Sitting of 25 January 1995

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

Madam Speaker's Statement
Madam Speaker: As this is the first morning sitting under the new arrangements, it may be a help to Members if I make one or two points clear and for the record.
First, the House will have noted that times for each debate have been printed on the Order Paper. That means that the practice on the former last day Adjournments will be followed—that, if the House gets ahead of the timetable and the Member opening the next debate is not present, the occupant of the Chair will be able to suspend the sitting until, but not beyond, the stated time.
Secondly, I propose for the three half-hour debates to follow the practice to which the House is accustomed with the half-hour Adjournment at the end of each day's sitting—that no additional Member may take part except with the permission of the Member introducing the debate, and the Minister, and of course the Chair, should be informed.

Pergau Dam
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
10.5 am
Mr. Jim Marshall rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Marshall: The House is far more crowded than one would usually expect during an Adjournment debate, and it is most unusual for my standing up to arouse a cheer as well, but perhaps we are making history in more than one sense today.
There is a certain irony in my luck in coming top of the draw, as I was one of those hon. Members and right hon. Members who voted against the change. Perhaps, Madam Speaker, either you or the gods are getting their own back by ensuring that I have to be here at 10 o'clock on the first Wednesday.
The second comment that I wish to make before I reach the substance of the debate is that, as you know better than I, Madam Speaker, and I am sure that the Leader of the House also knows, the House has sat on Wednesdays in recent times, although not regularly since 1967. The last time that the House sat on a Wednesday morning was on an overspill on the Consolidated Fund Bill debate—something that can no longer happen—on 28 March 1990.
The House decided to meet on Wednesday morning of 1 August 1984 because the House was going into recess. That is an interesting date also because now we do not reach August before we go into the summer recess. It is a sign that the times have changed with the Government. They want us out of the way now, rather than keeping us here in the House.
The House also met on Wednesday 7 November 1990, for the Queen's Speech. However, the last time that the House met regularly on Wednesday was on 25 October 1967, well before my time in the House, and I am sure a few years before your entrance, Madam Speaker.
I asked the Journal Office to obtain for me the front page of that day's Hansard, and it is obvious that some things never change, even though we may change our proceedings from time to time. After Prayers, the House started with a ten-minute Bill, the Travel Concessions for Seamen Bill, moved by Mr. Hector Hughes, who was then the Member of Parliament for Aberdeen North. It will not surprise the House to know that it was critical of British Rail. Hon. Members criticised British Rail for removing the travel concession for seamen going home after arriving in port; so that, as is habitual, British Rail was being criticised 27 years ago, as it is today.
The main item of business under the Orders of the Day—is shows how important those issues were then—was the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Bill. Some names to conjure with: Mr. Graham Page sought to move amendments, as did the then Mr. Ronald Bell; so there are some links between now and that time, 27 years ago.
I am delighted to be able to open the first Adjournment debate. I think that it does credit to you, Madam Speaker, or to the ballot, that we should be able to have a debate that is of real significance to this country's national interest and to the position of the poorest countries throughout the world.

275
The Pergau dam affair shows all that is wrong with the way that Britain gives its aid to some of the less poor countries of the world. To me, and I am sure to many other hon. Members, the affair still leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. Despite protestations to the contrary, it will always, to me and to others, be associated with aid for arms.
The Foreign Secretary has admitted, in his own singular phrase, to a "brief entanglement" between arms and aid in 1988. I have taken an interest in the issues of Bosnia and Europe generally over the past few years. One of the things about the Foreign Secretary is that he can always come up with a neat phrase. The tighter the corner he is in, the smarter and neater the phrase he comes out with.
To me, the phrase "brief entanglement" implies something a bit more than just a short time span. The then Secretary of State for Defence—the scion of the Scottish industiral family—made an error when he went to Kuala Lumpur in 1988 to negotiate arms and offered aid on the side. But in the Foreign Secretary's phrase, the affair was a "brief entanglement". There are those—mainly Opposition Members—who believe that the project would not have been proceeded with without the arms connection. To me it is a long affair, not a brief entanglement.
The case is also a bad deal for the United Kingdom taxpayer, and arguably a bad deal for the Malaysian electricity consumer. Funding the project by soft loans has increased the charge on the United Kingdom public purse by approximately £56 million more than if the project had been funded by a method of mixed credits. It has been estimated—I presume that the estimate is correct as I am not aware that its validity has been questioned--that Malaysian electricity consumers will pay £100 million more than if the electricity was generated by gas turbines. In economic terms alone, the project should not have been proceeded with.
Great credit is due to the World Development Movement for its courage in taking the Foreign Secretary to the High Court to seek a judicial review on his 1991
decision. We all know the outcome—the High Court agreed that the Foreign Secretary had acted unlawfully. We now know—because of the Foreign Secretary's statement and his response to questions on 13 December 1994—that the Government had no intention of appealing against that decision.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Marshall: I shall give way when I have finished making my point, but other hon. Members want to speak, and we have only one and a half hours for debate.
The Foreign Secretary must go further than his statement to Parliament on 13 December, and make two matters absolutely clear. First, he must state clearly that the Treasury will not be allowed to cut future spending allocations to the budget of the Overseas Development Administration in order to claw back future payments for the Pergau dam. The Foreign Secretary has already given that commitment for this year and for 1995–96, but his commitment must go further still to cover the lifetime of the project—for the next 10 to 11 years.
276
Secondly, the Foreign Secretary must give a commitment to repay fully the aid budget for all past spending, both on the Pergau dam and on the other three projects that might be deemed to be unlawful, and thus reverse the decision that he gave in the House of Commons on 13 December.
Mr. Canavan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. On the illegality of the Secretary of State's action, does my hon. Friend agree that, if a local councillor had been found guilty in a court of law of misappropriating more than £20 million of public money for an unviable project against the advice of a senior official, that local councillor would almost certainly be surcharged, probably be banned from office for many years, if not for life, and almost certainly be bankrupt? Yet the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs carries on almost regardless. Should he not, in all honesty, resign?
Mr. Marshall: I agree with my hon. Friend's conclusion. Clearly, the Foreign Secretary should resign, together with all his Cabinet colleagues. To be fair to the Foreign Secretary—I am not usually fair to him—the High Court ruled that he acted unlawfully in using that piece of legislation. It did not rule that he was unable to provide funds to allow the project to go ahead. We are discussing the legality of the action under the 1980 legislation, not whether the Government had the right to provide money, which they clearly did. They simply chose the wrong vehicle to do so.
I was in the Chamber when my hon. Friend put the same question to the Foreign Secretary in person, and the response that I have just given was far more convincing than the one that the Foreign Secretary gave to my hon. Friend.
The Government's justification for the non-reimbursement of funding for previous years is that the aid and trade provision of the aid programme for previous and future years was set on the assumption that the cost of the Pergau dam and the three other projects would be met from it. In the Foreign Secretary's words,
"the books for those years are effectively closed".—[Official Report, 13 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 774.]
That is another neat phrase.
Books are either closed or not. What does he mean by "effectively"? Does he mean that, if pressure is exerted, the books could be reopened? Is he already anticipating his response when my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) says to him, "You have been under pressure from the High Court or other quarters and have had to reopen the books; how does that tie in with your commitment of 13 December 1994?"?
I can already see the Foreign Secretary, in his usual languid manner, rising at the Dispatch Box and saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, "I said that the books were effectively closed." Perhaps that phrase means one of two things—the books are closed and cannot be reopened, or the Foreign Secretary is making an escape route for himself for the time when sufficient pressure is placed on him that the books have to be reopened and the payment repaid.
I think that we all accept that the reason that the Foreign Secretary has given and the arguments advanced by the Government amount to pathetic excuses. The Government's unlawful decision prevented lawful aid and trade provisions from going ahead—only one third of the

277
ATPs put forward for 1990–91 were proceeded with. If the Pergau dam project had not been approved, the way would have been left open for lawful ATPs. If the House did not wish to do that, the resources could have been put into the mainstream aid budget.
As a basic principle, the money which was spent illegally must be returned to the aid budget. If that is not done, the Government will have spent resources set aside for aid on non-aid purposes, in blatant disregard of the wishes and the authority of Parliament. The £24 million that was spent on Pergau could make a significant difference to the quality of life in a poor country.
The Pergau dam affair has cast a shadow over the credibility of our aid programme which must be removed. I believe that we should take this opportunity to review overseas development administration policy as it has not been reviewed comprehensively since the 1975 White Paper. My view—I believe that it is also increasingly the view of my party—is that our aid, both bilateral and multilateral, should be targeted at the poorest people in the poorest countries.
We should never forget that 1.2 billion people continue to live in poverty throughout the world. If we are to help to eliminate that poverty, we must give increased priority to the provision of basic education, primary health and safe drinking water—just three objectives among many. I contend that £234 million would provide a great boost to that policy development.
10.21 am
Mr. Michael Jopling: I rise on this important and historic occasion with a great deal of pleasure. Madam Speaker, you will recall that this Wednesday morning sitting—which I hope will be the first of a permanent series of such sittings—results from the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, which I had the honour to chair.
The four different types of private Members' business—the Consolidated Fund Bill debate, with its absurd all-night sittings which are hopefully now behind us; private Member's motions; Adjournment motions; and the last day Adjournment debates—can now be dealt with in the four-and-a-half hour sitting of the House every Wednesday morning. That is a very neat way of putting private Members' business on a regular footing, instead of dealing with it hurriedly just before a recess. It is a far more satisfactory forum for hearing hon. Members' concerns, and it is much more sensible for us to debate an important issue like Pergau at this time of the morning rather than at 4 am, as we probably would have done previously.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) referred to the parliamentary sittings in 1967. I may have been in the Chamber during the debate to which he referred—I recall taking part in the morning debates during the Crossman experiment. That experiment failed because the House was not prepared to accept those arrangements, and because the business which Mr. Crossman put on the Order Paper was much too controversial.
There is always a temptation for people to monkey about with controversial business, which is what happened in the 1960s. We are now accepting relatively non-controversial business on motions for the Adjournment, and I believe that that will prove very satisfactory for the House.
278
I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which held a number of hearings and produced a report about the Pergau dam affair late last year. I want to refer to the events leading up to the court's decision about the legality of the payments for the construction of the Pergau dam under the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980.
The whole sorry saga of the Pergau dam began when my noble Friend Lord Younger, as he is now, signed the protocol in March 1988 in Kuala Lumpur. He maintains to this day that he did not do anything wrong, and he gave advice to that effect to the Select Committee. He said that he thought that the wording of the protocol was appropriate, and did not link aid with arms expenditure. However, the Foreign Office and the Government disagreed with that view, as did the Select Committee in its report. We felt that it was wrong for Mr. Younger to sign the protocol at that time.
The signing of the protocol has had a domino effect. I reflect the criticism in the Select Committee report when I say that I cannot understand why the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence allowed the protocol to be signed. The Foreign Office was totally ignorant of what was going on. The actions of the British high commission in Kuala Lumpur were totally disgraceful. It appeared to know very little about the reason for George Younger's visit to Kuala Lumpur, and it then failed to inform the Foreign Office what he had signed until some weeks after his return to this country. That is a lamentable state of affairs.
The whole project was appraised in a bizarre mission between 12 and 14 March 1989. Sir Tim Lankester, the permanent secretary, said—it appears in the Select Committee report—that the mission was "wholly unsatisfactory", and described it as a "lamentable slip-up." I agree with him. It is all very well for Sir Tim Lankester to complain about the viability of the scheme after the event; I think it is a pity that people within the Department did not pay more attention to the conduct of the scheme's appraisal and to the legal basis of the expenditure, which has since been overturned by the court as contrary to the provisions of the 1980 Act.
The events surrounding the Pergau dam affair have not been helped by the machinations of the consortium of contractors. The Select Committee was critical of those contractors, and I think that their behaviour does them little credit. Having said that, I entirely understand why it was impossible to stop the Pergau dam project dead in its tracks once the first mistake of signing the protocol had been made. That could have had massive ramifications for our relations with Malaysia—which are delicate at the best of times—and badly affected our important trade with that country. Undertakings had been given by the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, and I believe that the Government were right to uphold the undertakings which were given at that time.
I now turn to the issue at the core of what the hon. Gentleman is raising in his one-and-a-half hour Adjournment debate—the judgment of the courts, which nobody really anticipated. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who interrupted the hon. Member for Leicester, South, is also a member of the Select Committee for Foreign Affairs.
If he were still in his place, I am sure that he would agree with me, as would my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who is also a member of the

279
Select Committee, that, although the World Development Movement told us that it considered the payment to be illegal, nobody else, on or off the Committee, also reached that conclusion. Although we heard what the World Development Movement had to say, none of us set very much store by it. The World Development Movement was right, however, and the rest of us were wrong.
Returning to the intervention by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West, he sought to link the court case, which was about the legality of the payment under the 1980 Act, with the advice and the objection by Sir Tim Lankester, which was based purely on the viability of the scheme and had nothing to do with the legality of the payment. Those two issues are quite separate, and I wish that the hon. Gentleman were still in his place so that he could hear me say that.
Mr. George Foulkes: If the right hon. Gentleman checks back on parliamentary questions that have been tabled over a number of years, he will find that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends questioned the legality of the project.
Mr. Jopling: I accept that there have been questions which suggested that. I would guess that those questions might have been inspired by conversations with the World Development Movement. I do not think that there was any advice in or out of the Select Committee to the effect that the payments were illegal, except from the World Development Movement. Therefore, the judgment was a surprise.
I applaud the statement of the Government, complying with the judgment of the court, that money will be found from the reserves—£34.5 million this year and £31 million next year—to put right what the court has said was wrong, and that seems adequate.
Referring to previous years, I am not clear how and whether it would be appropriate or sensible to reopen previous years concerning the £24 million. It seems to me that that is water over the dam, and I could not support pressure to make the Government find that £24 million as well. Of course, the World Development Movement is doing everything it can—it may go back to court, for all I know—to insist that that £24 million is found, but those books are closed. They refer to years gone by and I should be very surprised if it were possible to find that money.
The third part of the money is in future years, and that has also been referred to in the debate. There is no way in which the Government can commit themselves—before we have entered into the specific public expenditure survey rounds—to be absolutely clear about what will happen in 1996–97, but when the Foreign Secretary made his statement on 13 December, he pointed out that the overseas aid budget is to increase by £56 million in 1996–97 and by £115 million in the following year. That will be the baseline for discussions at that time.
Finally, I want to say a word about the aid and trade provision. We should remember that it was introduced by the Labour Government in 1977. We ought also to recall that only 6 per cent. of our aid budget—rather less, I think—goes on ATP and, what is most important, since the Pergau affair the rules have been changed and it would be impossible for Pergau to be financed now to ATP, as it was then.
280
I am glad that the Select Committee report endorsed the use of ATP, and was not in favour of its abolition. ATP is a very good scheme. I welcome the use of the aid budget to encourage British trade and the preservation of British jobs.
Although the Select Committee was not in favour of an extension of it above 6 per cent., I would not object at all if the ATP budget were increased. It would be to the advantage of British industry, as ATP has had very good effects and repercussions on jobs and industry in this country. It is a pity that the statistics are not sufficiently clear for us to be precise about just what advantages have been gained over the years from the ATP provision.
With those remarks, I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say. In particular, I think it would be interesting if he could give us some an idea of how the extra £34.5 million this year is likely to be spent. The Foreign Secretary referred to Bosnia, but there may be other provisions, and I am sure that the House would like to know where the money is going.
10.37 am
Mr. George Foulkes: I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on obtaining his debate on this historic first Wednesday morning sitting, at least for a number of years. I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Westmoreland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who is responsible for us sitting on Wednesday morning. I am glad to see him here today, and look forward to seeing him regularly on Wednesday mornings.
I also emphasise that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South, who so ably put his case today, has the total support of those on the Opposition Front Bench in the arguments he put forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): In the Labour party, support from the Front Bench counts as a novelty.
Mr. Foulkes: The Minister will have the opportunity to speak later. He is noted for his sarcasm rather than his humour. My hon. Friend has the total support of the Opposition in seeking the debate, and in everything he said.
Today's much-needed debate on repayment of the money that was so scandalously wasted on the Pergau dam is an issue that, contrary to what Ministers and Conservative Members say, is in no way resolved. It may seem to the Foreign Secretary, a small discrepancy in his bookkeeping, but, to millions of people throughout the developing world who are dependant on British humanitarian aid, it can mean the difference between life and death.
The Pergau dam affair, from the original infamous entanglement of arms sales and aid, arising from the improper deal signed by Lord Younger on 23 March 1988, all the way through to the High Court ruling and the Foreign Secretary's stubborn refusal to accept it, has been one of the sorriest sagas of this discredited Government.
On 9 and 10 November last year—nearly three months ago—the High Court heard the World Development Movement case for a judicial review of the Foreign Secretary's decision. The WDM deserves the thanks and

281
congratulations of the whole House for that action. The challenge to the Foreign Secretary's decision was based on the Overseas and Development Co-operation Act 1980.
The judgment held that the Foreign Secretary's decision was unlawful, and that future payments from the aid budget were to be halted. We do not congratulate the Foreign Secretary on doing that, because he was so instructed by the High Court. Equally important, the High Court instructed the Government to reveal to the World Development Movement how they intended to put right the aid payments made so far.
By comparison, the Government quickly stated their intention to meet their contractual obligations to Malaysia, no doubt under legal threat from its Prime Minister, Mohatmir Mohammed. However, the High Court ruling explicitly stated that the WDM must be informed how the Foreign Secretary planned to make good the overseas aid budget. When will it receive a similarly quick response? It still awaits one. Once again, the interests of British companies and of trade relations with Malaysia have taken precedence over the needs of the developing world.
In the House, the Foreign Secretary first ignored many legitimate requests for his resignation, and even mild requests for an apology for the unlawful action that had been taken. Now, the right hon. Gentleman is blatantly attempting to avoid the implications of the judgment. The High Court specifically instructed the Foreign Secretary
"to take appropriate steps to make good the deficiency in the overseas aid budget."
It could not have been clearer.
The Foreign Secretary had the gall to tell the House that he believed that not paying back the £24 million that unlawfully went to Malaysia in that "brief entanglement" as he described it, was "an equitable way" of dealing with the difficult situation that had been created. That is unbelievable. The right hon. Gentleman's view of what is equitable is of no great relevance to the House, and his view of the matter has been shown by the High Court to be fundamentally flawed, and an insult to right hon. and hon. Members and to the British judiciary. Above all, his view is an insult to the people who desperately need the £24 million that the Foreign Secretary is so anxious to keep.
The Labour party is not opposed to the aid and trade provision. We were reminded today as on previous occasions by the Under-Secretary of State, with his usual sarcasm—
Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman mistakes humour for sarcasm.
Mr. Foulkes: It may seem like a sense of humour to some people, but it seems like sarcasm to this side of the House. We do not need to be reminded that a Labour Government introduced the aid scheme. We are proud that Judith Hart introduced it in 1978, but that is not the scheme currently pursued by the Government. The original scheme was intended to allow a small proportion of bilateral aid of about 5 per cent. to be available, to give higher priority to the commercial importance of a limited number—these are the key words—of "developmentally sound projects."
We find objectionable the systematic abuse and corruption of the scheme under a Conservative Government to satisfy Tory central office, the awarding of tenders to companies donating large sums of money to
282
Tory party funds—no doubt to pay some of the heavy legal fees that it must reimburse The Guardian and other newspapers, manipulation of the aid budget to further the sale of British arms and the financial interests of the Government's family and friends, and the Government's refusal to admit dishonesty and at least attempt to make amends.
The legal basis for aid payments was agreed by the House in 1966 and 1980. It gives the Foreign Secretary to authorise aid payments, but only
"for the purpose of promoting the development or maintaining the economy of a country or territories outside the UK, or the welfare of its people".
That was not the purpose of the Pergau dam. As the Foreign Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Committee, there were "wider considerations", such as
"a clear understanding at the highest level"
and
"the interests of British industry."
Ironically, the Committee and the Overseas Development Administration's own study of the programme showed that it will not create jobs or orders for British industry, so it cannot be argued that Pergau would help in that way. It boils down to
"a clear understanding at the highest level"
I cannot believe that George Younger, who was Mrs. Thatcher's leadership campaign manager, did not have his leader's words ringing in his ears when he signed that fateful arms-for-aid deal in 1988. It was not for nothing that Mrs. Thatcher was nicknamed by a former Leader of the House
"she who must be obeyed."
The following year, on 15 March 1988, Mrs. Thatcher met the Malaysian Prime Minister and sealed the deal on the basis of incomplete information about the cost to the British taxpayer. Over the next two years, it became clear that the Pergau project was not developmentally sound but uneconomic and, in the words of the ODA's own appraisal, "a very bad buy" for Britain and
"a burden on Malaysian electricity consumers."
In 1991, the ODA's Permanent Secretary, Tim Lankester, and the Minister for Overseas Development, Lady Chalker, reached the conclusion that the project was not sound, yet on 26 February 1991, after consulting the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary gave his final approval.
Why did the Foreign Secretary do that, against all professional and, I believe, legal advice? Why did he approve a project that would help neither British jobs nor Malaysian consumers? We should not be surprised that he did, when we realise that nearly all the companies that benefit from ATP donate to Tory party funds. We should not be surprised, because of the particular interest taken in Pergau and in the Ankara metro project by the then Prime Minister. Despite all her other tasks, she took a particular interest in those two projects.
When I asked the Minister what other projects the Prime Minister had asked to be put on her desk, he said that it would cost too much to tell the House. It is time the House knew of all the ATP and other projects that found their way on to Mrs. Thatcher's desk before they were approved.
Because of her special relationship with the Malaysian Prime Minister, she was also keen to see British arms sales to Malaysia proceed. One hon. Friend pointed out to

