their decision was challenged resulted in their being vindicated on a judicial review of not taking action in a particular case. Therefore, I do not accept for a minute any suggestion that they are inactive or neglecting their responsibilities in the matter. Indeed, I believe that they carry them out. Of course, one needs to know a great deal about the facts of a particular instance before one can reach a judgment about whether any of those provisions to which I referred apply.
The other aspect of legislation that I ought to mention is that which concerns payment to criminals to which reference has been made. So far as concerns payments to criminals, the courts have already held in the case of Randle and Pottle that payments for writing a book can be regarded as property obtained in connection with crime and so are liable to be confiscated on conviction. The Proceeds of Crime Act 1995 which came into effect on 1st November 1995 also provides power to seek confiscation of such payments received up to six years after conviction. Those provisions could not, of course, be used in the West case for obvious reasons. Therefore, there is a degree of statutory effect in that area, although it is not directly related in this particular connection to the publication; it is directed to the proceeds received by the criminal regarding the selling of the story or the writing of a book.
I certainly strongly support, as indeed do most speakers in tonight's debate, the desirability of a free press. But that freedom requires proper exercise of responsibility. That is particularly so when it comes into a relationship with the administration of justice and the
1668
holding of a fair trial of accused persons. The Contempt of Court Act to which I referred recognises that balance and has it strongly in favour of the administration of justice. Therefore, the freedom of the press is not allowed under the contempt of court rubric to prejudice the administration of justice in the way that I described.
The next question is: what should be done? I refer now to payments to witnesses. The generality that has been mentioned is, to some extent, dealt with in the provisions to which I just referred for confiscation. It is a matter which the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General and myself are considering in the light of recent experiences. I believe that I can say that generally; but, of course, that is not confined to a particular case. We are examining the case for further legislation.
I am grateful for the suggestions about what form further legislation should take which were made during the course of the debate. Your Lordships may be assured that we shall pay close attention to them. One of the difficulties is highlighted by the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Marlesford in the sense that, by the time a person has actually become a witness, it is probably too late to apply the prohibition. Therefore, one has to look at a starting point. One needs, at least in some cases, to be something of a prophet to know whether or not a person will be required as a witness in a particular case. Therefore, there is a question about precisely what one can do, or lay down, as a starting point for that offence.
Further, one needs to be quite clear about the nature of the mischief. If, as a result of a payment, a witness says something prejudicial either to the prosecution or to the defence which is not true, it is perfectly plain that that is something extremely serious which one would wish to stop. However, the difficulty arises in the intermediate type of case. For example, what is the newspaper or the other payer paying for? What exactly is it that they are obtaining?
The suggestion often made is that the witness exaggerates or colours the evidence to make it somewhat more expensive than it would be if it was given in the ordinary way. That kind of situation is difficult to establish. Indeed, to prove that that has happened would be quite difficult. Therefore, one has to think quite carefully about precisely what would be the conditions of the offence. In his proposal, my noble friend is really outlawing all payments up to a certain point. But the question is whether witnesses who might receive money should be deprived of it if no harm is done by their receiving such money. Therefore, one has to be reasonably clear about precisely what it is that one wishes to legislate against.
I have already mentioned the timing so far as concerns the start of the period covered by the offence. There is also the question of when it should stop. For example, some people believe that it should be outlawed to make any agreement until the trial has concluded. But then there is always the question of an appeal, and when does one stop? Of course, in a way, there could be greater danger in having the prospect of an agreement arising later. If one is looking at the evidence that the

1669
witness will give and there is the prospect of some money in the future (if the story is good enough), that will, perhaps, also tend to have the effect of damaging the witness's evidence.
Those issues are quite difficult in relation to the formation of a particular offence. However, I am comforted in that thought by the fact that the Phillimore Report made it clear that that matter was looked at quite closely and that difficulties in the framing of an offence were envisaged. It is also a comfort for me, in relation to what I said earlier about the Law Officers, that it is plain that Phillimore thought that if this matter were to be dealt with it would have to be dealt with as something rather distinct from die ordinary law of contempt of court.
This brings me to say how much I welcome what my noble friend Lord Wakeham had to say. If I may presume to do so, I welcome him back. We have missed him for a time and it is good that he is back, particularly when he has such an important message to bring to us. I personally warmly support his efforts in relation to a protocol. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has rather suggested that it might not be quite as successful as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, would like, but it appears to me to be a considerable effort in the right direction. It is extremely important that, where a payment has been made, the court should know about it. One of the dangers is that someone is involved in contact of this kind but it does not emerge in court. The cross-examination may bring that out but not all answers to cross-examination are truthful. This fact may not emerge until after the trial. One can imagine what effect that would have on a concluded jury trial if the matter had not been investigated. Therefore the requirement that it should be intimated to the parties to the trial is an important matter. Whatever may be the rights or wrongs of going further, that seems to me to be an important step in the right direction.