283
me that a report in The Times today says that our Export Credits Guarantee Department programme is distorted by high expenditure on the arms trade. Although the Prime Minister formally de-linked the "separate but parallel letters", there was still a strong relationship between them. The Prime Minister might also have had a close family interest in the project.
Downing street's involvement in reviewing ATP projects is particularly disturbing. The overruling of countless officials, discontent of Cabinet Ministers, protests of non-governmental organisations and press editorials were all ignored by the Government. It took action by the World Development Movement in the High Court to force the Foreign Secretary to admit that he had acted illegally in spending aid money on Pergau. A further refusal to abide by the judgment and to repay the money has caused unmitigated outrage, and rightly so.
The case for repayment is straightforward. The Foreign Secretary has used the lame excuse that the books for previous years are effectively closed. However, it was made clear in response to a question put to the Foreign Secretary's counsel in a preliminary hearing that provision existed for retrospective rearrangement of funds. In other words, the Foreign Secretary's representative said that the books could be reopened, and they should be. It seems that the interpretation of the laws of the United Kingdom depend on which side of the law the Government are operating on.
The Foreign Secretary also stands accused of contempt of the authority of Parliament. He seems to be of the opinion that the aid budget was set on the assumption that the Pergau project would be financed from within it, so provision would have been less if the project had not been included. However, the House did not vote on individual aid and trade projects when it voted for the aid budget in 1991. The ATP allocation appears as a total figure, not as a list of individual projects. Parliament voted the ATP money on the assumption that it would be used for genuine developmental projects. That has not been the case. The House has been ignored.
The money refused by the Foreign Secretary also provides a compelling argument for its return to the aid budget, which has fallen to 0.3 per cent. of gross national product. The bilateral aid budget has declined, and it desperately needs the money that could come, as it were, from the Pergau project. Africa and all poorer countries of the world desperately need the money.
In conclusion—that will please Noddy, the Government Whip. Even more important, Madam Speaker, it will please you.
Madam Speaker: I have an interest in Back-Bench Members.
Mr. Foulkes: So do I, Madam Speaker.
The Pergau dividend, which was successfully won by the World Development Movement, could be used to fund many grass-roots projects which have disappeared from the forefront of British aid.
The Government must be aware that any attempt to cut the aid budget in other areas will be vigorously opposed by the Opposition. Attempts at retribution by the Foreign Secretary will not be accepted. The Labour party wants—indeed, demands—that the money misappropriated from
284
the aid budget be immediately restored. The restoration of credibility to the United Kingdom's aid programme is badly needed to remedy what has become one of the most sickening examples of the susceptibility of this discredited Government.
The only thing that will satisfy the House, non-governmental organisations and the law is that the future payments earmarked for the Pergau project be targeted on the poorest people in the poorest countries—in other words, not only the £24 million that has previously been wasted on the project.
The Minister must say how the Government intend fully to implement the decision of the High Court. If not, it will be open to the World Development Movement, as the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale rightly said, to return to the High Court to seek legal redress. The Opposition would encourage the WDM to take that action, to ensure that the Foreign Secretary is made to obey the law of the land.
10.54 am
Mr. Jim Lester: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) spoke from the Opposition Front Bench in his usual colourful, florid and inaccurate way to try to build up a case that was out of all proportion. I have spent 20 years in the House using my energy to improve the transfer of resources from this country and other developed countries to developing countries, for the relief of poverty and for the integration of the world economy, and I speak from that background.
The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs took an enormous amount of evidence on this controversial issue, made recommendations and identified areas of concern. There is no point in a Select Committee taking that course if Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen repeat assertions that have been disproved, including links between arms and aid, and continually repeat charges that have been clearly demonstrated by others, including Opposition Members who sat on the Select Committee, to be untrue. The Select Committee examined the matter with considerable concern, including aid and trade provision.
It is interesting that Malaysia, which was a very poor country and qualified for ATP when the Pergau dam was authorised, no longer qualifies for such provision. That is a tribute to the success of aid programme development. Countries such as Malaysia have succeeded in getting themselves into the world economy, much to the benefit of the majority of their peoples.
We recognise that ATP has, always been an extremely difficult horse to ride. It is difficult to qualify what is developmental aid and what is assistance to business men who make quotations for major projects. To my recollection, the Select Committee has considered the issue on at least three occasions and has made various recommendations. It must be recognised that, in an imperfect world, it is an extremely difficult issue.
The United Kingdom is one of the few countries that has a limit on ATP. We have limited it to a maximum of 9 per cent. of our aid budget of £2 billion. Other countries use most of their aid budget to assist their own commercial development. The United Kingdom is more restricted because we have much tighter rules than other countries.

285
It is a misconception that the money spent on the Pergau dam should be available for the bilateral aid programme. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) did not make that mistake. Instead, he said that the money should be used within ATP. The changed rules limit ATP to countries with low per capita incomes and countries with much smaller projects.
My principal concern is that the concept of the dam has been much undermined by what has happened in this country. I feel that strongly. The evidence shows that there is a narrow technical argument in the Overseas Development Administration not about whether the dam should be built but about when it should have been built in terms of the Malaysian electricity cycle. It was a question whether it should be built immediately or in 10 years' time. In the end, the argument turned on who had the most interest in and knowledge of what should happen in Malaysia—in other words, whether the Malaysians should go ahead or whether ODA officials, who took an interested but narrow view, should decide when or whether it should proceed.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South talked about targeting poverty. I have seen various projects throughout the world and it is my experience that the provision of electricity in areas where hitherto there was none, such as the townships of South Africa, can do far more to target poverty—in the sense that it brings an area to life, enables factories to be built and provides a basis for jobs to be created—than projects which bring clean water, education and social services, although I do not seek to undermine those.
It is a great mistake to imagine that the provision of essential infrastructure does not relieve poverty in a positive way. It is understandable that the Malaysians wanted to develop an area of their country that had no electricity. It is understandable also that they wanted to develop a regional project. It has been a successful project. Nobody has ever suggested that the price that was eventually arrived at when the design work was done was unfair. Nobody has suggested that the dam is a white elephant. It has not been suggested that the dam will be anything but a successful project within the Malaysian electricity cycle.
Mr. Foulkes: That is not true.
Mr. Lester: It is true. The project is nearly finished, and it will be successful.
Harping on, moralising and repeating assertions undermine precisely what I, my hon. Friends and Opposition Members who form the all-party group seek to do. Disinformation about sleaze, linkage with arms and corruption, which is not borne out by the facts, only reinforces those who seek to oppose the transfer of resources from the United Kingdom to developing countries. and to close down the aid programme as an easy way to save public expenditure. It damages all that one seeks to do.
In the real world, one must negotiate resources with the Treasury. Our current Foreign Secretary—one of the most capable and committed Foreign Secretaries that we have had for a long time—succeeded, despite all the difficulties, in getting an increase in the aid budget. We all know about the 0.3 per cent. and the 0.7 per cent., but to get an increase in the aid budget out of a difficult public expenditure round is a matter for congratulation, not castigation. I understand that the £24 million already spent
286
was a matter of considerable negotiation with the Treasury and the Foreign Office came out with a reasonable deal. We can all argue for perfection, but we should also argue from reality and from accurate information. I hope that I have at least tried to put the balance right in terms of the argument.
11 am
Mr. Mike Watson: I welcome the opportunity to participate in this first ever Wednesday morning debate under the new arrangements, and I join my colleagues in congratulating the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on the part that he played in getting us to where we are.
In a way, I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) is not with us, as I know that he was not an enthusiastic advocate of the new arrangements and is even less enthusiastic about my urging that we should go yet further. I would like the House to sit on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday mornings and for Mondays and Fridays to be entirely constituency days. If anybody tried to suggest that I or any other hon. Member would be working only a three-day week as a result, I should have no problem in refuting that. None the less, we have taken the first steps towards more sensible hours and I am glad that we have the opportunity—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I allowed the hon. Gentleman a little latitude, but he must now return to the subject.
Mr. Watson: I am happy to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The aid community and, for that matter, the developing world, owes a twofold debt of gratitude as a result of the recent developments in the Pergau dam affair: first, to the World Development Movement for having the foresight to challenge the Government on spending on the Pergau dam and on the wider question of the methods by which the Government operate their aid policy, and for having the determination to see the case through to its successful conclusion; secondly, to Lord Justice Rose for his judgment of 10 November last.
Historic though that judgment was in reining in the Government's increasing tendency to act with impunity, it confirmed the trend of the courts in being prepared to dive in and swim around in those murky waters which not much more than a decade ago were regarded as the exclusive domain of the Executive. The willingness of the judiciary to allow an organisation such as the World Development Movement to pursue a judicial review must be welcomed.
If the wider result of the judgment is that it succeeds in curbing Executive power, that will meet with widespread acclaim from every direction but Whitehall as it fits into the unpleasant pattern of Cabinet Ministers having to be told by the courts that they were acting illegally—a previous Home Secretary on a deportation case and the current Home Secretary in relation to compensation for victims of crime.
My pleasure at Lord Justice Rose's judgment was tempered by the Foreign Secretary's grudging acceptance on 13 December 1994 when he addressed the House on the Government's response to the judgment. There was no contrition whatever. There was no admission of guilt and no apology. No regret was shown, except at the fact

287
that they had been found out, which these days seems to be the only crime to which they are ever prepared to admit.
Despite failing to hold his hands up and say, as it were, "It's a fair cop, guv," in true Dixon of Dock Green style, the Foreign Secretary asked for three other offences to be taken into account, which was interesting to say the least. They were the Ankara metro project in Turkey, a television studio project in Indonesia—we could ask all sorts of questions about whether we should have relationships with countries with such human rights records—and the flight information project in Botswana. The latter two have been completed and the first will be completed in 1997.
In total, they amount to some £35 million worth of aid—relatively small beer in terms of the £234 million earmarked for the Pergau dam project, but again they form a pattern: a culture of deception, of disguised intentions with regard to aid funding, of hidden agendas and the end being held to justify the means. That is not a philosophy to which I and my hon. Friends would subscribe, particularly in regard to such an important area as overseas development aid.
In his statement on 13 December, the Foreign Secretary refused to reinstate the £24 million already taken—illegally, it emerges—from the already depleted ODA funds. In effect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said, money was effectively stolen from the poor in the developing word. Attempting to justify that, the Foreign Secretary said:
"But the aid and trade provision of the aid programme for previous and future years was set on the assumption that the cost of Pergau and the other three projects would be met from within it …It is not self-evident to me or to the Government that the Government should in consequence ask the taxpayer for additional money to allow the ODA to expand its aid activities."—[Official Report, 13 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 774.]
In other words, those who never had it will never miss it. Let the Government tell that to the starving millions of sub-Saharan Africa, where on the ODA's own calculations the percentage of total British aid will fall from 14.4 per cent. in 1994–95 to 12.1 per cent. in 1997. If there is not a need to make up that deficit now, I do not know when there ever will be. We shall not convince the Government of the need if they can claim that the books are closed while at the same time aid to that deserving part of the world is decreased in terms of our overall aid budget.
A modest increase in aid was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take place, I believe, in 1996–97 and 1997–98. Unlike most other European Union member states, however, the Government refused to promise extra funding for the overall aid budget to take account of the need to increase European aid by 60 per cent. by the end of the century. That decision was taken at the Edinburgh summit in December 1992 and it leaves us in a disadvantageous position compared with our fellow members of the European Union.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which sets aid guidelines for 25 of the richest nations, recently reported that Britain was the only member among the top 12 donors whose aid budget had declined over the past 10 years. It warned that bilateral
288
aid to poor countries—the main purpose of the total aid programme—of some £2.3 billion will be severely cut if Britain is to meet the 60 per cent. increase in EU aid without coming up with any other funding.
That target would absorb up to one third of British aid, compared with the current figure of one fifth. It is in that context that Opposition Members demand that the funding earmarked for Pergau and the other projects to which I referred, which must be reinstated, should be set. Even if the full outstanding part of the £234 million over the next decade is not reinstated, at the very least the £24 million already illegally diverted must be restored.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) so eloquently put it in opening the debate, why should the books be closed for those years when it is admitted not just that a mistake was made but that the Government acted illegally? If I broke into the office of a colleague, stole something and was found guilty, I do not believe that it would be right for me to be told, "You don't have to give it back—all you have to do is to ensure that you don't do it again in the future." There is something bizarre in the Government's saying, "Well, yes, we were caught out, but we'll close the book on it," effectively pretending that it did not happen.
I was not convinced by the argument made by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, who said that one cannot expect the Government to look into the future, and I agree—particularly for a Government who do not have a future. None the less, they have announced figures for increases in aid for 1996–97 and 1997–98, so they are at least willing to look that far ahead. I am not sure where they find the confidence, but they are prepared to do that although they have not been prepared to give a commitment in respect of the Pergau dam aid funding.
That has been only for this year and next year. If the Minister will not accept the Opposition's pleas, he should remember that the High Court judgment instructed the Foreign Secretary to replenish the ODA funds which had been diverted for that ill-starred project. I hope that the World Development Movement will consider returning to the courts if the Minister confirms, as I expect that he will, the Government's refusal to reopen the books and to make good the deficit that has been identified.
The retrospective rearrangement of funds, which was mentioned in court, is well merited in its own right. The arguments have been eloquently put. Under Lord Justice Rose's judgment it is obligatory, but most of all it is needed by the poor of the world, who have consistently been sold short by the Government in their aid programme despite the rises for the next two years to which I have referred.
Money was stolen from the poor of the world despite the Government's stated intention that their aid budget was to deal first and foremost with poverty. The Government must not be allowed to get away with their ill-gotten gains. Those funds should be reinstated and I urge the Minister to announce the intention to do so today.
11.10 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on introducing the debate and providing the Government with a further opportunity to state their position on the aid and trade programme and on the particular event in question. We welcome that.

289
I also welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) was able to take part in the debate. It is due to the initiatives of the Committee that he chaired that we are able to have Wednesday morning sittings, which will be much welcomed by hon. Members. As a senior member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, his contribution was valid and valuable. It should be noted that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), also a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, endorsed and supported the Government's approach to the matter.
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on the Opposition Front Bench. I believe that this is the first time he has spoken at the Dispatch Box since taking on his new brief. I was not entirely sure who would be the Opposition's Foreign Affairs spokesman this morning as I noted that the shadow Foreign Secretary was making a speech today on clause IV. Everyone in the Labour party now has to make speeches on clause IV, even those who supposedly have responsibility for foreign affairs. The shadow Foreign Secretary may be able to explain to the Labour party that it is now the only democratic party left in Europe which—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is trying my patience. He must return to his brief.
Mr. Baldry: I was simply welcoming the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box and pointing out why it was that only he appeared to be free this morning to take part in the debate. However, I appreciate the sensitivities in the Labour party about the debate on clause IV.
The United Kingdom has a substantial aid programme of some £2.28 billion this year, praised for its quality and focused on helping the poorest in the world. Nine of the 10 biggest aid recipients last year were poor countries in Africa and Asia. Former Yugoslavia—Bosnia in particular—was the other main recipient.
Our purpose is to help people in countries poorer than our own to improve their lives. In doing this of course we are keen to link with British companies and British consultants wherever it makes sense to do so, as we do with British non-governmental organisations such as Oxfam and Save the Children.We link with them because they can provide the advice, know-how, products, experience and expertise which can be of benefit to the development of the countries that we help. We should be proud that British money, British talent and British expertise is being devoted to help many of the poorest in the world.
The aid and trade provision was established in 1977 by a Labour Government, as has already been commented on and acknowledged. It has enabled the UK to promote development in areas where British companies have much to offer.
ATP is a successful scheme. It is successful in helping poorer countries in that the approximately £1.4 billion which has been committed to support development projects overseas has led to nearly £4 billion of British exports. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale asked whether we had the figure and that is it. It has led to substantial exports for the UK. That is good news for Britain, good news for UK jobs and good news for exports. It is particularly good
290
news for those countries which have benefited from these projects. Not surprisingly, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee concluded that ATP should continue.
As the House will know, my predecessor, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd), announced in June 1993 new procedures for ATP projects. All ATP projects approved since the new procedures were introduced fully meet the criteria laid down in the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980, as now interpreted by the divisional court. Following the judgment of the divisional court in co-operation with the National Audit Office, there was a review of all projects receiving finance under the aid and trade provision to see whether any of the projects approved under our previous understanding of the Act might fall outside the interpretation of the legislation given by the divisional court. Three projects raised concerns, so following the judgment it was made clear to the House that arrangements would be made for the outstanding commitments to Pergau and the other three projects to be met from funds voted by Parliament outside the scope of the Act.
As to the past, the aid and trade provision of the aid programme was set on the assumption that the cost of Pergau and the other three projects would be met from within it. The books for those years are now closed. Therefore, as the House will know, we concluded that in respect of spending on those projects in previous years no adjustment would be made to ODA's future budget. The planned aid programme for the present and future years again contains provision for all four projects. Spending on the four projects is expected to be £32 million this financial year and £32.7 million next year.
Mr. Hugh Bayley rose—
Mr. Baldry: We have therefore decided that funding from the reserve will be provided to meet the costs of the four projects, thus making available an extra £32 million for the aid budget this year and £32.7 million next year for overseas development. I am sure that the vast majority of people will find that a fair, reasonable and equitable outcome. I am sure that the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members consider that to be a fair, reasonable and equitable outcome.
Mr. Bayley rose—
Mr. Baldry: That is evidenced by the fact that today's debate has been attended by only a handful of Opposition Members. This does not seem to be a House in which there is considerable doubt about whether the outcome is fair, reasonable or equitable.
Sir Peter Emery: One of the things that I note has not arisen in the debate, most of which I have heard, is that however much many of us might wish to see aid to the rest of the world which is in need increased, many of my constituents feel strongly that some charity belongs at home, and they see great difficulties with such increases when the Government are refusing to give money for the elderly and for many other projects. That must be taken into account. It is no good dismissing it. That is what is felt by many of my constituents.
Mr. Baldry: My right hon. Friend illustrates the fact, which was commented on by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, that every year the Government have to