My noble friend Lord Birdwood asked about the intimation of these matters to other authorities. It may be that in some circumstances if someone was in receipt of benefit, the Benefits Agency would be entitled to be told about it at some stage if it was relevant to the benefit. I doubt whether the payer would have any such obligation. As regards the Inland Revenue, I suspect—I may be wrong about this—that these matters would form part of the expenditure accounts of the newspaper in question but they would be unlikely to be broken down in sufficient detail to make a real intimation to anyone of a particular payment.
I conclude by saying that we are examining carefully what should be done in this area. We are extremely grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, had to say. If this matter can be solved by going down the route he suggests, that would be extremely desirable because the legislation would be difficult. It is not wise to rush into legislation in a difficult area like this but the suggestions which your Lordships have made as regards the terms in which that legislation might be couched are extremely valuable and a great help to us in our further consideration of these matters.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sits down, I
1670
hope I may ask a question about the state of the law as it now is. I suggested in my speech that, although a specific intent is needed for the common law of contempt, that intent would be inferred by the courts where there was a virtual certainty that as a result of, for example, a large payment being made to a witness, an interference with the course of justice was inevitable. If I am right about that—I would be grateful to know whether that is also the view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—that certainly would be a severe warning to the press that common law contempt is a real weapon. If on the other hand I am wrong about that, it seems to me it is important that the House knows that because it would be a situation that perhaps cried out for legislation.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the press should certainly have in mind that the criminal law of contempt is alive and is capable of dealing with cases in this area. However, there is a difficulty as regards proving intent. The noble Lord cites an example of what he calls a large payment. The very fact that he puts it that way suggests that he does not have a precise test because it is a matter of how large the payment has to be. Different people have different views on that matter. What is large to me might not be large to the noble Lord as I stopped practising a long time ago.
These are relative matters. When it comes to the question of intent in this matter, what one is having to show is that the intention of making the payment was to interfere with the course of justice. I cannot imagine that most people who make these payments—however, I cannot generalise and I have no personal experience of making any such payment, as your Lordships will understand—would be willing to accept that that was the reason they made the payment. They would make the payment in order to inform the wider public of the interesting material that the witness had disclosed to them. I believe that the dangers in this area are perhaps more subtle than describing an intent of that kind. When a witness has gone over a statement with someone in detail and has perhaps repeated that, it has an effect on the witness's memory and on what the witness recollects. One has certainly seen this in particular cases. I wish to make it clear that I believe that the law of criminal contempt is a lively law not to be left aside. However, I do not believe that it will necessarily provide an answer to all the situations which are the subject of concern in the debate this evening in respect of payment to witnesses.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am glad that I overcame my reluctance and put this Motion down on the Order Paper. I am most grateful to all noble and learned Lords and to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Western European Time Bill [H.L.]
7.36 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Motion for the Adjournment
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the lot of the Chief Whip is not always a happy one but one of the most pleasant duties at this time of year is to move the adjournment of the House. In doing so I should like to take the traditional opportunity to thank all the staff of the House for their efforts on our behalf. I hope that the House agrees it would be invidious to single out any particular groups of staff and therefore I shall confine myself to thanking most warmly all those who work both behind the scenes and in front of them to make our proceedings possible. To them, and indeed to all noble Lords wherever they may be during this festive season, I wish a happy Christmas and a peaceful and prosperous new year. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, twice a year the Government Chief Whip and I have the delightful duty publicly to thank those who serve us. However, I know that he and I every day take many opportunities to thank those individuals who give us service. The year 1995, in my recollection, has been no less onerous than other years and therefore the thanks and gratitude of the House are certainly due. Whatever divides us, there are certainly more things that unite us, and one of those things is the gratitude that we wish to extend to those who have given us service. The very least we can do is to acknowledge that; and I do so from these Benches with a full heart and in the same Christmas spirit evoked by the Government Chief Whip.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, yet again this year the happy duty falls to me to echo the words of the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip and the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip.
Normally, I try to mention a group of people who I think have not had the recognition that they deserve. Because I bring a number of guests to the House each year and show them round, I should like to thank all members of the staff of your Lordships' House who make that such a pleasant duty to perform and such an enjoyable and profitable experience for the guests. That applies to the restaurant staff and the Doorkeepers who go to such lengths to smoothly find them places in the House so that they may listen to a small part of the debate. That shows off the House extremely well and is much appreciated, not only by the hosts but by the guests as well.