291
make difficult decisions in the public expenditure survey. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is to be congratulated on the fact that this year, next year and the year after that, the overseas development budget will be increasing year on year so that we shall be able to devote more resources to helping the poorer nations.
Mr. Bayley rose—
Mr. Baldry: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has been something of a yo-yo in the debate. I think that he has only been present for a short part of it, but I gladly give way to him.
Mr. Bayley: I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that he will agree that it is important to ensure that any future ATP projects are funded within the ODA's rules. Following the Pergau debacle, the ODA changed its rules: in future, ATP would be given only to countries with a per capita gross national product of less than $700. On 18 November, in answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister gave me a list of ATP projects that had been approved for funding since June 1993, when the policy changed; it included four projects worth a total of £16 million—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now beginning to make a speech. Interventions, by their nature, must be brief.
Mr. Baldry: Perhaps I may anticipate the hon. Gentleman's point. Before Christmas he issued a press release asserting that Ministers had approved projects in defiance of the policy announced in June 1993 that new ATP projects would be approved only for countries with an income per head not exceeding $700 in 1989. That policy has not been breached: the four projects to which the hon. Gentleman's December press statement referred were approved well before June 1993, as my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development made clear to him subsequently in correspondence.
Mr. Bayley: That is not what the parliamentary answer said.
Mr. Baldry: Perhaps I could make some progress.
As far as I can see, the only organisation—apart from the official Opposition—that does not consider the Government's approach fair, reasonable and equitable is the World Development Movement. It does not consider the extra £65 million for the aid budget to be reasonable. So be it; the WDM may seek to return to court if it wishes, but I am confident that we shall be found to have acted properly and reasonably.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Baldry: No. The hon. Gentleman made a long speech—so long that it tried your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you told us as much.
We are putting the extra money to good use, as we put all the aid budget money to good use. In the current financial year it will enable us to provide, for example, additional emergency aid for Bosnia and Rwanda, and to deal with the crisis in Chechnya. We are financing general relief supplies through the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United Nations High Commissioner for
292
Refugees and other non-governmental organisations that are working for the 400,000 people who have been displaced by the tragedy in Chechnya. Britain will give up to £1 million for international humanitarian efforts to help those injured or made homeless in the fighting; the money will be used to provide food as well as blankets, plastic sheeting and clothing to protect people from the extreme weather conditions in the region.
We shall also be able to respond to specific appeals from the UN and the Red Cross, and to work on joint projects with the World Health Organisation and other multilateral organisations which are intended to deal with primary health care needs in developing countries. Allocations for the next financial year are still to be decided, but aid for the poorest in Africa and Asia is our priority. I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, and others who asked me about the money, that it is being put to very good use supporting our humanitarian work throughout the world.
Mr. Foulkes: I welcome what the Minister has said, but he has not yet told us—and he has only a few minutes left—how the Foreign Secretary will implement the court's third decision. When will he meet the World Development Movement to explain how he intends to put right the aid payments that have been made so far? That is what the court decided should be done; how will the Government fulfil its decision?
Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said before Christmas, or to what I have said this morning. Furthermore, he obviously was not particularly well briefed by the World Development Movement. The Treasury Solicitor wrote to the WDM on 23 January, setting out the Government's position.
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Mr. Baldry: Sadly, the need for emergency aid has never been greater than in recent times—
Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am aware of the existence of the letter to which the Minister referred, but has it been placed in the Library of the House? It has not been circulated, but it ought to be the property of the House as well as the World Development Movement. Surely it is improper for the Minister to refer to a letter that has not previously been circulated to hon. Members, although they are aware of it and it is central and material to the important point with which we are dealing.
Mr. Baldry: I am more than happy to make the letter available, and to place it in the Library. It repeats very clearly what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said before Christmas, and what I have said today. The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to my speech.
As I was saying, the need for emergency aid has never been greater than in recent times. In 1993–94, we spent about £180 million on providing speedy and effective help for the victims of natural and man-made disasters. We provided help for the victims of 135 emergencies. We work together with the UN, other relief organisations, our partners in Europe and non-governmental organisations such as the British Red Cross and Oxfam. Whether it be the horn of Africa, refugees in Afghanistan or displaced

293
people from Azerbaijan, the ODA is there providing a continuous flow of emergency aid to help the victims of many emergencies.
Nor does ODA help stop at emergency aid, vital though that is. It is, for example, running a programme to restore basic electricity supplies to central Bosnia; ODA engineers are repairing power stations and mending supply lines to provide local communities with electricity. Road engineers maintaining life—saving convoy routes, radio operators, fitters, telecommunications experts and logisticians, all paid for by British aid, are working with the UN throughout Bosnia and Croatia. That is work of which we can all be proud.
During the past four months, operations in Rwanda and Bosnia have been undertaken by the UN and a wide range of British NGOs using bilateral ODA funds now totalling respectively £33 million and £94 million. Last week we announced a further £2 million to promote the recovery of Rwanda. Including our share of EC aid, we have spent more than £62 million on the Rwandan crisis since last April. Long—term programmes also continue in northern Iraq, Angola, Mozambique and the horn of Africa.
Sadly, the Opposition have used today's debate to recycle the canard that our aid is in some way linked to arms sales. That is nonsense: there is no link between our aid programme and defence sales, and there never has been. It is absurd to suggest that our aid flows are in any way determined by prospects of such sales. All the 10 highest aid recipients are low—income countries, nine of them in Africa and Asia. A recent OECD report recognises that our aid focuses on poorer countries, and acknowledges its quality.
"The United Kingdom",
says the OECD,
294
"has a highly concessional business—like bilateral programme largely directed towards the poorest developing countries. Its role as a major donor has been particularly important in several geographical areas, notably Sub—Saharan Africa and Asia, and in key sectors such as education, agricultural research, health and population and private enterprise. The United Kingdom has many prominent institutions in the development field and an enormous amount of expertise".
That is the reality of the UK aid programme—aid that works to reduce poverty world wide, promoting sustainable and lasting development. It has helped, and continues to help, to change the world for the better.
Fifteen years ago there was bitter war in Zimbabwe; equally unresolved was the struggle for Namibia's independence, while civil wars scarred Mozambique and Angola and, of course, South Africa lived under the shadow of apartheid. Now only Angola's future remains in doubt, and there too an end to the conflict seems in sight. In all those countries, and in some 150 developing countries around the world, UK aid has been and continues to be a catalyst for change for the better. There is nothing inevitable about countries' having to be poor, and every reason to believe that it is possible for us—and others—to make a positive contribution to change. The Economist recently forecast that by the year 2020 what are now called developing countries will account for two thirds of world output and that as many as nine of the 15 biggest economies at that time will be from today's third world.
Whether it is helping to improve the distribution of bread in Moscow, supporting sustainable agriculture in Bangladesh, helping to fight malaria in Africa or the countless other programmes and projects supported and funded by the ODA, we are determined to maintain a substantial and effective aid programme to help to reduce poverty worldwide. It is work of which we can all be proud.

Legal Aid
11.30 am
Mr. John Marshall: I am pleased to share this moment of history with my hon. Friend the Minister. It is perhaps appropriate that you should be in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you are a former history teacher. It is also a pleasure to follow the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). When I was elected to this place I feared that I would get his mess bills and that he would get all my dinner invitations. The hon. Gentleman has obviously gone for his coffee break. I wonder what the odds are of two Members by the name of J. Marshall initiating these first two historic debates?
This is not the first time that I have shared a moment of history with the Minister because we were both elected to the European Parliament in 1979. However, the greatest moment of history that he and I shared was on 19 August 1953, when on our respective birthdays Mr. Dennis Compton swept England to victory in the fifth test match and we regained the Ashes. I have one advantage over the Minister because not only was I at the match to see Mr. Dennis Compton do that, but he was born in my constituency; and a week or two ago I took him back to see his old home and his old school.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord Mackay, the Lord Chancellor. The dream of every American is to move from the log cabin to the White House. Lord Mackay made just as distinguished a journey, from a railwayman's cottage in Sutherland to the job of a Law Officer and then Lord Chancellor. There are two kinds of Law Officers—distinguished politicians who happen to be lawyers and distinguished lawyers who happen to be supporters of a political party. Lord Mackay is very much a distinguished lawyer.
It was said in Scotland that, no matter which party had won the 1979 election, it would have asked him to be Lord Advocate. It is a tribute to him as an emigré Scot that when he was appointed Lord Chancellor of England in 1987 the appointment was greeted with a mere murmur of approval. One wonders how Scotland would have reacted if an Englishman had been appointed Lord Advocate in 1988. I suspect that there would not have been a murmur of approval: the Scottish advocates would have had something to say.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I join in the hon. Gentleman's fulsome tribute to Lord Mackay, who is one of my constituents. However, to put the matter in another contemporary context, although he may well have been appointed by a Labour or a Conservative Government in 1979, his subsequent conversion seems to have been complete, because at the last two general elections he spoke against me at Conservative campaign meetings in the constituency.
Mr. Marshall: My only regret is that the noble Lord cannot vote in the constituency, other than in European elections when I am sure that he carries out his duty and votes for the right party.
Mr. Paul Boateng: To vote the right way is to vote Labour.
Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman is misguided if he thinks that the Labour party has any chance in that Euro constituency. We know that he is an opponent—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. What has this to do with legal aid?
Mr. Marshall: You might ask the hon. Gentleman who took me down that by road with his sedentary intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is appropriate that the task of reforming the legal aid system should fall to Lord Mackay who has a fine legal mind, the analytical mind of a mathematician, and who has the sense of compassion to be found in those with a deep religious background.
The legal aid system was designed on the simple premise that no one should be denied justice because he is poor. That is an excellent and noble sentiment but, unfortunately, the system no longer achieves its basic objective despite being the most generous system of legal aid in the western world. Its cost has risen dramatically. In 1979–80, the system cost £99 million. In 1984–85, the cost was £263.1 million and by 1993–94, it had risen to £1,210 million. In the current financial year, it is estimated that it will cost £1,333 million.
Since 1979–80, the cost of legal aid has more than quadrupled in real terms and has gone up by 1,248 per cent. in cash terms. No wonder the noble Lord Mackay said:
"We must look to new solutions. I am open to new ideas on how we can meet our objectives more efficiently, more effectively and more cheaply."
Of course some people will cavil about the phrase "more cheaply" but I remind the House of two points. First, if we can produce a cheaper system it will be to the benefit of all litigants, not only to the benefit of the legal aid fund. Secondly, the resources devoted to legal aid could be better employed elsewhere. It is a chilling fact that the amount devoted to such aid would be sufficient to provide nursery school places for all three and four-year-olds.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important reforms that the Lord Chancellor has said he will carry into effect is the withdrawal of legal aid which has scandalously been made available to extremely wealthy people? The only reason for those overseas nationals litigating in British courts is that our courts are convenient forums. Those people have vast assets and clearly should not qualify for British legal aid to the detriment of the British taxpayer. It is right that our noble Friend intends to correct that abuse.
Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend anticipates my speech. Like him, I have read the consultation document "Legal Aid for the Apparently Wealthy". It is a valuable document, to which I shall turn later in the debate.
Mr. David Ashby: Does my hon. Friend agree that legal aid for the apparently wealthy is a mere pinprick compared with the amount of legal aid that has been granted? Was he present in the 1980s and 1990s when we enacted one piece of legislation after another, doubling the number of offences, the number of

297
courts and the amount of legal aid that has to be granted as a result? Does he agree that a large part of the legal aid budget is our fault? We are responsible for it.
Mr. Marshall: I am afraid that I must disagree with my hon. Friend. When one examines the growth of the fund—[Interruption.] I wonder how those who are following our proceedings at this historic moment regard the attitude of Opposition Front-Bench speakers who make sedentary and unintelligible interruptions.
The biggest item of growth in the legal aid fund is civil legal aid rather than criminal legal aid, so I must disagree with my hon. Friend. He may regard it as a mere pinprick that Mr. Ernest Saunders received £1.3 million in legal aid and that the Levitt case cost the taxpayer £2 million, but when people see Mr. Levitt quaffing champagne at Tottenham Hotspur and living in a home worth £750,000, they regard it not as a pinprick but as an obscenity. They believe that those sums are the resources of the taxpayer and that they could be used more efficiently and more sensibly elsewhere.
Mr. Ashby: I agree with my hon. Friend about that.
Mr. Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for his agreement. I think that, for a Wednesday morning, the House is indulging in far too many sedentary interruptions and I shall now proceed with my speech.
The National Consumer Council has suggested various ways in which legal aid could be dealt with more cheaply. It suggests that greater use could be made of binding arbitration. That would be especially useful in matrimonial cases, which have been one of the causes of the great mushrooming in legal aid. The council also suggests the development of no win, no fee, legal services. Our noble Friend Lord Mackay suggested that idea during the recent reform of the legal profession.
The council suggests that no-fault compensation under the Road Traffic Acts would be a means of reducing the legal aid burden, and that we should promote low-cost legal services. As a consumer, one would like legal services to become less expensive not only for the legal aid fund but for the many other consumers of legal services.
Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend mentioned the explosion in matrimonial legal aid. I practised at the Bar for a number of years before I came to this place, and I did a lot of work as a family law barrister in particular. I noticed that there was large legal aid expenditure for people who would frequently come to court for domestic violence injunctions.
Although it is proper that legal aid should be available in such cases, the problem often was that the battered wife would obtain legal aid to bring a case, to obtain an injunction, perfectly properly, and to protect herself, but she would then allow the man responsible for the violence back into her house. The relationship would resume. There would then be another violent incident. I see that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) nodding. He is familiar with the problem. The woman would return to court and there would be further legal aid expenditure.
298
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for legal aid to be limited to, at the most, no more than two applications to court, because so often, legal aid is wasted by repeated applications by the same parties in the same court?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) resumes his speech, may I point out, as I have already said once this morning, that interventions should be brief.
Mr. Marshall: There is obviously merit in what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) says.
The National Consumer Council suggested that there might be a development of the salaried sector. It pointed out that in Holland, 15 per cent. of legal aid is through the salaried sector rather than through private practice solicitors.
In the legal aid system, we must consider the need to make greater checks on applications. In a written answer on 24 October 1994, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department told me that, in 1993–94, there were 413,728 claims for civil legal aid and 606,041 applications for criminal legal aid. In that financial year, the legal aid assessment office referred 15 cases for alleged fraudulent claims.
We are being asked to believe that, of the 606,041 rather benign individuals who made applications for criminal legal aid, only 15 would dare to give misleading, inaccurate information to the legal aid fund. I do not believe that, out of 1 million applicants, only 15 might have told the odd fib or two. It beggars belief.
A written answer given on 26 October 1994 by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary shows that there has been a growth in the number of high-cost trials. In 1990–91, there were only 94 legal aid cases costing the taxpayer more than £100,000. By 1993–94, there were 226 such cases. In the first half of the current financial year, there were 153 cases. Those include some of the cases that have caused the greatest concern to the taxpayer.
The fact that some cases can cost more than £100,000, and that some other cases may cost only £1,000 or £2,000, underlines the absurdity of a standard assessment of means under the legal aid system. Although one individual might be able to afford a case costing him £5,000, he might find it much more difficult to produce the readies for a case costing him £100,000.
Despite, or perhaps because of, the cost of the legal aid system, it is expensive, capricious and unfair to individuals. That is why the Lord Chancellor's attempts to reform the system have been widely welcomed. Nothing has received a greater welcome than the consultative document "Legal Aid for the Apparently Wealthy".
I referred earlier to the case of Mr. Roger Levitt, who enjoys a life style that was the envy of many people. He has a home in St. John's Wood. He quaffs champagne. [Interruption.] He is still very well represented in St John's Wood by my right hon. Friend the Member for

299
Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler). Mr. Levitt's life style is an insult to the investors who lost all their money in his organisation.
Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman was only too anxious to share with us his judgment as to how the noble Lord Mackay voted at the previous election. Would he like to hazard a guess as to how Mr. Levitt voted?
Mr. Marshall: I made it clear that Lord Mackay did not vote at the previous election because, as a member of the House of Lords, he could not have done so.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I caution the hon. Gentleman about following the path set out by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng).
Mr. Marshall: I was just going to say that I would not speculate as to how someone who did not live in my constituency voted, because I would not have any access to canvass returns that could give me any accurate information on the matter.
It is equally offensive to taxpayers and citizens when they see Mr. Ernest Saunders skiing with his wife in Switzerland and hopping across the Atlantic on Concorde, no doubt ready to patent the cause that managed to cure him of Alzheimer's disease. He enjoys a lifestyle that is far superior to that of the vast majority of taxpayers and hon. Members, yet he received £1.3 million in legal aid.
There is the case of Mr. Gordon Foxley, who is guilty of massive corruption at the Ministry of Defence. He netted a tidy sum, has a house worth £500,000 and a fleet of cars. He has managed to sting the taxpayer twice, first as a civil servant and then as a defendant in a case. We also have the case of Mr. Hashim, who received £4 million in legal aid, despite being a multi-millionaire.
Legal aid was designed to help the indigent defend themselves. Instead, it is being misused by a number of asset-rich individuals, who have been able to cover up the source of their luxurious life style and to sponge off the taxpayer. I am sure that all hon. Members would like to congratulate our noble Friend Lord Mackay on his determination to remove that scandal.
Lord Mackay's consultation paper contained five questions. First, should there be a limit to the amount of equity ignored for means-testing purposes and should that limit be set at £100,000 for private houses? Secondly, should there be a ceiling on the amount that can be ignored as the subject of dispute and, if so, would a figure of £100,000 be appropriate? Thirdly, should the legal aid rules be changed to allow the existence of a Mareva injunction to be ignored? Fourthly, should more be done to develop the concept of legal aid as a loan when the applicant is unsuccessful in his litigation? Finally, should there be an affluent life style provision in the civil legal aid scheme?
Most people believe that there should be a limit on the amount of equity to be ignored when it involves a private home. Most ordinary taxpayers do not enjoy an equity of £100,000 in their homes, so why should they pay taxes to finance the legal costs of those who live in very much better homes? I also believe that there should be a similar disregard in respect of the assets which are the subject of debate. I suppose that a Mareva injunction would be known as the Hashim clause. It is applied only when
300
someone leads a wealthy life style and has substantial assets. It gives great offence to people that Mr. Jawad Hashim should have receive £4 million in legal aid when he was a multi-millionaire, had seven homes and expensive cars, and managed to employ servants.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only the very rich who should be considered in the review but the poor? If the poor receive legal aid as a matter of right, it could distort the outcome of a case for the defendant.
Mr. Marshall: With that very short question, my hon. Friend has curtailed my speech by about four minutes, which will no doubt please the House.
I agree that, in civil legal aid, which is the most expensive aspect of legal aid at the moment, the existence of a legal aid certificate is the strongest weapon that a litigant can have because those against whom he is litigating know that, whether they win or lose the argument, they will pay the costs.
The principle whereby, when a case is lost, the legal fund pays nothing towards the costs of the person being sued needs to be re-examined. That is unfair and leads to delays. I am told that the best way to win a civil case is to have a legal aid certificate and that the second-best way of winning is to have a good argument. We have read recently that Mr. Winston Silcott is to receive £100,000 of legal aid to sue the Metropolitan police. Many people, including the Metropolitan police, regard that as thoroughly offensive.
The Lord Chancellor's fourth question was whether legal aid should sometimes be regarded as a loan. Mr. Ernest Saunders told the press that he is shortly to receive a £70,000 pension from Guinness. He also receives substantial fees for lecturing and giving marketing advice but chooses not to pay anything towards his legal aid costs which, I remind the House, were £1,342,465—not a penny more, not a penny less. In such cases, the unsuccessful criminal who then comes into money should be expected to pay something towards his past legal aid fees.
I deal now with the question of an affluent life style and what could in future be called the Roger Levitt clause in legal aid. Everyone believes that those who enjoy an affluent life style should not receive legal aid.
Mr. Ashby: Does not my hon. Friend believe that someone acquitted on appeal should receive costs, or does he believe that people who are wrongly convicted should always pay into the legal aid fund and always lose out? I am thinking about Roger Levitt in particular.
Mr. Marshall: It is up to the courts to decide whether someone who has been acquitted should receive costs. It is not right to say that everyone who is acquitted should receive costs, because there might have been good reason for the prosecution. It may well be that the old Scottish verdict of "not proven" should be introduced in some cases. Were that to happen, the person involved might not receive costs. It would be wrong to say automatically that people who are prosecuted should not pay anything towards their defence.
Mr. Steen rose—
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor)rose ߞ
Mr. Marshall: I think that I should give way first to my hon. Friend the Minister.
Mr. Steen: So do I.
Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and for South Hams (Mr. Steen) for their courtesy. In his admirable speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South has already dealt with the five questions set out on page 35 of the document entitled "Legal Aid for the Apparently Wealthy". Would he be good enough to consider—not necessarily this morning but when he has had time to reflect further—the many other questions contained elsewhere in the document, because I would value his opinion on them, too?
Mr. Marshall: If I tried to answer every question in the document, I should have to take up the whole of the debate. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister was intervening because he thought that he might not have the opportunity to do so later.
Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend .the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has touched on legal aid in criminal cases. Does he agree that, too often, legal aid is offered as of right to people charged with criminal offences? Does he agree that that should not be so and that the most stringent means test should be applied to those who have been charged with such offences, as happens with civil matters? Does he further agree that too much money is being spent on legal aid and that the problem needs to be dealt with?
Mr. Marshall: I thought that I dealt with the latter point at the beginning of my speech when I said that there had been a huge increase in the legal aid bill from under £100 million in 1979–80 to £1.3 billion in the current financial year. On my hon. Friend's first point, he is right to say that legal aid should not be given as a right. The merit of the case should be examined.
Having spoken to various lawyers over the past few weeks, I have learnt that many believe that legal aid is given in cases which are not as legally meritorious as others in which it is not given. I could cite a number of such cases involving people who come to my constituency surgery—their adversary has been awarded legal aid but they feel that the case did not merit it. I shall cite only two examples because this issue is taking my speech out of sequence, although that will reduce its length.
One constituent told me that he had been given planning permission by Barnet council to build a garage. He had bought the bricks and wood but then a neighbour said that such a garage would interfere with his light. The neighbour approached the legal aid fund and received backing. This created inequality, because the person who had received planning permission could not get legal aid and could not afford to fight his case. The legal aid fund, in effect, determined the outcome by backing one individual when the other could not afford to fight the case.
On another occasion, representatives of a Hindu temple came to see me. They had expelled someone who had broken an agreement. Had he apologised, they would have
302
taken him back. However, he decided not to apologise but to go to court with help from the legal aid fund. It was not a meritorious case—an apology, which would have cost nothing but the loss of face, was not offered so expensive legal action was taken with only one side benefiting from legal aid. It is unfair, and a waste of taxpayers' money that could have been used elsewhere.
Mr. Hawkins: There are so many people in the category that my hon. Friend has just mentioned that they now have their own acronym—MINELA: modest income, not eligible for legal aid. Those people are now in the weakest position in the whole legal service.
Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend is quite right. On one occasion, I was described by one of the chaps who compiles the parliamentary profiles, Mr. Andrew Roth, as a man of patience. I hope that I have demonstrated that patience by the number of times that I have given way this morning.
The Lord Chancellor said in his document that an affluent life style was difficult to define. It may be difficult to define, but we can certainly recognise it in the life style of Mr. Hashim with his seven houses, in Mr. Foxley with his £500,000 mansion, in Mr. Levitt with his £750,000 home, and in Mr. Kenneth Sinar—with his yacht Enendine, which had six berths, three cabins and four occasional berths—who lived in millionaires' row in Hove.
Those life styles are the envy of the ordinary citizen, who cannot afford luxury yachts, champagne in boxes at White Hart lane or a fleet of motor cars. It is quite wrong that the ordinary citizen, who cannot afford that life style, should have to pay taxes so that someone else can continue to afford it. Our noble Friend Lord Mackay is to be congratulated on seeking to release those resources so that they can be used to help those in real need. I shall not speak at great length about civil legal aid because I dealt, in various answers to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), with the issues that concern me, concern him and concern the House.
The objective of legal aid, when it was set up in 1948, was that no one should be denied justice because of their income. That is no longer true because those who can afford justice in the courts today are the very wealthy and those who are legally aided. A huge swathe of middle England cannot afford justice.
Mr. Donald Anderson: And middle Scotland.
Mr. Marshall: And middle Scotland.
That is due not to a defect in the legal aid system but to the cost of the legal system in general. That is why I welcome the appointment of Lord Woolf, whom the Government have asked to try to reduce the cost of the legal system. Lord Woolf has to look at three points: the costs involved in legal action, the delays involved in legal action, because justice delayed is justice denied, and whether some cases could be removed from the legal system altogether.
Mr. Steen: There is one more point to mention, if my hon. Friend would allow me. We should also consider the fees charged by lawyers. If the fees that lawyers charge were pegged, the legal aid fund would not have to pay

303
out so much money. It is similar with doctors, who charge whatever they like, knowing that private insurance will pay.
Mr. Marshall: .I see that I am equidistant between my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams. One is obviously a consumer and the other a provider of legal services. I shall not dare to decide who gets the better deal.
Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I acquaint the House with the fact that I am learned, as well as our hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby)?
Mr. Marshall: I regard my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams as learned in many matters.
I also welcome the fact that Lord Justice Taylor is reported in the press this morning as trying to make lawyers less wordy. He says that cases would be determined more quickly and less expensively for all litigants and the legal aid fund if that were so.
Legal aid was designed to ensure that no one was denied justice because of their income. That was an excellent concept in 1948. It was an inexpensive concept in 1979, but today it is a very expensive concept, which is being abused by some individuals. However, the misuse by a minority is not an excuse for destroying the system, but an argument for reforming the system. That is why I welcome the consultative document and the Lord Chancellor's positive and penetrative proposals.
The original objective of legal aid has been destroyed because many people today are denied justice. As I said earlier, only the wealthy and the legally aided can afford to enjoy justice in our courts. That is why I welcome the determination of the Lord Chancellor to reduce the cost of our legal services, why I welcome the appointment of Lord Woolf and why I welcome the reported comments of Lord Justice Taylors.
12.4 pm
Mr. Piers Merchant: I am grateful to have an opportunity to speak in a Wednesday morning debate in the House. I have often spoken elsewhere at such a time, but I never had the pleasure of speaking here. I shall begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on an extremely lucid description of his concerns, with which I identify. There are, of course, many people who would see things differently. I have spoken to those outside this House who have complained that far from it being the case that the amount being spent on legal aid is generous, a great deal more should be spent. I add that those people—normally—are practising in law and perhaps, therefore, are personally involved.
In answer to such people, a strong case could be made for the success of legal aid based on the amount of funding that has been made available. If one considers the latest available figures—I obtained them from the House of Commons Library yesterday—it is immediately apparent that, for example, civil legal aid in general has increased by a huge percentage; about 1,000 per cent. since 1979. The total increase, comparing last year with
304
1979, is in the order of 400 per cent. after adjusting for inflation. Without that adjustment, that 400 per cent. figure becomes 1,122 per cent.
The increases are apparent not only over the period between 1979 and 1993, but over the most recent years. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South quoted more figures which support that charge. In addition, the number of bills paid for legal aid show a huge increase. Civil legal aid bills increased from 104,804 in 1979–80 to 359,188 in 1993–94. For magistrates, the number of bills paid for criminal cases rose from just over 243,000 to 432,000. All those figures show that there has been a massive increase in public funding for legal aid.
I said that those figures could be used as an argument for the success of legal aid over that period, but I would not take that view. I would use those figures to illustrate that something has gone seriously wrong. There has been an excessive increase in the funding of legal aid and it should be curtailed. I do not in any sense question that it is true that many individuals have been helped over that period, and rightly so, but to concede that there should be continued increases in legal aid is effectively to concede an argument in favour of an entirely socialised legal system; it would be to say that one should increase funding of the system by a ratchet effect until everybody effectively had the right to claim some money if they wished to take legal action. I would totally oppose that.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) that legal aid, in itself, is a distortion of the system and that, by giving grants to people to litigate, we are giving them a potential advantage over others. I, too, have had constituency cases which clearly demonstrate that. People were persuaded to create litigation because they knew that there would be no possible loss to themselves as the funding would be provided by the state. Others have faced either serious delays or considerable distortions to their legal cases because of the intervention of the legal aid fund on behalf of the other party. Some of those cases have involved people who, earlier in their lives, could very well have afforded to fund their own legal action. I shall return to that point later.
Clearly it is fundamentally wrong for the taxpayer to be expected to write a blank cheque to fund unlimited private action, and especially to subsidise people with a wealthy lifestyle. There is ample evidence that that happens, and although I do not want to go over again the ground so ably covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, I shall refer to two cases that my hon. Friend mentioned.
Dr. Jawad Hashim received £4 million in legal aid—an outrageous payment. A former president of the Arab Monetary Fund, he was being sued for £33 million, which he had allegedly siphoned into private Swiss bank accounts, and he owned six luxury homes around the world. Eventually he was ordered to pay £132 million in compensation. There was no question, at any stage, of that man being poor or even remotely understanding what poverty is, yet he could claim from the British legal aid fund. That is so unacceptable that action must be taken as a matter of urgency to prevent any recurrence of such a case.
Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Has he considered whether legal aid will be available to all European Union citizens? Will any Frenchman or

305
Dutchman who comes here be entitled to legal aid, too, and if so, will inquiries be made about the circumstances of such people in their own countries? Might that not be another way in which Europeans can take money from the British taxpayer?
Mr. Merchant: That is an important consideration. In his consultation document "Legal Aid for the Apparently Wealthy", the Lord Chancellor asked to what extent nationality should be taken into account in deciding whether to grant legal aid. That is an important topic to examine, and there is a strong argument that the taxpayers of this country should not be expected to fund the legal bills of those who are not British nationals yet who might for one reason or another appear in the British courts. Such people may have chosen to appear there, and be taking action themselves. In a number of such cases—perhaps in all of them—it is no longer suitable, right or fair that people should receive support from the taxpayer.
The other case that I wish to mention is that of Mr. Roger Levitt—another glaring example of misuse of the legal aid fund. Mr. Levitt received £3.7 million to fight fraud charges, yet continued to live what was clearly a luxurious life style. I accept that those are unusual cases—they are by no means run-of-the-mill uses of the legal aid fund, and thank goodness for that—but that does not make them any more justifiable, nor reduce the need to correct the abuse.
In the light of such cases and of other information, the Lord Chancellor last month produced a Green Paper, in which he asked some excellent questions and made some excellent suggestions. I draw the attention of the House especially to what he says about the affluent life style. That may be a difficult concept to define, but it is an important one because it has to do with equity and credibility, and with another more important factor that we are here to act upon—the views of ordinary members of the public, who feel outraged when they see their taxes siphoned off to support people who live a special life style, out of the reach of their world.
Not only should current affluent life style be taken into account, but some means should be found to examine past affluent lifestyle. I know that that is a difficult subject, but there is a considerable difference between someone who has always had a limited life style and income, and someone else who has been financially successful throughout his life and has amassed a large fortune and lived in great style, probably operating in the business world, but who for one reason or another has now fallen on financial hard times. We all know of people who, according to their bank balance, have fallen on hard times, but who still have access to funds both at present and, more particularly, in the future—especially if they have the skills required to deal in the world of finance and business.
If such people apply to the legal aid fund, it should be asked whether it is reasonable to expect them to have made plans beforehand to protect themselves against the cost of future legal action. I am thinking of insurance, or perhaps organising of their finances, especially if they were operating in the world of business, to take account of possible future legal action. Such people may have worked in a business sector in which legal action was a common phenomenon, and a reasonable business man planning his future carefully in the business world should have put aside funds for possible litigation.
306
It is also relevant to consider whether the subject matter of a dispute should be taken into account, especially where capital is at stake in the legal action. At present that capital is excluded from the formula, but should it be taken into account? I feel strongly that it should, and I also support the idea of a cap to limit the allowable value of a property and size of a mortgage.
There is much more to be said on the subject, but this is a brief debate, so I do not want to delay the House further. I finish simply by drawing the attention of the House to the many possible alternative ways to help those who need to take legal action that obviate the need for the taxpayer to provide a subsidy through the legal aid fund. Such methods could help those who are, in the jargon, "apparently wealthy", as well as those in the middle income bracket who would not at present be entitled to legal aid, and those who, legitimately and understandably, are now entitled.
One such method is the no win, no fee, arrangement, which represents a positive step forward in our legal history and gives us hope for the future. It would enable individuals to sue and to take other action without any risk to them, yet with the possibility of gaining compensation or other redress at no cost to the taxpayer.
I strongly support the drive to achieve a cheaper legal system for the consumer, via the courts or via alternative means. I also support an extension of standard fees, which could help towards that objective, and the encouragement of other administrative processes—there are now many of those—as an alternative to legal action. Legal action should be a weapon of last resort, not of first resort, for the ordinary citizen. There should be, and are, other means by which redress can sensibly be achieved.
I should like strong action to be taken to make the appeals system cheaper. Many parts of that system can be very expensive, and we must try to ease the passage of those with a genuine cause for grievance against a lower court, without involving huge costs to them or to the taxpayer.
We need stricter targeting, further and better checks on applications, and the elimination of abuse and fraud, whether that be abuse that is permissible at present under some of the strange twists in the legislation, or fraud that is not permissible but is not being cracked down upon sufficiently. Specifically, I urge the development of alternative ways of obtaining redress. Those developments constitute the answer that should enable us not only to restrain the growth in the cost of legal aid but to reduce that cost. That, and not the reverse, is what I would regard as a success.
12.18
Mr. Mark Robinson: I too am glad to be taking part in the first of our Wednesday morning debates. In the great world outside it may be commented upon that our Chamber is a little sparsely attended, but we are here as Back Benchers to debate subjects of close personal interest to us. I therefore congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for securing us a debate on legal aid today.
The workings of legal aid services, as they are at present, remain a mystery to the general public unless and until they find that they are forced to use them. The general perception—at least of constituents who visit me

307
in my advice surgeries—is that the service has been underfunded and cut. Perhaps that is because people remember the publicity that was given in 1993 to the tightening of the eligibility conditions. That produced an outcry at the time, but it is worth reflecting on the reality of the costings today, as my hon. Friends said.
The legal aid scheme cost £685 million in 1990–91, as the Lord Chancellor noted recently, and this year the cost is increasing to £1,300 million, even with tightening of eligibility conditions—a doubling of expenditure in three financial years. That, by any standards, raises questions about good use of public money. We must ask ourselves how cost-effective that service is. If the general public knew the rate of escalating cost and what they receive in return, they would be much angrier and more stirred up about the subject than they are. What is more, unless we do something, the trend is likely to continue upward.
I was grateful for the chance to read the keynote speech about the future of legal aid given by the Lord Chancellor on Wednesday 11 January 1994, at a seminar organised by the Social Market Foundation. That was a fundamental think-piece and discussion of the way that we might consider trying to change the legal aid system.
The general public may believe that the number of people helped by legal aid is declining, but under the scheme it has actually increased from 3.5 million to 4.5 million. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for Members of Parliament such as myself to be visited by constituents who have tried to take up a legal grievance—especially through the civil courts—and who find that they are unable to do so because they fall, sometimes just an inch, outside the eligibility criteria.
Those people become extremely cross when they hear about the examples that were quoted this morning. They do not understand how people of such great wealth can obtain access to the legal aid system with such enormous sums yet, when they themselves are fighting what to them are important cases but may appear to other people to be small matters, they are unable to obtain legal aid. All that adds up to a general opinion that the legal aid system is not serving the public as well as it should.
That forces one to ask how a service based on such fast-growing expenditure can be so poorly regarded. We should probably seek the answers in the inflexibility of the present court-based system, at least as it applies to civil cases, and the remorseless increase of the cost of each individual case, leading to a commonly held opinion that the cost of civil justice is climbing beyond the reach of individual people.
Mr. Ashby: Has my hon. Friend considered that, in respect of civil justice, the responsibility for the increase lies fairly and squarely at the Lord Chancellor's door, and at the door of the Lord Chief Justice, who have introduced, as recently this year, rules that have increased the cost of court proceedings enormously? I have suffered. I have had to pay up as a result of stupid rules that have been inserted, requiring replies that previously were never necessary, which have increased the costs of cases enormously. The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice are responsible for the increase themselves.
Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend makes a valuable argument, because there are two sides to the equation—
308
the increasing costs of legal aid and the cost of the court system. The latter subject alone would be worthy of a debate on another occasion, but unfortunately I do not have the time to develop that theme this morning.
However, for all the reasons that I have given, I warmly welcome the Lord Chancellor's decision to publish his consultation paper, and also to ask Lord Woolf to carry out a review of the procedures of the civil courts. I hope that Lord Woolf will bear in mind some of the arguments that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South. In addition, some interesting ideas for fundamental reform of the legal aid system were proposed in the speech that I mentioned.
The legal aid system as we know it today emerged from the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949, which set up the civil legal aid scheme that is very much the basis for that which exists today. It has been rather like a train that starts with two carriages, to which carriage after carriage has been added, so that it becomes progressively slower.
Assistance was introduced under the green form scheme, which was introduced in the 1970s, and the duty solicitor schemes of the 1980s. However, the essential approach is on a case-by-case basis.
The Lord Chancellor rightly asked the question—I think a good one—whether there are more cost-effective ways of achieving results, at least in the early stages of civil cases, so that they do not necessarily have to come to court. Simplification is one example.
I find the six objectives that the speech spells out especially interesting. There is no time to discuss all of them this morning. There is a need to recognise and incorporate the contributions that can be made by legal agencies and advice services, such as local law centres. Citizens advice bureaux do valuable work, but many are short of funds. They could greatly expand their work if the opportunity came to them through the legal aid system.
In selecting that specific proposal from the many that the Lord Chancellor has suggested for discussion, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, when he replies—
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of some contradiction between the wish to expand the work provided to the public by citizens advice bureaux and the financial difficulties of those bureaux throughout the country as a result of the pressures on local government?
Mr. Robinson: I think that that is a different issue. I am discussing the suggestion that we give citizens advice bureaux a new and expanded role, which would need to be separately funded. The other funding issues should be tackled, but there are different ways to tackle them. That is why I shall follow with great interest the pilot project that the Legal Aid Board has established to encourage the delivery of legally aided services by non-solicitor agencies.
The other aspects of the Lord Chancellor's speech that interest me are, first, better targeting of those in greatest need and, secondly, improved quality and efficiency. I know that attempts have been made to achieve that by means of the courts charter, but a case has come to my attention in my constituency, Roxborough v. Poffley, in which there was almost unjustifiable and outrageous delay in the court proceedings—so much so that the judge involved wrote privately to criticise the way that the delay developed.