1672
On behalf of these Benches, I should like to wish everybody a very happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, it is a great privilege to be allowed to associate the Cross-Benches with the sentiments that have just been expressed.
In doing so, perhaps I may mention that in the 30 or more years that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I have found that one of its abiding virtues is its sense of tradition, history and permanence. That was most vividly shown this year when the noble Viscount the Leader of the House organised with such skill and imagination the events that celebrated the end of the Second World War. I could not help reflecting that three-quarters of a century ago—a little before I came to the House—one of the noble Viscount's predecessors as Leader of the House, Lord Curzon, organised with equal skill ,and imagination the celebrations which marked the end of the First World War. That link illustrates the timeless and permanent nature of this House.
There is another link, to which other noble Lords have referred; namely, the style and efficiency with which our staff look after us.
I understand that among the Doorkeepers, who have already been wished a happy Christmas, one—Mr. Thompson—has been transferred to the other place. Therefore, it would be appropriate to offer him our condolences as well as our good wishes.
I hope that it will not be thought a sign of Celtic hedonism if I reserve a special word for the staff of the Refreshment Department. It is a cliché much loved by gossip columnists that this House is the best club in London. If it is, that is largely due to those who look after us in the Guest Room, the Bishops Bar, the Cholmondeley Room and the Barry Room. In that context, I should like to express the hope—which I trust the Government Front Bench will note—that we can be assured that there will be no problems in all the new arrangements that are made for the administration and accommodation of the catering staff. They have a most responsible task. They will have an even more responsible task when the new facilities come into use in the new year, and they deserve generous office and administrative space. I make that point simply in passing.
I conclude by wishing all noble Lords and the staff of the House a very happy Christmas. In doing so, I express the hope that for all of us 1996 may be, at last, a peaceful year.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned for the Christmas Recess at seventeen minutes before eight o'clock until Tuesday, 9th January next.

  GCHQ
  GCHQ
  Red Cross: Additional Funding
  Red Cross: Additional Funding
  US Arms Sales to Central and Eastern Europe
  US Arms Sales to Central and Eastern Europe
  Conventional Arms Transfers: G7 Statement
  Conventional Arms Transfers: G7 Statement
  OSCE States: Notification of Military Activities
  OSCE States: Notification of Military Activities
  Abortion
  Abortion
  International Planned Parenthood Federation
  International Planned Parenthood Federation
  UN Population Fund
  UN Population Fund
  Treaties: "Ponsonby Rule"
  Treaties: "Ponsonby Rule"
  Sri Lanka: Galle Port Project
  Sri Lanka: Galle Port Project
  Turkey: Distribution of EU Funds
  Turkey: Distribution of EU Funds
  Campbeltown/Ballycastle Ferry Service
  Campbeltown/Ballycastle Ferry Service
  Medical Tests: NHS Availability
  Medical Tests: NHS Availability
  Alcohol: Recommended Consumption Limits
  Alcohol: Recommended Consumption Limits
  Divorces
  Divorces
  Divorced Parents: Children's Ages
  Divorced Parents: Children's Ages
  Libraries: Spending on Books
  Libraries: Spending on Books
  Museums: Visitor Statistics
  Museums: Visitor Statistics
  VAT
  VAT
  VAT and Children's Clothing
  VAT and Children's Clothing
  Mr. Abiodun Igbinidu
  Mr. Abiodun Igbinidu
  UN Convention on Racial Discrimination: UK Report
  UN Convention on Racial Discrimination: UK Report
  Asylum Seekers: Detention Costs
  Asylum Seekers: Detention Costs
  Leasehold Enfranchisement
  Leasehold Enfranchisement
  Waste Management
  Waste Management
  "City Diesel"
  "City Diesel"
  Bicycle Use
  Bicycle Use
  East London Line
  East London Line
  Nigeria: Trade Missions
  Nigeria: Trade Missions
  Directors' Share Option Schemes
  Directors' Share Option Schemes
  Trade Marks: Retail Services
  Trade Marks: Retail Services
  Information from Satellites: Dissemination
  Information from Satellites: Dissemination
  British Coal Enterprise: Sale Conditions
  British Coal Enterprise: Sale Conditions
  Xylenols in CS Disinfectant
  Xylenols in CS Disinfectant
  Farm Workers in Wales: Cardiac Failure
  Farm Workers in Wales: Cardiac Failure