309
I have written to the Minister about that case, and he has had the courtesy to reply. However, I find it extraordinary that, after all the work that went into the courts charter, it does not cover listing, because it is considered judicial rather than administrative.
The Lord Chancellor has a chance to put his house in order. The courts provide a service to the public, and that service needs to be more responsive to the public to help cut delays. I should be interested to carry out an analysis of the cases that have been mentioned this morning to find out what proportion of the high costs in those cases was due to delay, whether reasonable or contrived.
We must use the opportunity to find ways to improve the legal aid system, so that it once again gives the taxpayer value for money and makes him feel that it provides a valuable service. That is not the case now, which is why I have given such a warm welcome to the Lord Chancellor's excellent speech earlier this month.
12.30 pm
Mr. Paul Boateng: We owe the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) a debt of gratitude for enabling us to discuss legal aid and legal services this morning. It is right that the topic—all too often neglected in the Chamber—should find its place on the fist Wednesday morning sitting. For that, we owe the hon. Gentleman a debt of gratitude.
During the debate we have heard a litany—a veritable rogues' gallery has been paraded before us by Conservative Members—of people who have abused the legal aid system. We heard of Mr. Levitt, Mr. Hashim and Mr. Saunders. Strangely, given the litany of rogues, one name was missing: the name of Mr. Asil Nadir. I wonder how that name came to be missed—
Mr. Ashby: I would have mentioned him if I had been called.
Mr. Boateng: I hear from one independent spirit on the Conservative Benches that, had he been given the opportunity, he would have mentioned Mr. Nadir. It is so often the case with Conservative Members that they are just about to mention Mr. Asil Nadir, that well-known contributor—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must caution the House that, if my recollection is correct, the case is not concluded. It may be in indefinite suspension, but I think that it is still around.
Mr. Boateng: We shall be suitably cautioned, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will not pursue that matter further. Who knows—the legal aid cornucopia involving that individual may yet begin to flow.
But the serious point is that we would be most unwise to fashion a policy on legal aid and legal services based on those particular individuals, their experiences and abuse of the system. We need a more rational and coherent approach. I have listened to the contributions of hon. Members this morning and it may well be that, in fashioning that approach, it is possible to achieve some agreement on the basic principles.
There is one critical principle on which we must all agree if we are to fashion a legal aid system and legal services that are capable of meeting the interests of justice. It is vital that a system of legal aid and legal services for which the taxpayers of this country pay
310
should be able to deliver legal aid, advice and assistance, and where necessary representation, to many more of those taxpayers than is currently the case.
The scandal of legal aid is the way in which, in civil matters, unless someone is in receipt of income support, he can forget public assistance when pursuing a just, reasonable and meritorious claim. It cannot be right that people who work, but are of modest means and contribute to the cost of the service through direct and indirect taxation, should effectively be excluded from access to justice.
Mr. Ashby: I am sorry that both I and the hon. Gentleman—who would, I am sure, like to declare an interest—have been deprived of a fee this morning. The hon. Gentleman will have heard my interventions on the way in which we are responsible for the increase in legal aid. I am sure that he will agree with that in terms of both civil and criminal matters.
Does he also agree that we are having a debate on the increased cost of legal aid without considering one aspect—we have an extremely good form of justice and legal service, which is dirt cheap? It is not an expensive service when compared with those of other countries and what they deliver.
Mr. Boateng: I am afraid that I must beg to differ. What the hon. Gentleman has to say smacks of complacency, which is unacceptable to the Opposition. I do not believe in doing down our system, but we must face the fact that it has become bloated and inadequate in terms of being able to meet the challenges of the end of the 20th century. We need to reform it in quite radical ways if it is to meet the needs of the times and deliver access to justice.
Mr. Ashby: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Boateng: I regret that I am unable to give way again.
Mr. Ashby: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood.
Mr. Boateng: It is the fate of politicians to be misunderstood from time to time—I fear that that has affected the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) this morning.
We must recognise the importance of reforming the legal aid system in a way that is consistent with, and carried out at the same time as, our reform of the practices and procedures of the law. We must also reform the way in which the professions and their practices and procedures are structured. An element of restrictive practice remains in the organisation of the legal profession which requires reform.
We welcome the work of Lord Justice Woolf, but there is an urgent need to reform the procedures of the civil justice system. We need to minimise delay and unnecessary replication of tasks. We must ensure that the focus is always on moving forward litigation when it is inevitable, but avoiding it when it can be avoided.
Inadequate attention is paid to mediation and alternatives to law, particularly family law, which swallows one third of the civil legal aid budget. That attention needs to be paid not, I hasten to add, as part of a Treasury-inspired cost-cutting exercise—although it is an effective way of reducing costs—but as a way of delivering a better, more cost-efficient and effective

311
service to consumers of legal services. The time has come to put the consumer of legal services first and to recognise that consumers are losing at the moment.
I shall give one example of the way in which the legal aid system is currently failing to meet the needs of those who deserve advice, assistance and representation. Mr. Vincent Oliver came to see me. The Legal Aid board found that he had proper cause for action in a claim for compensation against St. Mary's hospital for an operation in which his voice box was mistakenly removed.
That is a terrible trauma in itself but, worse than that, this man has no savings or disposable capital and he does not enjoy a grand life style—there is nothing to mark him as being anything other than an ordinary bloke. He receives benefits to the sum of £343 per month, and he is being asked to contribute £44.80 towards the cost of his legal aid. He is incapable of paying that sum without considerably reducing what is already a very modest standard of living. That cannot be right.
What about those people who are denied legal aid altogether—those people who have saved a little extra, or pensioners who have worked hard and saved all their lives but are now denied access to legal aid advice and services? That cannot be right;. the system needs urgent attention.
That is why I ask the Minister, in the context of this short debate, to consider how he intends to address the issue of the under-spend in the current legal aid budget. The Minister will be aware of the Lord Chancellor's commitment to reviewing the issue of eligibility for legal aid if there is an underspend in the total legal aid budget. Last year, there was an underspend of some £70 million, and it is predicted that this year the sum will rise to more than £90 million.
We recognise the need to keep a tight control on the budget, but if that is the case we must find a way of utilising some of that money to meet the needs of the many deserving people who are currently legally unrepresented and unassisted. There is scope for using that money effectively and I urge the Minister to give an assurance that the underspend will be used to meet the needs of those deserving people who, because of the changes in legal aid eligibility, are currently denied access to legal services.
By all means, have a debate about the delivery of legal services, but that debate should not be led by what are essentially Treasury considerations rather than the interests of justice. Let us put justice and the consumer first and see how we can best deliver justice to people who are currently denied it.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): Until a few moments ago, I thought that the adversarial approach which is always present in litigation had drained out of politics this morning. However, I am reassured that it is business as usual.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for not only securing this historic debate on our first Wednesday morning sitting but deploying his case in an extremely impressive manner, taking many hon. Members on this side of the House with him.
312
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) on his very thoughtful contribution to the debate. I particularly single out his remarks about the citizens advice bureau. I think that it plays a tremendously important and unheralded role, and I take humble pride in the fact that I helped to establish a citizens advice bureau some 22 years ago. I think that that organisation's worth in society is under-regarded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) made a very lucid and urgent speech, with periodic interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby).
Most of what the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said was very convincing, and he made a valuable contribution to the debate. I turn to his last point with which he wanted me to deal. Legal aid is demand-led and, as such, it is almost impossible to plan for. However, we have endeavoured to forecast, as best we can, in one of the fastest growing and erratic areas of public expenditure.
What the hon. Gentleman calls an "underspend" is actually 7 per cent. more than we spent last year. I think that Government Members will urge me to be careful when discussing what temporarily appears to be an increase of 7 per cent over last year. I do not wish to get involved in an incautious, over-rapid response to performance over a relatively limited period of time.
Mr. Ashby: In talking about a 7 per cent. increase in expenditure over last year, we should bear in mind that the recent changes in the rules of the High Court have meant an increase in the cost of litigation of about 30 per cent. The rules of the High Court need to be looked at.
Mr. Taylor: The House will not be surprised to learn that by far the highest single component in the increasing cost of legal aid is lawyers' bills. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West will know how long-winded lawyers can be. We should do everything we can to expedite litigation or find alternatives to it.
I turn now to some other points, not least the consultation paper issued by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, which contains a chapter dealing with the subject of legal aid for foreign nationals. The Lord Chancellor and I recognise that this issue raises strong feelings. We would welcome views on whether the Government are correct in their present view that it would not be right to impose nationality restrictions on the availability of criminal or civil legal aid.
On the increasing cost of legal aid, it is useful to say that the number of people being helped is increasing. In 1993–94 therewere 3.5 million legal aid acts of assistance and just over £1.2 billion was spent. By 1997–98, we expect the number of people helped by the scheme to rise to about 4.5 million and the cost of the scheme to rise to more than £1.6 billion. We estimate that approximately half of households are currently eligible for civil legal aid on income grounds.
Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as our hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South said in opening the debate, there is scope for checking more carefully people's eligibility for legal aid? If those who

313
are claiming legal aid fraudulently are weeded out of the system, it will ensure that more funds are available for those in genuine need.
Mr. Taylor: I am not sure that that question needs an answer: it is self-evident that we should take care to check that people qualify for legal aid, not least in a world full of trickery—a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South made rather well. He wondered whether the small proportion of people who were ultimately prosecuted represented all those who were putting their best foot forward, or perhaps doing something slightly more dishonest than that.
On the inequality between legally aided and non-legally aided parties, there are circumstances in which a successful non-legally aided defendant may seek costs against the Legal Aid Board or the legally aided opponent. The restrictions on those circumstances may seem harsh in some cases, but they establish a compromise between protecting those who would otherwise suffer financially and protecting public funds.
Legal aid is granted after both means and merits tests in civil cases. The merits test is designed to rule out cases deemed to be frivolous. I am unable to comment on individual cases, but we should not forget that what might appear relatively frivolous to someone who is not directly involved may be a matter of the first importance to the parties immediately concerned. The Legal Aid Board is responsible for deciding on the merits of the case in civil legal aid, and it takes its duties very seriously in that respect.
It may be helpful to the House in response to the points raised by my hon. Friends if I take a little time to describe the proposals on possible changes to legal aid that the Lord Chancellor set out in his speech to the Social Market Foundation on 11 January 1995 to which my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome referred in his excellent remarks.
The Lord Chancellor is considering a number of possible new initiatives. He has said that they are only the preliminary ideas. We appreciate that there is a lot of work to be done to put flesh on the bones of a reformed legal aid scheme. The Lord Chancellor and I would welcome views on the proposals.
The basis of the legal aid scheme as it exists today is that help should be provided to those falling within the qualifying limits. Up until now, that help has generally been provided in the same way since the inception of the scheme—by the private legal profession, funded on a case-by-case basis.
The legal aid scheme cost £685 million in 1990–91. In the current financial year, the cost will exceed £1.3 billion—an increase of more than 7 per cent. over 1993–94. That represents a rate of increase much faster than inflation. Unfortunately, the rise in the cost of the scheme is not only because of the greater numbers helped: far too much of the rise is attributable to an increase in the cost per case; at the same time, many people who need legal aid are excluded from it.
As has been made clear by the debate today and by previous discussions in the House and elsewhere, although the legal aid scheme is one of the fastest growing Government expenditure programmes, it is also increasingly under attack from a variety of directions.
314
Therefore, the Lord Chancellor and I have concluded that radical change is needed. The hon. Member for Brent, South said as much as well.
The purpose of the Lord Chancellor's proposals is to establish a better, more efficient, more responsive and more flexible legal aid scheme. The overall cost of legal aid must be affordable and controllable. What is needed is a system which forces those who are providing advice and assistance to assess and reassess frequently whether what they are doing is providing value for money both for the client and for the taxpayer.
It is the Lord Chancellor's intention that a future legal aid scheme should operate under a cash limit. That will provide a discipline for the provision of a quality service, and will contain incentives for suppliers constantly to improve the quality of the service. Such a sense of discipline has been sadly lacking up to now.
It is true, as the Lord Chancellor has made clear, that some cases may not be brought under the new scheme that are being brought now. In practice, however, a cash limit is more likely to mean that more people are helped, in more deserving cases, as priority will be set on the basis of need and effectiveness.
The Lord Chancellor has made it clear that most of what he said about his ideas for future of legal aid on 11 January related to the advice and assistance and civil proceedings. In the light of the distinction between civil and criminal legal aid, we shall need to think carefully about how those ideas might apply to criminal legal aid.
We shall, of course, be considering carefully whether to consider the separation of budgets for different areas of legal aid—or ring fencing, as it is called—so that the risk of one area swallowing up another may be avoided.
The Lord Chancellor proposed that the future legal aid scheme should operate by a system of block contracts. The idea would be that the Legal Aid Board should contract for the provision of services with a range of suppliers. Each legal aid area would have a budget for the provision of a full range of publicly funded legal services. Suppliers would be contracted to supply advice, assistance and representation within their competence. Where it was necessary to refer a case on because the original supplier did not have the requisite skills, it would be to suppliers who had made arrangements with the Legal Aid Board to do such work.
The use of block contracting will enable the board to operate within a cash limit and to set priorities. It is a way to bring alternative suppliers into the provision of legal services. As the Lord Chancellor has said, very valuable work is being done by, for example, law centres, citizens advice bureaux and other advice agencies.
It has long been the Lord Chancellor's wish to see them brought into greater use within the legal aid scheme. The opportunity provided by a reformed scheme to build on the Legal Aid Board's non-solicitor agency franchising pilot project, and extend the involvement of advice agencies will be welcomed by us all.
As hon. Members will be aware, the current legal aid scheme is heavily biased towards certain proceedings and court-based solutions. The reform of the scheme should allow the Lord Chancellor to encourage different ways of resolving problems, using not only advice agencies but also mediation and arbitration, where appropriate.

315
It has been suggested in some quarters that a cash limit will lead to the money running out towards the end of the year. Frankly, that is scaremongering. Whatever contractual arrangements are devised, we shall need to ensure that there are mechanisms to guard against unreasonableness.
The elimination of waste in the system—that is, waste of time in court proceedings or in waiting for court proceedings—is a priority for the Lord Chancellor and myself. Lord Woolf's current review of the procedure of the civil courts, referred to by many hon. Members this morning, will help in that matter, but the problem of legal aid cannot be solved simply by tackling waste in the system.
The Lord Chancellor and I understand the concerns expressed about the current scheme. We intend to establish a system that enables to us set priorities for legal aid more effectively according to need, to weigh the benefits against the costs, to break down the present lawyer-led system in a way which encourages a variety of providers and different ways of doing the work and to encourage early advice and different ways of resolving problems, and thus reduce the need for litigation.
The points raised by hon. Members today will contribute to our thinking, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South for initiating the debate.
On perhaps a slightly lighter note, in the context of an essentially very serious subject, not least to the many people involved, unwillingly and unenthusiastically perhaps, in appearing before law courts—I have met few litigants who have enjoyed the experience of appearing before a law court-1 dare say that, although there are challenges for advocates in the courts, and that challenge may be enjoyable in a way—from time to time, I have enjoyed it—to be a litigant and to be a party is daunting. To be involved in such proceedings with only limited resources is even more daunting. It is frightening wondering whether one has the means to meet the costs.
The first English statute providing for legal aid dates back to 1495—it did not all begin in the 1940s. In the reign of Henry VII, provision was made for the representation of poor people in courts of law. The only trouble was—here is an echo of the same problem we face today—that Act did not attempt to define a poor person.

York Carriage Works
1 pm
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Trains have been built at York carriage works for 150 years, and rail engineering underpins the local economy. The York works are not a smokestack industry from the past. Asea Brown Boveri, which owns the works, has invested £50 million in York in the past four or five years in buildings, machinery, technology and training. The York factory is the most modern of its kind in Europe and produces the only trains that meet the full European crash-worthiness certification. Despite that investment and those achievements, however, time is running out for the York works.
In the course of the past year, ABB has shed 900 of its 1,600 work force, and 10 days ago the company chairman said that he had only eight weeks left to secure a further order—and that if he did not succeed the corporate board in Zurich would have to decide to close York because a factory employing 700 people cannot be kept open if there is no work.
Are the Government saying that Britain can afford to throw away an industry and a plant as important as York just because the British Railways Board has in its wisdom decided to defer for two or three years placing an order for badly needed replacement trains? The ABB board in Zurich finds the Government's attitude utterly incomprehensible. That foreign company bought a chunk of the British Rail system and invested £50 million in York and a further £50 million in the Derby carriage works; yet it is being told that that investment must be written off. What kind of advertisement is that for inward investment or for the Government's rail privatisation policies?
York is currently building the first 64 of 600 class 465 carriages promised to commuters on the Kent coast lines. That stock is to be delivered later this year—three months ahead of the agreed date, which says something for the York works. Everyone expected the contract to roll forward to a second tranche. The existing contract has a follow-on clause, which would not have been included in the contract if British Rail, the Department of Transport, the Treasury and the company had not expected a further order to be placed.
The former Minister for Public Transport, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), said last year that he expected to receive British Rail's business case for a follow-on order last June and to be able to finalise an agreement with full Treasury and Department of Transport approval by September.
Just two weeks ago, however, everything was thrown into confusion. The British Railways Board announced a delay of four or five years until 1999 in any further orders for Networkers for Kent coast lines. The board said also that it did not intend to trigger the follow-on clause and felt that any future order would have to be subject to Europe-wide competition. If that happened, even if ABB were to win the contract, the York works would have closed before retendering was concluded.
The British Railways Board says that the reason for delaying is that there is no business case for ordering more stock at present, but that is not the view of Richard Fearn, director of South East Trains—the part of British Rail

317
which operates the service. In a letter last December to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), who was in his place a moment ago, Mr. Fearn said:
"I am currently working hard with colleagues in the Department of Transport to try to secure a much larger build so that we can fully replace our old trains on Kent Coast over the next two to three years."
The view that there was no business case for further stock was not shared either by the right hon. Member for Kettering last May, when he said at the York Rail Forum:
"There is a prima facie case for Kent coastal rolling stock."
The Central Rail Users Consultative Committee says that the average passenger loading on Kent coast trains in the morning peak is 2.6 per cent. higher than that permitted on safety grounds and that the overloading factor almost doubled in the past year. The Capital Transport Campaign produced figures this morning showing that the overloading factor on some trains is as much as 27 per cent. above the maximum allowed, including both seated and standing passengers.
No one claims that those ancient, overcrowded slum trains are fit for the purpose of carrying Kent coast passengers. They are history on wheels. In reply to a written question published in Hansard today, the Minister for Railways and Roads informed me that 424 out of 792 carriages on the Kent coast line date from 1959. Those carriages have been in continuous service longer than all but three Members of the House. They are clapped out and should be chucked out—I refer of course to the carriages, not to the hon. Members.
New trains would provide a better, cleaner, safer, quicker, more comfortable and more reliable service, and would divert traffic from road to rail. The introduction of new trains built at York on the Chiltern line increased the number of passengers by 40 per cent. immediately after they were introduced. If the Government are serious about shifting traffic from roads on to the railways on environmental grounds, the rolling stock replacement should go ahead.
Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend made the point that the ABB situation applies to Derby as well as to York. At a time when investment is required, there is investment blight because the Government's privatisation plans mean that planned development cannot occur. My hon. Friend made a powerful point in respect of the provision that should be made for public transport. Derby is very much involved in the debate.
Mr. Bayley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am aware that he and others of my hon. Friends representing Derbyshire constituencies have been campaigning hard for orders to ensure a future for the Derby carriage works. The whole country needs an investment plan that will sustain its railway manufacturing base.
New trains for the Kent coast lines would save fuel because their running costs are much lower; they would reduce maintenance costs and they would free space on Kent coast lines which is needed to provide access for Eurostar channel tunnel services until the new link is constructed.
There are also the safety considerations. The Hidden report into the Clapham junction crash stated that all slam-door carriages of 1950s vintage used by British Rail had to be either strengthened or scrapped by 1999: it did
318
not state that they all had to remain in service until 1999, which seems to be the decision that the British Railways Board has taken.
Mr. Stanley Orme: I know that my hon. Friend is aware of early-day motion 404, which has been signed by 48 Members who are sponsored by the engineering union. I happen to be chairman of that union, the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union. We are all concerned about the loss of manufacturing skills. The closure of the works would be a blow to York and to British industry generally. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue the campaign that he has led so magnificently. We must fight to achieve reversal of a policy that is based on privatisation and not on providing what is needed by the country.
Mr. Bayley: I am most grateful for my right hon. Friend's intervention and for the support that I have received from my hon. Friends on the Front and Back Benches. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has been lobbying hard, and there are suppliers to the York works in his constituency.
Mr. Elliot Morley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Bayley: In view of the time, I must say no to my hon. Friend. I thank him, however, for the support that he has given. Indeed, there has been support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has supported the campaign. I know that hon. Members representing Kent constituencies have done so as well. There has been support throughout the country. I have received dozens of letters from people expressing concern about the threat to the York works. I have also had support from the EU's new Commissioner with responsibility for transport, who has taken a close interest in what has been happening.
I am not trying to score a party political point. Common sense says that the works should be saved, as does public opinion. Successive Conservative Ministers have said that the full fleet of Kent coast trains would be replaced and the present Minister has spoken to me on many occasions in the past two weeks since British Rail made its unfortunate announcement. Given the commitment of previous Transport Ministers, both to rail manufacturing and to maintaining that base, and to providing replacement carriages for Kent coast passengers, what will the present Minister do to ensure that a follow-on order is placed with the York works before the deadline, which is only eight weeks away? If no order is placed in the next eight weeks, the works will close.
1.12 pm
Sir Roger Moate: I congratulate the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) on securing this debate at such a crucial time and on the campaign that he has fought, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), whom he generously mentioned, to save the York works. I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me a few minutes to speak on behalf of the population of Kent and of all Members representing Kent constituencies, who make common cause with him on the campaign to secure an early order so that there can be a continuation of the Networker express construction programme.

319
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is not a party issue. It is common sense that we want to keep the production lines open at York. It is common sense also that we should not be deterred from placing an order for new rolling stock merely because, even by British Rail's admission, there is a time problem of a year or two.
I endorse all that the hon. Gentleman has said about the need for new rolling stock in Kent. In case there is any misunderstanding—there should not be—I emphasise that 16 new four-car units will be delivered for the north Kent service this year. They are coming ahead of schedule. There will be high-profile new trains on the network in the autumn timetable. They are just a start. They will whet the appetite of all Kent commuters, who will want more new trains. The 16 were always seen as just a start.
To be fair, there was not a firm contract arranged for the follow-on order. There was a clear understanding, however, that we were at the beginning of a continuous process to replace the Kent rolling stock. I pay credit to Network SouthEast. In good faith, it has always expected that there would be a follow-on order. It came as a surprise to us, therefore, when we heard that British Rail felt that it could not continue the negotiations.
Kent Members had a meeting with the chief executive of British Rail. It is on record that he said that the door is still open for negotiation, and we would all be shocked if earnest and serious negotiations did not follow to ensure that a way is found of placing the follow-on order for much-needed rolling stock. The existing rolling stock will be time-life expired in the next three to four years. It would be stupid indeed not to place a new order now, merely for the sake of a dispute about perhaps a couple of years, at the end of which the present rolling stock will be even less safe than it is now. It will be clapped out and breaking down.
We also need new rolling stock for jobs in Kent. It is needed as much in Kent as the York works needs to build it. Kent is happy to make common cause. Now it is for British Rail seriously to put together a business case to submit to the Minister. I should be extremely disappointed if my hon. Friend were to say that a good business case put by ABB to British Rail and by British Rail to the Minister was not likely to receive endorsement. I think that it is the will of the House that we should get on with replacement and have first-class rolling stock in Kent and for rail passengers everywhere.
1.16 pm
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I congratulate the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) on securing a debate at such a civilised hour and on presenting his case in such a civilised and well reasoned way. I pay tribute to his efforts and to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) on behalf of York and those of their constituents who are employed by ABB.
I acknowledge the crucial importance of railway employment in York. I congratulate ABB and its work force on the efficiency improvements that have been achieved at York and at other sites since privatisation, with the benefit of the substantial investment to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
320
Given the age profile of the rolling stock fleet and the long life span of the stock, orders are cyclical, as was exemplified by the substantial orders—they were still under construction—for Networker trains to replace Kent inner suburban trains. It was inevitable that there would be a downturn in orders following that peak. The long-term replacement need is below the recent rate of new build.
Mr. Morley: I understand what the Minister says about the cyclical nature of orders, but the long-term investment and planning of companies such as ABB, for which my constituency is a major supplier, means that they find it difficult to switch on and off. It would be much better for rail commuters and manufacturing industry to have long-term orders.
Mr. Watts: Indeed. I recognise that it is desirable for us to have a vibrant railway manufacturing industry and, if it can be achieved, a less cyclical pattern of investment.
The downturn in commuting into London since the peak of 1989–90 has compounded the problem. In the late 1980s, it seemed that the Network SouthEast fleet would need to be expanded to meet growing demand. Instead, we have experienced a decline related to the recent recession. That has hit British Rail passenger revenue extremely hard. We expect to see some growth as recovery takes hold, but we cannot be certain when rail commuting will return to the peak of 1989.
British Rail's estimates of rolling stock requirements in the 1980s were made in good faith, as were any related comments made by my predecessors, my right hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) and for Kettering (Mr. Freeman). With hindsight, it is clear how commercial demand for new trains has changed since the 1980s.
The Government would welcome a further BR leasing deal following the current £150 million contract with ABB for Networker trains, subject to two points. First, there must be a commercial need for new rolling stock and a good business case for it. British Rail cannot scrap sound and serviceable trains prematurely. Those are matters of judgment. I have no intention of going further in commenting on the sound and serviceable nature of
trains, because to do so would be inviting hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friends from Kent, to seek to lynch me or have me certified under the Mental Health Act 1983.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Should not British Rail take into account what its passengers think about its carriages, and also the commercial consideration that, if passengers do not think much of its carriages and switch to the coaches which run from Kent to London every day, its revenues will suffer. British Rail should take that into consideration.
Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that one of the features of the privatised railway industry will be a much greater responsiveness to the needs of passengers.
Those must be matters of judgment for British Rail. The Government cannot generate that commercial need or second-guess BR's judgment, although my right hon. and hon. Friends are free to do so.
Secondly, the financial terms offered by the private sector for financing the acquisition of trains must be acceptable as a long-term lease. Transfer of risk is

321
paramount here. A "genuine and substantial" proportion of risk must be taken by the lessor. It is not possible to lay down mechanistic rules, because of the complexity and subjectivity of the issue, but residual value risk is considered to be pre-eminent.
The previous £150 million leasing deal did not satisfy private finance initiative guidelines, but was approved exceptionally as a step towards developing a rolling stock leasing industry. Any subsequent deal will need to go much further on risk transfer. The industry has always been fully aware of that position and the Department is ready to do whatever it can to clarify the PH rules and to assist in configuring the deal, for which there is a good business case to fit within those rules. I have given that undertaking on many occasions, both in the House and in discussions outside.
The Government are committed to privatising the rolling stock leasing companies during the course of this year, but at present it is British Rail's responsibility, as owner both of the RoSCos and of the operating companies, to assess the business requirements for new trains. There is therefore no question, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, .North-East (Mr. Barnes) suggested, of privatisation being responsible for the present position on orders. Uncertainty is not a factor. If there is a good commercial case and acceptable leasing terms, I am sure that the legal structure of ownership need not be an obstacle.
In making that assessment, BR looks at such factors as the capital cost of the trains, the projected cost of maintenance and any revenue to be gained from greater speed or reliability—points to which some of my hon. Friends have referred. It also looks carefully at the comparative cost of maintaining existing units. This is not a theoretical exercise, but one based on detailed experience of the condition and current repair cycles of components.
Mr. James Couchman: When the rolling stock is passed over to the companies later this year, will the work and analysis that BR has done on the proposal to provide new trains on the Kent coast route be passed over to the leasing company?
Mr. Watts: I am sure that the work and the knowledge that has gone into the assessment of rolling stock requirements will not be lost when the RoSCos are privatised.
As we know, British Rail reached a decision not to exercise the option offered by ABB for replacement trains for Kent coast services. BR concluded that the current fleet could continue in service until 1999, when substantial expenditure on heavy engineering costs would have been required to keep the trains in service. That conclusion is clearly unwelcome news to many commuters and to many of my hon. Friends, but BR has a duty to look at the matter on a commercial basis.
Following the recent meeting between BR and hon. Members representing constituencies in Kent, however, BR indicated that it would wish to re-examine the commercial case if an improved offered were received from ABB. If BR then concludes that the negotiated deal represents good value for money, it would come to the Department with a case under the private finance initiative, and I give an undertaking to look at any such case urgently with my right hon. Friends both within the Department and elsewhere.
322
BR's recent decision not to exercise the option is not due to a lack of Government funding. BR rejected the proposal based on its assessment of the commercial need for trains. The November Budget settlement had no role to play in that judgment.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Tell us another fairy story.
Mr. Watts: The hon. Lady may like fairy stories, but I am trying to give the House the facts as they are.
British Rail has invested £4 billion in new rolling stock since 1979. Almost 4,000 new vehicles and locomotives have entered service in the past 10 years. In the former Network SouthEast area alone, more than 1,600 new vehicles have been delivered since 1986 for various lines. Overall support for the railways provides this year for investment of about £1 billion.
Mr. Michael Alison: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that if the issue is to be looked at again in 1999 or thereabouts and ABB has gone out of operation, the lack of competition in carriage production will mean that it may cost BR a lot more than it would if it went for the order now?
Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend makes an important point which reinforces what I said earlier about the desirability of maintaining a vibrant manufacturing industry.
The hon. Member for York raised important questions about the safety of the remaining mark I electrical multiple units on former Network SouthEast services. It is an acknowledged fact that modern rolling stock designed with integral bodies has greater collision resistance than the older mark I stock. The same is true of developments in other modes of transport.
As regards day to day service, condition rather than age is the critical factor. All rolling stock is subject to a rigorous inspection and maintenance regime. Mark I rolling stock is fit for purpose in spite of its age. Rolling stock would not be put into service by BR if it was not fit for purpose.
I shall now deal with the specific recommendations in the reports on the Clapham and Cannon street accidents. Appendix G of Sir Anthony Hidden's report recognised:
"The inventory of Mark I coaching stock is large, and much of it has not reached an end of its economic life, nor will do so by another decade or more."
The report went on to say,
"it could be forcibly argued that there are more rewarding candidates for large capital investment in the railway than would be incurred by early replacement of these vehicles."
Sir Anthony Hidden did, however, recommend that British Rail
"shall carry out its stated programme of research into the structural integrity of its rolling stock within its planned timescale of completion by April 1991."
Recommendation 55 went on to say:
"On completion of the programme BR shall discuss its conclusions with the Railway Inspectorate and obtain their agreement to the structural changes necessary to strengthen all relevant rolling stock with a subsequent lifespan of eight years and over."
In April 1991, BR concluded that it would not be reasonably practicable to carry out structural changes to mark I vehicles. I understand that the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate agreed with BR's conclusions.

323
The decision to replace the rolling stock involved in the Cannon street accident had already been taken by BR at the time that the inspector's report was published. I understand that the replacement programme for Kent link trains should be completed this April, when all the older trains will have been withdrawn on that route.
Turning again to Kent coast services, I recognise the urgency of the issue for ABB Transportation. BR is continuing discussions with ABB on a modified proposal. I am keeping closely in touch with developments and will continue to maintain close contact with my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale and the hon. Member for York as matters develop. I think that we have had constructive discussions as the matter has developed, and I offer an undertaking to keep in touch with the right hon. and hon. Members concerned.
We are ready to help with the private finance aspects of any proposal that BR might submit to the Government. We are considering with British Rail how best to deal with that component. We do, of course, have recent experience of how a rolling stock deal can be fitted within the rules of the PFI, because we have recently concluded the agreement for the supply of Northern line trains for London Underground within the terms of the PFI.
This is not uncharted territory. There is a pattern, there are ground rules and there is experience on which we can draw. More immediately, however, it is for British Rail to decide whether there is an acceptable proposal which meets its business requirements, and it is for ABB to decide whether it can offer such a deal. If it can offer British Rail a deal that it cannot afford to refuse, with the help of my Department it should be possible to fit it within the rules of the PFI. I hope that the interests of both York and Kent can then be better served.

Mr. Nigel Dedman
1.29 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I rise today knowing full well that this is the first day of individual debates under the Jopling reforms. I must say, as a small aside, that I was no great supporter of the Jopling reforms and I remain somewhat cynical and sceptical about them. None the less, I am happy to have the opportunity to raise a particular issue of grave concern.
I am also grateful and happy to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on the Front Bench. He has a great sense of justice and a concern that people should be treated fairly. I urge him to retain his usual talents in that regard, as I lay out the case before him.
I make no apology for the fact that the debate is peculiar in that it is about one particular individual, a constituent of mine. It may seem strange that I should have gone to the lengths of applying for a debate, but the case has wider ramifications. There are probably many other Mr. Dedmans throughout the country who suffer much the same sort of problem. I hope that they will be given some heart by my raising the matter. The case is fairly complicated, so again I make no apology for walking hon. Members through it slowly and in some detail.
On the night of 7 July 1992, the police were called to a boatyard at Point Clear, St. Osyth, Essex at the request of the yard owner. On arrival, they spoke to a Mr. Brown who claimed to be the owner of a boat called the Five Pennies. Mr. Brown produced three documents relating to the boat—a letter from the Metropolitan police about the theft of the boat, a witness order to attend the trial of a Mr. Lewis who was charged with the theft of the proceeds of the boat and a photograph of Mr. Brown with the boat.
Despite the fact that Mr. Dedman was known at the time to be the owner of the boat by the boatyard and had been so certainly for an established period, no one thought to contact him to counter the claim that a new owner had arrived on the scene.
The police officers looked at the documents and talked to the man and then gave their permission for the boat to be taken away. Mr. Dedman has believed for some time, and I suspect that he is right, that the police should have been much more suspicious about the time at which the individual chose to arrive at the boatyard and the fact that he at no stage urged them to contact Mr. Dedman to establish his claim. They should have been more cynical and, at the very least, made sure that the boat was impounded rather than allowing it to be handed over.
The problem is that the police officers clearly gave credence to Mr. Brown's story, and the security guards at the boatyard then bowed before them. A statement was taken from Mr. Brown and documents were photocopied, but he was allowed to take the boat away, and that is where the complications start. It was only the following day that Mr. Dedman was told about the removal—I say theft—of his boat, well after the individual had been and gone, at which stage he had no redress.
As I have said, at no time was Mr. Dedman contacted by the police, or by anyone for that matter, before the boatyard contacted him to tell him that his boat had gone. To put the matter in another context, I cannot imagine that, if the police were called to an incident concerning

325
an important object of transport such as a car, they would never have assumed that someone else was the owner. They would have sought to check, using the numberplate, who was the licensed owner and to discover the correct procedure. Yet here the procedures seem to have collapsed and the police were happy to let the boat go.
Mr. Dedman contacted the police about the boat and was told by the officer concerned at the time that he had been satisfied from the documentation that Mr. Brown was the legal owner. I find that immensely strange because I have always understood the police to be cynical about getting involved in such cases, and that if they are sucked into them, they seek to make sure that they understand both sides of a case before pronouncing any opinion on a matter. Even then, they would be more likely to be reticent about giving approval. Yet here, approval seems to have been given, which carried huge weight.
It was subsequently proved that Mr. Brown was not the owner of the boat and knew so at the time of taking the boat from the boatyard. The Essex police then claimed that they could not have prevented it from being removed, yet they had been involved. Mr. Dedman discovered that the boat had been involved in a number of court disputes before he became its owner.
Mr. Dedman then sought redress through the courts. He sought redress against the police for their actions, but was told by the judge at Southwark Crown court that there was no case against the police. On 12 October 1993, the presiding judge dismissed Mr. Dedman's claim against the first defendant, Mr. Simkins, from whom he bought the boat in 1990, and his claim against the third defendant, the Essex police. Mr. Dedman was ordered to pay the costs of the Essex police and told to recover his costs from the second defendant, Mr. Brown. However, Mr. Brown was declared bankrupt on 16 March 1993.
All Mr. Dedman's efforts to obtain further information about the witness order addressed to Mr. Brown regarding the Lewis case, which Mr. Brown produced to the police on 7 July, have been unsuccessful. Therefore, Mr. Dedman has been unable to find out what Mr. Brown's involvement was in the case. The police and the courts have seemed unable, if not unwilling, to assist him.
So far, I have described many of the events that have led to Mr. Dedman's predicament. Now Mr. Dedman finds that he has to pay not only his own legal costs of £3,000 or more, but he is being hounded by the Essex county council's legal department for their costs of some £3,000. To top it all, our great judicial system leaves Mr. Dedman still without the boat of which he can prove ownership. On many occasions, Mr. Dedman has requested the police to impound the boat, so that once the matter is clarified he can take possession of it, but the police have refused to become further involved in the matter.
It is a remarkable position. Mr. Dedman seems to be being treated as though he has committed a crime. His crime, it appears, was to be stupid enough to own a boat of which somebody else decided that he should no longer have possession. It could be a comedy, were there not the personal tragedy in the middle of it that Mr. Dedman finds himself subject to injustice when he had expected .a just outcome.
I became involved in the case when Mr. Dedman came to me as a final and last resort, explaining that he did not know where to turn. He was being hounded for money, which he had great difficulty in finding. He had no boat
326
to offset against the costs should he be forced to pay them because he could not take possession of it. It seemed that no one wanted to listen to him. In other words, he was a little man whose case no one wanted to resolve.
I took up the matter with the Essex police and it struck me that they wanted the matter dead and buried, but I suppose that that is no surprise. Superintendent Cotgrove wrote to Mr. Dedman saying:
"While the actions of Mr. Brown can clearly be shown to be shabby, it is the likelihood of proving dishonesty at the time of the offence that is relevant in the case of theft … I do have sympathy for the situation you find yourself in through no fault of your own in the light of the criminal law. Where that does not apply then, the police have no powers to prevent the removal of property."
In many senses that misses the real point. The police were present at the time and it was their involvement then that had a powerful influence on the case.
Superintendent Cotgrove continued:
"Having read the documents, the officer was certain that in 1989, Mr. Brown was the owner and therefore he could not stop him from taking the boat away, unless he had reasonable grounds for suspecting an arrestable offence was about to be or had been committed by Mr. Brown."
Why did no one contact Mr. Dedman?
The attitude seems to have been that perhaps there had been a small mistake or problem, but, "For God's sake let us clear it out of the way and shut up shop. Mr. Dedman will have to sort out his own problems. Perhaps we should not have become involved, but it is not our fault." No one thought to contact the legal owner of the boat. I find that one failing remarkable: having chosen to be involved and to give their opinion, the police did not even bother to find out whether the legal owner disputed the change of ownership.
I took the matter up with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and with the Lord Chancellor. Their letters to me expressed sympathy, but made it clear that they could do nothing to assist Mr. Dedman. I am fully aware of that. I brought the matter to their attention as much because I felt that there was a problem in the operations of the police and the courts if such a problem could arise as because I wished to resolve Mr. Dedman's individual difficulty.
The age-old concept of justice not only having to be done but having to be seen to be done cannot be sufficient if cases such as this arise. It is clear that Mr. Dedman has not been treated fairly. It seems far more important that justice can sometimes be interpreted as "having your day in court", that is good enough; case dismissed. This case is really more about right being done through the legal procedures, which has not happened.
I seek the advice of my hon. Friend the Minister. What can my constituent do? I suspect that my hon. Friend will find it as hard as I do to say where we go from here; the options are clearly limited. There are several possibilities, however. The public may ask why on earth the police and others are not co-operating to try to resolve the issue, rather than shutting the door on Mr. Dedman: there must be a way of resolving it.
The case may seem petty, but it is not. If Members of Parliament have a purpose, it is surely to make certain that the Mr. Dedmans of this world are not crushed by the system. The system clearly could not care less what happened that night; it seems that those involved merely wish to bury the case as fast as possible—and, if necessary, to bury Mr. Dedman with it. Does my hon.

327
Friend agree that there is a case to answer? If only those involved had learnt to co-operate, the issue might well have been resolved at an early stage. I urge my hon. Friend to act, or at least to advise me.
1.42 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) for raising an important matter concerning what he believes to have been an injustice. He mentioned the Jopling rules. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) is my neighbour in Cumbria; while some of us greatly appreciate the benefits of the Jopling rules governing Thursday evenings, those benefits will sometimes be offset by the inconvenience of having to cancel Wednesday morning appointments.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford that I appreciate the anger and frustration that his constituent must feel. I am not a boating enthusiast—I get rather scared on any boat smaller than the QE2 with full stabilisers, not that we can afford to travel on the QE2 on our parliamentary salaries. It is said, however, that there are two happy days in the life of a boat owner: the day he buys his boat, and the day he sells it. I do not know about that, but I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituent rues the day on which he bought the Five Pennies. Some might feel that there is an irony in that name, in view of how much the purchase has cost him. I assure him, however, that he has the House's sympathy in what has been a most unfortunate case.
My hon. Friend explained in some detail how his constituent has been left without his boat and with legal bills amounting to some £4,000, and I do not think that there is any dispute about those facts. It may be useful if I summarise the events that led to the case coming before the House; in doing so, I shall draw particularly on the judgment of His Honour Judge Simpson, who presided over the civil action brought by my hon. Friend's constituent.
In 1990, Mr. Dedman bought a motor boat and took it to a boatyard in St. Osyth, in Essex. The boatyard was a secure compound, and about 20 boats were kept there on trailers. Between September 1990 and 1992, Mr. Dedman and his brother used the boat on most Sundays during the season, but all that changed on 7 July 1992, when a Mr. Brown took the boat from the yard.
As my hon. Friend has explained, Mr. Brown was the previous owner of the boat; but he had sold it, using a third party as agent. The boat was properly sold, and a good title eventually came to the Dedman brothers. However, the third party who acted as agent did not pass on the sale price to Mr. Brown, and as a result the agent was later charged with the offence of theft and appeared at Snaresbrook Crown court.
Mr. Brown, however, thought that his boat had been stolen, and His Honour Judge Simpson specifically said that he could not be criticised for that. Mr. Brown saw the boat at the St. Osyth yard and announced his intention to tow it away, whereupon the manager of the yard called the police.
A Police Constable Summerfield answered the call and arrived at the boatyard. Mr. Brown showed him three documents, one of which was a letter from the
328
Metropolitan police dated 4 December. Unfortunately, the letter referred to the theft of the boat rather than to the theft of the proceeds. The mistake was important: if the boat had been stolen, under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 Mr. Dedman would not have had good title to the boat, and Mr. Brown would have been fully entitled to do as he did and take it away.
The judge accepted that PC Summerfield did not know of the inaccuracy in the Metropolitan police report. PC Summerfield did not get in touch with Mr. Dedman at the time because he was called away to investigate a burglary, but he contacted Mr. Dedman the next day and told him what had happened.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I accept that the police constable was called away. Surely, however—having felt some sympathy with Mr. Brown and, perhaps, established in his own mind that Mr. Brown was the boat's owner—he should logically have said that the boat could not be removed until he had confirmed Mr. Brown's ownership by talking to Mr. Dedman and seeing what documents he produced. Surely it was wrong for the police constable to make such a judgment—rushed or otherwise—at the time.
Mr. Maclean: Police officers are not judges in civil disputes; they are not civil arbiters. They must make a judgment about whether a crime is being committed, has been committed or is about to be committed. Was this likely to be a theft, or was a theft about to take place? The police constable formed the view that a crime had not been committed and was not about to be committed, and it was not up to him subsequently to determine the validity of the civil case. I shall say more about that shortly.
My hon. Friend's constituent later sued Mr. Brown, the person from whom he had bought the boat. He also sued the police. The case was heard at Southwark Crown court in October 1993; Mr. Brown did not appear to defend himself, and an interlocutory judgment was entered. Mr. Dedman, however, was unsuccessful in obtaining compensation from Mr. Brown, who claimed to have sold the boat and was declared bankrupt.
I think that the House will accept, as I do, that my hon. Friend's constituent has had a very raw deal. Unfortunately, that sometimes happens. Where I must part company with my hon. Friend is in his belief that his constituent's misfortunes are the fault of the police. In coming to that conclusion, I am not making a personal judgment in my capacity as a Minister: I am relying on the judgment of the courts.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the investigation of crime, the action and decisions which are taken by police officers in the course of their duties are operational matters. They are the responsibility of the chief officer of the force concerned, and Ministers have no authority to intervene. Therefore, it would not be right for me to comment on the way in which an individual operational case was handled.
As the House is aware, my hon. Friend's constituent brought a civil action against the chief constable of Essex and, as I have mentioned, the court dismissed the case. I think it might be useful if I read from Judge Simpson's judgment. It is a long quote but it is useful to put it on the record as my hon. Friend will wish to be aware of it. The judge said:
"PC Summerfield himself told me that he examined the boat, read the documents, took a statement from Mr. Brown who was adamant that he would take the boat unless he could be given some reason why he should not. Having read the document, PC

329
Summerfield felt 100 per cent. certain that, in 1989, Mr. Brown was the owner, and that he could not stop him from taking the boat away. PC Summerfield explained the powers that he had as a police officer and said he could not restrain Mr. Brown unless he had reasonable grounds for suspecting an arrestable offence was about to be committed. He did not give permission or encouragement and could not stop him. The officer cannot be criticised merely because he read the document and had no powers to stop Mr. Brown. In those circumstances I have no hesitation in saying that the action against the Chief Constable of Essex was misconceived. They had no powers to prevent Mr. Brown and no permission or encouragement was given, the action is dismissed as against the third defendant."
My hon. Friend has also criticised the police for failing to prosecute Mr. Brown. As my hon. Friend is aware, a file was passed to the Crown Prosecution Service, which decided that there was insufficient evidence to show that Mr. Brown had acted with dishonest intent. Therefore, no action was taken against him.
The decision whether to prosecute rests entirely with the Crown Prosecution Service and not with the police. The police's involvement in the decision on whether to proceed ends when the file leaves their hands and is passed to the CPS.
My hon. Friend asked where to go from here so that his constituent could get some satisfaction. If my hon. Friend's constituent is still dissatisfied, as I perceive he is, it is of course open to him to register a complaint against the police. I understand that at no stage has he decided to take that course, not even in 1992 before the matter went before the courts. No doubt, before considering that step, Mr. Dedman would wish to consider the finding of the court that the police constable who was involved in this matter was in no way to blame. The complaints system exists so that members of the public see that their concerns are scrupulously investigated.
I shall now deal with the role of the Police Complaints Authority and remind the House of how the system works. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, members of the public can register complaints not only with the force concerned but through a citizens advice bureau, through hon. Members or direct to the Police Complaints Authority. All these avenues were open to my hon. Friend's constituent.
The Police Complaints Authority is required by the Act to supervise the most serious complaints. This is defined in the Act but, briefly, it covers those cases which involve death or serious injury. It also has discretion to supervise other complaints, and a duty to supervise non-complaint matters voluntarily referred by police forces because of their potential gravity, and to make reports to the Secretary of State. Finally, the Police Complaints Authority must review the outcome of every investigation, whether supervised or not, and decide whether disciplinary action should be taken against any officer.
I understand that my hon. Friend wrote to Sir Leonard Peach, chairman of the Police Complaints Authority, on 2 August of last year requesting an investigation into the way that Essex handled this case. Sir Leonard wrote to my hon. Friend saying that he understood Mr. Dedman's sense of injustice but warning my hon. Friend that it was unlikely that the Police Complaints Authority could be of much practical assistance in view of the judge's comments.
Sir Leonard also pointed out that the legislation required complaints to be formally recorded by the relevant force. He offered to make the necessary approach to the chief constable but required confirmation that Mr.
330
Dedman wished to pursue a formal complaint against the officer concerned. It may be helpful if I read to the House Sir Leonard's reply.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for taking so much time over this matter. However, the point that must be made is that, in the midst of all this, Mr. Dedman is being hounded for costs. In many senses he is worrying about his financial state and is not thinking any more about taking the matter further because, frankly, he cannot afford a moment. The fact that he is being hounded is very much part of the reason for the tremendous hesitation about where he goes from here.
Mr. Maclean: I understand that there is no cost for registering a complaint with the Police Complaints Authority. The difficulty is that Mr. Dedman pursued a case in the civil court against Essex police. The judge said that the case was misconceived and, rightly in my view, did not award the compensation that Mr. Dedman wanted. Mr. Dedman lost that misconceived case and has inevitably incurred costs of his own and police costs. However, Mr. Dedman won the case against Mr. Brown and that would be the perfect solution to the problem. Mr. Brown had a liability to compensate him but the problem is that Brown was declared bankrupt. Therefore, Mr. Dedman has not got his compensation from the one person who should compensate him. Because he failed to get that from the appropriate party, it is not right to sue others such as the police.
It is misconceived to look to an alternative pocket. I am relying on the judgment of the court in favour of Mr. Dedman against Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown is the one who should pay compensation. The court ruled that it was entirely misconceived to try to sue Essex police, and I must rely on that judgment. I think that it is right.
I was about to quote from the letter of Sir Leonard Peach but as my hon. Friend has seen a copy I shall skip that. It is of great interest to my hon. Friend but perhaps other hon. Members are not so interested.
The Police Complaints Authority does not supervise investigations or consider complaints about operational matters. While I appreciate that this must occasionally seem unfair to members of the public, I must invite the House to consider that there really is no alternative. Unfortunately, crime has been in existence as long as ownership. The police work extremely hard in crime prevention and at detecting the perpetrators of crimes. The House recognises that they have a very difficult job.
It would be wholly unreasonable to require the police to take responsibility for being unable to prevent a crime taking place. If it were otherwise, we would need to recruit half the nation as police officers and have them keep a 24-hour watch on the other half. The courts have accepted that, as a matter of public policy, the police have immunity from action over their conduct of an investigation of a particular case, but such immunity was not an issue in this case, which was considered on the facts. I certainly would not like my hon. Friend or the House to get the impression that it is not possible successfully to bring a case against the police.
In general terms, the police are liable for their actions in the same way as other members of society. Under section 48 of the Police Act 1964, a chief constable is liable for torts which are committed by members of the

331
force under his direction and control. The police authority must pay any damages which may be awarded against him by a court.
I accept that this provides little comfort to my hon. Friend's constituent. Unfortunately, it is not possible for the law to be able to satisfy every eventuality. I am aware that in this case my hon. Friend's constituent had good title to the boat. His redress should have been through the civil courts. What was particularly unfortunate about the case, as I said to my hon. Friend a few moments ago, was that, having won the court case against Mr. Brown, the fellow who took the boat away, my hon. Friend's constituent did not receive any compensation because Mr. Brown had been declared bankrupt. I accept that this may be scant comfort, but the liability against Mr. Brown still exists.
Many others, apart from my hon. Friend's constituent, have lost out because of difficulties surrounding title of goods. People who inadvertently buy stolen goods, maybe stolen cars, boats or anything else, do not have any recourse to law. That is a matter of real concern to people who make purchases in the second-hand market.
The Government have taken action through the crime prevention strategy to reduce the opportunity for crime by encouraging the public to undertake a range of measures such as property marking.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up.

Health Authorities and Trusts
2 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: To put this brief debate in context, I must refer to the current discussions in the Nolan committee and the evidence that has been given to that committee. I can best illustrate the significance of the health appointments by quoting from an article by Mr. Simon Jenkins in The Times last Wednesday, entitled "Is Nolan just a paper tiger?" Mr. Jenkins is a former editor of that paper and he is scarcely a dangerous radical, so his recommendation that the Nolan committee should ask for an independent royal commission on appointments deserves the attention of all hon. Members.
Mr. Jenkins wrote:
"If ministers protest hand on heart that no thought of party gain ever crosses their minds when it comes to jobs or honours, a way is open to them to set the public's mind instantly to rest. They can divest themselves of these powers. Ministers should continue to propose appointments, but to the new commission, not to Downing Street. The commission would be expected to listen and act reasonably. Some 42,000 posts in executive quangos are now available for public appointment. More Britons are appointed in a lay capacity to oversee such services as hospitals, schools, the police and social services than are chosen at elections."
He goes on:
"As for the 15,000 health authority posts that had to be filled in 1991, it was that most undignified case of catch-as-catch-can in the history of public patronage. On seeing his list, one health administrator paraphrased Wellington and hoped they would 'terrify the consultants as much as they terrify me.'"
In the south-west, we have had a number of terrifying incidents in the way in which health trusts have performed their duties. We had, first, for example, the collapse of confidence in the Westcountry Ambulance Service trust, which resulted, after pressure from hon. Members on both sides of the House, in the exit of the chief executive. Secondly, we have had the suspension of Sister Cooksley at the Plymouth Hospitals NHS trust; again, a U-turn and reinstatement resulted. Thirdly, we have had a series of important and worrying incidents at Treliske hospital, run by the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS trust. With the latter, of course, a number of inquiries are going on.
The questions that all hon. Members will wish to have answered are: who is in charge, who is answerable and to whom? Who says, "Out you go," if a trust fails? A crisis of confidence exists in the trust leadership. Why? One reason is that the public, the patients and their elected representatives feel that they have no significant role in the appointments procedure.
There was a perceptive series of articles in the Western Morning News at the end of last year entitled, "Who really runs the west?" I wish to quote briefly from an important article, headed "Why Tories tend to be picked to serve on health quangos." The article starts:
"A glance down the list of Westcountry health quangos shows a distinct bias towards Conservative chairmen and board members."
It continues:
"At the top of the health pyramid is the South West Regional Health Authority, which nominates chairmen of local hospital trusts and passes names on to health secretary Virginia Bottomley.
One of the SWRHA's six board members is Dame Margaret Fry, a leading Conservative grandee who chaired the annual party conference three years ago."

333
The article then takes a number of examples of people who, in recent months or years, have been appointed to health trusts. For example, Mrs. Sylvia Russell is described as
"a frank speaking former Tory councillor who was given the £17,000-a-year job of running the Exeter and District Community Health NHS Trust."
Mrs. Russell is reported as saying:
"Mrs. Bottomley has been very keen indeed to promote women into management. Rennie Fritchie (SWRHA chairwoman) is keen to promote women."
The article gives another example of Mr. Graham Andrews, a former North Devon Conservative councillor, who again was appointed as a director of the Northern Devon Healthcare trust.
The main body of the article concerns the curious saga of the appointment of Mrs. Abigail Kirby-Harris, who is described as follows:
"once chairman of the St. Mabyn Conservative Association in North Cornwall, who said that it was not the slightest bit surprising that the Government should choose Tories to push through health reforms.
She added that it was natural for Ministers to pick allies to run NHS trusts ahead of people who wanted the reforms to fall flat on their face.
It was Mrs. Kirby-Harris's appointment, in the face of outspoken opposition from local Members of Parliament and some members of the NHS trust itself, which focused Westcountry attention on the way people are chosen for key quango jobs.
She was nominated by a member of another quango—Dame Margaret Fry—and rubber-stamped by the Secretary of State for Health, who was determined to put more women into top NHS jobs."
Mr. David Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyler: I shall not give way, because I want to leave time for one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, who told me in advance that he wished to take part in the debate, as is the normal convention.
As the Western Morning News correctly pointed out, Mrs. Kirby-Harris's appointment was controversial. First, Sir Godfrey Milton-Thompson, who was the chairman in situ, was expected to continue. Having had a distinguished career in the services, rising to surgeon vice-admiral, he clearly had great expertise. Secondly, when consulted, all five Cornwall Members said that they were happy for him to continue. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) said:
"I don't see any reason why he should not have been reappointed. I thought it was Virginia Bottomley with her obsession with every post going to a woman."
The hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) asked if he might take part in the debate and I hope that he will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a parliamentary neighbour and former sparring partner, I welcome him to the debate.
Thirdly, in December 1992, before the appointment was confirmed and publicised, other Cornwall Members and I corresponded with the then Minister for Health, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). I wrote a fairly quiet letter. The hon. Member for Cornwall,
334
South-East wrote in more robust terms. The Minister's answer shows what had happened. The Minister wrote to me:
"When my office passed on to me your further message about the appointment of the Chairman of the Cornwall Healthcare NHS trust, I instituted an urgent enquiry into the handling of the information you conveyed to South Western Regional Health Authority in your telephone call.
I can confirm that your message was received by the Region after the submission being sent to me by my Appointments Unit. Your views on Sir Godfrey and Mrs. Kirby-Harris were, therefore, not expressed in that submission.
It appears that, if your views were relayed to the Appointments Unit at the Department, they were not recorded and were certainly not passed on to me at any time. I have made it clear to the staff concerned that this is not acceptable and that our arrangements have got to be tightened up in future. I am extremely sorry that the system did not work on this occasion.
The submission I received did inform me however that Robert Hicks and David Harris both favoured Sir Godfrey being appointed. Having said that, for reasons I sought to explain to you when we spoke and which I have already explained to Robert, the advice I received from a range of other sources strongly recommended that Mrs. Kirby-Harris should be appointed. I felt, therefore, I was not able to accept Robert's and David's and, I now know, your advice on this particular occasion."
I want to get some positive lessons from this unfortunate incident. First, what references were taken up for this appointment? Secondly, what references are today taken up for such appointments? What written reports were available to the Secretary of State for Health? In this case, the person concerned had served from the Army and we now know from the industrial tribunal that has taken place since that the disclosed reports in the Army would have made it clear to the Secretary of State that there was no way in which this candidate should be even considered for half a minute for such an important appointment. The reason why she has been to an industrial tribunal is that she is claiming £500,000 for wrongful dismissal due to pregnancy. Thirdly, what is the point of consulting local Members of Parliament if our advice is then ignored?
Fourthly, there seems to be at least the suspicion of a hidden agenda, some sort of discrimination on grounds of gender, age or political orientation. Fifthly, why not advertise openly and set out the experience and criteria for which the Secretary of State is looking? After all, we are talking about considerable responsibilities—whether on an authority or a trust—and the people appointed exercise considerable control on the public's behalf over huge budgets.
I believe that Mr. Simon Jenkins's suggestion that there should be a royal commission on appointments and that there should be an open and honest process for such appointments is the only credible way forward to regain public confidence in the integrity, objectivity, ability and representative nature of those who run the national health service.
People do not trust the trusts and it is in the Secretary of State's hands to set that right. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us at the end of this brief debate.
2.10 pm
Mr. Robert Hicks: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), my parliamentary neighbour, and to the Minister for allowing me two or three minutes in which to make a

335
contribution to this important debate, which clearly has national implications as well as implications in Devon and Cornwall.
I would not necessarily go along with all that the hon. Member for North Cornwall said about the importance of political connections in this respect. There may be a political dimension to the examples that I shall cite, but what concerns me more is that some elements of the appointments affecting my constituency have too many characteristics of a Whitehall farce. I shall therefore concentrate on the procedures followed in making such appointments.
I begin by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport who, when he was Minister for Health, was most helpful and forthcoming. When I attempted to investigate the procedures followed in such appointments, it was not clear who, under the existing arrangements, was prepared to accept the ultimate responsibility. In the three examples that I shall cite, the Secretary of State played a significant part, whether in her present role or in her previous position in the Department of Health.
It is not clear whether the ultimate responsibility lies with the Department or with the regional health authority. Ministers tend to say that they can act only on what appears on their desks and it is not clear what terms of reference they have issued to the RHAs in the first place. The RHAs themselves say that they have certain parameters within which to work, but one then calls into question the sifting mechanism that they have deployed when names have supposedly come to their attention from the grass roots.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall outlined the sequence of events that accompanied the appointment of the chairman of the Cornwall Community Healthcare trust. I shall not duplicate his comments but wish to refer to the initial appointment of the chairman of the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS trust. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consulted certain politicians representing the county, although she did not ask the advice of the two then longest serving Members, David Mudd and myself. Perhaps she did not expect to hear the response that she was seeking. In any event, she went ahead—as was her right—and made an appointment.
It is not without significance that, when the time came for a reappointment, the Secretary of State's original appointee was dropped and replaced by the person whom some of us had advocated in the beginning.
There then followed a sequence of events beyond one's imagination, involving the appointment of the chairman of the Plymouth Hospitals NHS trust. My right hon. Friend appointed the late chairman and managing director of Brymon Airways to a trust that had not even been designated at the time. Within a few weeks, he had to resign from the non-existent trust and, as it so happens, the person whom we thought was being groomed locally for the position—then the chairman of the Plymouth health authority—was appointed chairman of the Plymouth Hospitals NHS trust, now that it finally exists. If the procedures had been correct in the first place, I suggest that we should not have reached this farcical situation.
336
We are talking about the administration and provision of health care for a large number of people, including my constituents. Public confidence in that administration and provision is absolutely essential. When the public read objective reports of what has happened in the three cases that have been mentioned, they understandably feel a little apprehensive.
I measure my words carefully. I believe that, if the litigation involving the former chairman of the Cornwall Community Healthcare trust turns out in a particular way, those responsible at the ministerial level for appointments and those who still hold senior positions within the regional health authority must examine their own positions. It is clear that what has been happening hitherto must not be repeated in the future if we are to retain the public's confidence in the standard of health care in the parts of Cornwall and Plymouth to which reference has been made this afternoon.
2.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I am sorry that we do not have more time to debate the important matter raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I could not help noticing, from the Order Paper, that a pile of earth in south-east Asia is deemed to be so important that it takes up three times as much time as the question of who runs the national health service. Perhaps that is a manifestation of the extent to which we are ruled by the headlines these days. This is an important subject because enormous responsibilities are placed on non-executive members of boards and the chairmen of health authorities and trusts in the health service.
I must correct the impression given—unintentionally, I am sure—that everything was wrong with the appointments that have been made. There are cases with which hon. Members are dissatisfied but some splendid people have become chairmen and non-executive members of trusts and health authorities. I visit a great many trusts—acute trusts, community trusts, ambulance services and health authorities—and meet many non-executive and executive directors who are extraordinarily committed to the health service. Many would die for the hospital with which they are involved, which is very rewarding. Indeed, the level of accountability and responsibility that they feel is one of the reasons that there have been some remarkable successes.
Mr. David Nicholson: Since the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) started his speech by saying that he was referring to the whole of the south-west, does my hon. Friend agree that the Taunton and Somerset hospital trust in my constituency, among others, has been remarkably successful, that on its board there are members of all parties and of none, and that its success is despite the vigorous opposition of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats before it was set up?
Mr. Sackville: I could not agree more. Taunton and Somerset is a good example of a trust that knows where it is going and is well led, which is exactly what we have been trying to achieve.
Obviously, one can find problems in a huge organisation such as the health service, with some 8 million in-patients, another 35 million out-patient contacts and nearly 1 million employees. There is room for many

337
things to go wrong. I am not quite sure of the connection between the three examples with which the hon. Member for North Cornwall began his speech—the Westcountry Ambulance Service trust, Sister Cooksley and two incidents in the press recently about Treliske—and non-executive appointments. Therefore, we need to be careful about using the material provided by headline writers, serious though some of those incidents may be, to make a wider point.
I have paid tribute to the non-executives of our trusts and health authorities because under them there has been remarkable progress. Many, many more people have been treated. Over 120 patients are treated today for every 100 treated before the reforms came into place. That is a tribute not only to the boards but to the staff generally for taking on an extraordinarily larger work load, albeit with some additional resources. Hospitals have become much more efficient—they have had to cope with the rising demand for health care.
Waiting lists and waiting times are much in the news. Under the reforms, in hospitals and authorities on which those non-executives serve, we have found that the average waiting time for operations has fallen from nine to five months and that the time people wait for a first consultant appointment has fallen radically. Many health authorities, before we set any national standards, were demanding that people should not wait more than a certain number of months, usually in single figures in good cases, for their first consultant appointment. So much progress has been made.
Partly, the chairmen and non-executives have been driving that progress, sometimes with not much encouragement from medical staff who have said that to think constantly about waiting lists distorts priorities and medical staff should have total control over the priorities of any hospital. However, we know, from our constituents and from everything that we find, that waiting times are important to patients, however lacking in urgency their conditions, and they should not be told that they will have to wait two years to see a consultant. Certainly, they should not discover that they need certain treatment and be made to wait years for it.
We are bringing those times down to 18 months, to 12 months and to less, so that people will not be able to say that they do not know when they will be treated. That will become a thing of the past. Under the leadership of some of our chairmen and chief executives, that has happened. However, I agree that there is a lack of uniformity in the appointment system, although it has thrown up thousands of good, committed people. Because people have found the opposite in some cases, we have sought to find a more formal system which people outside will be able to understand.
The first stage of the process is to require all regional health authorities or regional members of the policy board, as there may be if the Health Authorities Bill reaches the statute book, to advertise all posts or groups of posts—there may be difference in procedure between one area and another. There should be free and open advertising so that people can write in to say that they would like to serve on a trust or health authority.
When that stage is complete, a panel of non-executives, usually from around a region, will sift through those names to decide which of those people would appear on
338
the face of it to be suitable to serve on trusts and health authorities. The panels should do that according to agreed criteria.
Mr. Tyler: I am conscious of the limited time, but could the Minister specifically address the question of short lists in the cases to which the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) and I referred? As we all know, there was an unmitigated disaster with one appointment because only two people were on the short list. The person appointed turned out to be totally unsuited to the post, while the person who was, in effect, ejected, was subsequently to take the Department to an industrial tribunal. Again, in the Western Morning News, headlines said:
"Payouts settle complaint of jobs for girls",
and:
"Bottomley spared appearance in sex discrimination case".
All that could have been avoided if the short lists had not been so short.
Mr. Sackville: I understand why the hon. Gentleman is harping on about that unfortunate case, although I repeat to those hon. Members just arriving in the House that it was totally unrepresentative of the generality of health appointments. However, clearly the hon. Gentleman is quite right: we need a larger pool of names from which those who have the task of sifting can draw candidates. Competition is likely to hot up because, surprising though it may seem given all the difficulties and all that is said about the health service, large numbers of people wish to serve as non-executives on health authorities and trusts.
As I said, having advertised, the candidates must be looked at against published criteria. We shall be dealing with guidelines on that criteria in the near future and it will be open for everyone to see the personal and career criteria that we would like to see for those people who serve in that position in the health service.
There is also of course a code of conduct and accountability, very much along the lines of the Cadbury report, covering all matters of governance of public companies and public organisations. All those who serve and who are appointed will be reminded that they must have very high standards of achievement in those sectors. They must maintain standards of discretion, and in all the areas that one expects of someone who is put in a position of great responsibility in a public organisation. That is important.
I very much regret the cases—some may be quoted—when the system has failed to satisfy or, indeed, has resulted in the appointment of people who turned out to be unsatisfactory. While they are in a minority, we seek to avoid such cases.
I shall deal with the objections put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), who said that he and local Members of Parliament were consulted on appointments and it appeared that their advice was not taken. We cannot give an absolute guarantee to hon. Members, because, clearly, as the House will understand, views of local Members of Parliament are one source of advice on appointments and there may be many other views from other organisations, from individuals and, indeed, from an interview process that, up to now, has been conducted by regional chairmen or district chairmen. Interviews tended to be conducted by regional chairmen when appointments of chairmen for districts were being made.

339
We cannot guarantee that the advice of our parliamentary colleagues will be taken in every case, but we can at least say that consultation is taken extremely seriously and that all views, especially those of our parliamentary colleagues, are taken into account and always have been.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East asked who is responsible in the Department of Health. Clearly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible for all appointments, but there are some divisions of responsibility. She takes advice from different ministerial colleagues within the Department, depending upon which part of the country is involved. An enormous selection process has to take place. It happens mainly at regional level, but it also requires a great deal
340
of work by Ministers, who monitor the recommendations made by the regions. That process is shared out round the country.
There will be a more codified system of appointments in the health service, and it will be open and understood. We value trust boards enormously as a central part of the reforms; they cost the NHS 1p out of every £11 spent by a trust, and we think that that is good value. I pay tribute to all who serve on trusts and health authorities, often in difficult circumstances, for the wonderful job that they do.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SHEFFIELD ASSAY OFFICE BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    A9
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to change the current policy on roadside services on the A9 between Perth and Inverness.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. Friend will consider carefully the responses to our current consultation exercise before deciding whether any change in A9 policy is desirable.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will realise that the A9 north of Perth is not a dual carriageway, although it should be. The plain truth is that the local communities—the bypass communities—wish to maintain the situation whereby they provide the services and facilities, because that means jobs. Lay-bys with toilet facilities and picnic facilities are required on the A9; that would adequately meet the demand both from the tourist trade and from other motorists.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend makes a powerful and persuasive case, and we shall consider it sympathetically in the consultation exercise. The business interests of the bypass communities are extremely important, and our aim is to enhance the welfare of all the communities concerned. Tayside regional council's preferred location for a large roadside service area would be on the northern outskirts of Perth, and we shall keep my hon. Friend's thoughts on the subject very much in mind.

    Renewable Energy
    Mr. Gallie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken in the past year to expand the usage of renewable energy in Scotland.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I announced the details of the first order under the Scottish renewables obligation on 20 December 1994. That obliges the two public electricity supply companies in Scotland, Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric, to obtain 76 MW of new capacity from renewable sources.
    Mr. Gallie: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the expanded use of renewable energy sources adds a cost burden for Scottish electricity consumers? Will he point out to Opposition Members that if they wish to pursue high energy cost options, they should do so at a reasonable level? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting the levels right.
    Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that. He makes a reasonable point, but I am sure that he will welcome the fact that renewable energy sources are being developed in that way. The additional costs, spread over three or four years, will amount to less than 0.5 per cent., which is an acceptable increase against a background of electricity prices that have fallen substantially in real terms since privatisation.
    Mrs. Liddell: I am surprised at the Secretary of State's statement, and would be grateful if he explained how he
    342
    can say that about renewable energy when he has turned down a pioneering proposal for the Dalmacoulter landfill site, in my constituency. The proposal—to burn off methane gas to generate electricity—would provide enough fuel to heat 1,000 homes for 20 years, and fits in with the Government's new much-vaunted private sector initiative. What is more, it would require an investment of only £100,000—less than half the salary of the chief executive of Scottish Power.
    Mr. Lang: I have to point out to the hon. Lady that the bid was not successful because it was so expensive. The Dalmacoulter landfill site bid failed to obtain a contract because it was the most expensive of all the eight landfill gas projects bidding for a contract, and was priced considerably in excess of the director general's recommended ceiling price. It was for that reason, and no other, that it was unsuccessful.

    Dunbartonshire Enterprise
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet Dunbartonshire Enterprise to discuss the future of the industrial site at Gartcosh.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My right hon. Friend and I are fully aware of the position at Gartcosh but we have no plans at present to meet Dunbartonshire Enterprise to discuss that.
    Mr. Clarke: Does the Minister recall that that site has lain empty since 1986? Will he tell us how much has been paid, or will be paid, to Dunbartonshire Enterprise by North British Newsprint? Will he tell us whether the Government will give positive support to that project? If it does not succeed—and we need to know very soon—will the Government use their influence, including their influence with Locate in Scotland, to ensure that jobs, investment and training are made available to a job-starved community?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has a long-standing and respected interest in that site. I share his regret that North British Newsprint has yet to find a partner to invest in newsprint production facilities. We are still hopeful that that can be achieved in the near future.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the present position cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely. Scottish Enterprise will soon need to consider the future of the whole site. Discussions are taking place with potential inward investors who have expressed an interest in parts of the Gartcosh site. If the hon. Gentleman wants a meeting to discuss the present position in more detail, I would be happy to agree to that.
    Mr. Worthington: When the Minister meets Dunbartonshire Enterprise, will he discuss its future shape and size? Will he please reject the opinion of those who propose that Clydebank and Milngavie be put in with Glasgow or, even more absurdly, that Dunbartonshire be linked with Renfrew? Will he reject such absurd proposals and retain the current boundaries?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman and a number of his colleagues met me this week to express their very clear views on those matters. We are formally in a consultation period; Scottish Enterprise is consulting on those matters.

    343
    However, perhaps I may reassure the House by saying that I take very seriously the well-considered views that were expressed to me by hon. Members.

    Commercial Property Law
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the commercial property law in Scotland.
    Mr. Stewart: During 1994, representations about commercial property law were received from the British Retail Confederation.
    Mr. Thurnham: For the benefit of Mr. Max Davidson and others, can my hon. Friend confirm that the law in Scotland is different from the law in England, in that Scotland does not have the iniquitous privity of contract that we suffer here? Will he remind his colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department of the Environment how much better Scottish law is?
    Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those compliments. Of course, he is essentially correct.
    Mr. McAllion: That is why we need a Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Stewart: I shall not be diverted by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion).
    My hon. Friend rightly pointed out to the House that privity of contract does not apply in Scotland. In Scots law, when a lease is assigned to a new tenant, the previous tenant is released from liability unless the parties specifically contract otherwise, in contrast to the position in England. I know that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor intends to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity, and I hope that my hon. Friend's long campaign on that issue, which I think commands support on both sides of the House, will therefore shortly reach a successful conclusion.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister institute a review of the effects of recent legislation on commercial railway property in Scotland? What is the sense of legislation that will lead to the closure of lines, a loss of key services such as sleepers and the criminal neglect of public assets such as the Forth railway bridge?
    Mr. Stewart: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity. I can reassure him that the structure of the railways in Scotland will remain intact.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: While the Minister rightly extols the virtues of Scottish law, will he reflect on the fact that the Scottish legal system is the only domestic system of law in western Europe without its own Parliament? Do not the merits of the Scottish legal system now justify a Parliament in Edinburgh?
    Mr. Stewart: There is, of course, an arguable case for independence, although I do not agree with it. There is not an arguable case for the proposition being put forward by the Labour party, which does not seek to answer any of the serious questions. When challenged on serious issues such as the West Lothian question and others, the only answer given by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is to say that they are all red herrings—what a way to conduct a serious policy.

    Local Government Employees
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are estimated to be currently employed in local government in Scotland; in how many local authorities they are operating and at what overall cost per head of the population of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: As at September 1994, 304,532 people were employed throughout the 65 local authorities in Scotland. Staff costs per head of the Scottish population in 1993–94 were £898, compared with only £668 per head in England.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Why does it take so many people—
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: What does it have to do with the hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Greenway: What does it have to do with me? The English are paying for it—partly, anyway. That is a fact. My constituents are partly paying for it. Why does local government in Scotland cost so much, when, presumably, wage costs there are a little lower than they might be in London, where I have my constituency? Why does it involve so many people at such a high cost? Why do we have senseless demands for a Parliament for Scotland, which would impose even more government—another layer at even greater costs—on Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes some sound points. One must ask why, when there are constraints on public expenditure and local authorities should be considering the burden that they impose on council tax payers, staff numbers have been increased by 2,500—about 1 per cent. —in the past year, when in England, local government staff numbers have been reduced by 2 per cent.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister will know that, because of all the redundancies in the traditional engineering works in and around Glasgow, local authorities have become an important source of employment. I hope that he will not use the new reorganisation of local government to sack local authority workers.
    Mr. Lang: Decisions about the employment levels of local authority staff are a matter for local authorities. While I anticipate that there will be some saving from the 300,000 and more people employed in local authorities, it would be a relatively small saving. The hon. Gentleman makes a fundamental mistake in pretending that employment in a local authority offers the same productive contribution to the wealth of a nation and the output of its economy as employment in private industry—there is a world of difference. The taxes generated by the profits of the private sector sustain the bureaucracies in the public sector.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real threat to local government services and jobs in Scotland comes not from our plans for reorganisation, but from plans for a tax-raising Scottish Assembly? If it is to have a meaningful role in the life of the nation, the Assembly will take powers from the House and plunder town halls and council chambers throughout Scotland, taking away their powers to centralise them in Edinburgh. Does my right hon. Friend

    345
    agree that anyone who believes in strong, responsive, sensitive and genuinely local democracy should join us in opposing Labour's plans?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. At a time when the Government have been seeking to reduce bureaucracy and simplify local government by introducing a single-tier structure, the Labour party is bent on creating another centralising Parliament in Edinburgh that will increase bureaucracy and the burden of administration and centralise power from local government to Edinburgh.
    Mr. Wallace: Given that the Secretary of State used the increase in local government employment as one reason for imposing an unjustified and unacceptable squeeze on local authority funding in the forthcoming year and given that he seems to be well armed with figures, will he answer the following question? How much of the increase that he mentioned will be accounted for, first, by the number of people employed in full and part-time work to clear up the mess of the poll tax and implement the council tax and secondly, by the increase in the number of staff employed in social work departments to implement the Government's community care policy?
    Mr. Lang: There is no reason why the number of staff employed in local government should be increased to clear up the backlog of uncollected poll tax. That should have been cleared up substantially in previous years.
    Central services alone increased by almost 5 per cent. last year in Scotland. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), there has been a 9 per cent. increase in the number of full-time staff. Such increases bear no relation to the needs of the local electorate and they take no account of the burden that they impose on council tax payers.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in the number of jobs in local government is nothing more than jobs for the boys and another example of loony government spending?
    Mr. Lang: If the House will not accept my hon. Friend's word, perhaps it will accept the word of Mr. Leo McKinstry, a former Labour councillor in Islington, who last week wrote in The Spectator:
    "The electors can be warned now of things to come under Labour. They need look no further than the present record of Labour in local government".
    Mr. Graham: Will not the Secretary of State do the right thing and congratulate the local authority workers who responded to the flooding in Scotland? If they had not been there, our folk would have suffered a tragedy because of the inaction of the Scottish Office.
    Mr. Lang: That is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. I congratulate all those who took part in the emergency services operation following the flooding in Scotland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in congratulating them and also those in local and central Government who have done so much to ease the problems arising from that emergency.
    Mr. McAllion: Will the Secretary of State try to understand that the higher levels of spending and employment in Scottish local government reflect the higher levels of social deprivation and illness in our country; they reflect the outstanding success of local
    346
    authority schools in Scotland; and, above all, they reflect the increasing burdens that the Secretary of State has placed on Scottish councils, with 65 per cent. of the 2,500 staff to whom he referred employed in the areas of social work and policing?
    If the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about the comparisons between Scotland and England, will he explain why, for the past two and a half years, he has refused to take up the offer by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to commission jointly an independent study into those comparisons? Is he afraid of the truth and the light that the study may shed on the prejudiced hysteria that passes for Government policy in this area? It is time to put up or shut up. Will the Minister accept COSLA's offer and put an end to the political poison levelled against Scottish local government?
    Mr. Lang: I am trying to save the hon. Gentleman from himself, because he is totally misinformed. I invited the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to undertake that study two or three years ago. It said that it would undertake the study, but it did not do so.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to outline the Government's proposals on homelessness following the responses to the consultation paper "Tackling Homelessness"; and when he intends to resume the planned consultation exercise on amending the 1991 code for guidance.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are still considering the 160 responses received to the consultation paper, "Tackling Homelessness", and we shall announce our decisions in due course. A revised draft code of guidance on homelessness, taking account of those decisions, will be issued for comment later this year.
    Mr. Welsh: Does the Minister accept that homelessness is an acute and growing problem in Scotland? He issued a consultative document entitled "Tackling Homelessness", but he has done absolutely nothing about it and his reply today is a disgrace. Will he acknowledge publicly that 97 per cent. of responses want local authorities to retain a duty to house homeless persons in priority need? In England there was action within four months, but six months have passed and the Scottish Office has done nothing. That is quite unacceptable.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is completely incorrect: the Scottish Office has done a substantial amount in that area. I recently attended the opening of a homelessness advisory centre in Dundee, not far from the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which was funded to the tune of £80,000 by Scottish Homes. Earlier this year, an advisory service run by Shelter was established in Edinburgh with funding of £94,000. We have given £29 million in capital allocations for homelessness.
    The hon. Gentleman's constituency received a supplementary payment of £290,000—which it asked for—in February 1992. Since then, his district council has not asked for any further supplementary allocations in that area, so he is incorrect on the first point. With regard to

    347
    the hon. Gentleman's second point, we shall give the matter the most thorough and complete consideration and we shall announce our decision.
    Mr. McMaster: Will the Minister confirm that many hundreds of families in Strathclyde are still homeless following the floods in December? Is he aware that those families do not wish to return to their homes until they know that there are adequate flood prevention measures to ensure that such floods will never happen again? Instead of passing the buck to cash-starved local authorities, will the Minister admit today that, under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, he has the powers to introduce flood prevention schemes? If he does not, will he support my private Member's Bill on 10 February, which will give him those powers?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We shall need to study the fine print of the hon. Gentleman's Bill. With regard to his question about section 155, that is why we have Bellwin. As I promised the hon. Gentleman when I visited his constituency and saw the houses in Ferguslie park, we shall be looking fully at the entire housing budget before we make final decisions on housing. We shall have the issue of flooding particularly in mind and the interests of his own district council and other interested district councils, including Strathkelvin and elsewhere.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Is the Minister aware of the growing concern in Inverness specifically and the Highlands generally about the homelessness problem there? On Monday this week Albyn Housing, a local housing association, briefed my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and myself on the problem and told us of the alarming rise in the number of homeless people sleeping rough in the streets. It was highly critical of the Scottish Office in particular, for the continuing squeeze and cuts in real terms on the housing budgets for both Scottish Homes and the relevant local authorities. Will he look again at Inverness and the Highlands with urgency? It is now a matter of considerable public concern.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman's housing association is impressive and has done an extremely good job in Inverness. About £900 million will be spent on capital investment in housing this coming year. That is a very substantial sum. We expect the work of housing associations, such as the one that he mentioned, to be on-going, and we shall give them the necessary support.
    Mrs. Fyfe: The Minister mentioned Shelter. Has he had any discussions with Shelter and other organisations about the scandal of homelessness among young people who have been in local authority care and who end up on the streets? Does he know that children coming out of care are 70 times more likely to become homeless than their contemporaries? Does he agree that, if local authorities should have powers to advise and assist care leavers up to the age of 21, they should have the resources to do so?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Homelessness is one of the top strategic priorities for all local authorities. We are giving hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of grants to voluntary bodies such as the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, Borderline and other bodies and
    348
    initiatives. In the Bridges project, one initiative in Edinburgh, we are ensuring that all the voluntary and statutory agencies work together. We expect local authorities to give the subject top priority.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Scottish Homes rural initiative in my constituency, whereby empty properties have been brought back into use at low cost, goes some way towards dealing with some of the homelessness? In addition, is he aware that the help given to Perth and Kinross district council after the flooding was very well received?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Scottish Homes has an impressive record. It will provide 2,500 units for homeless people this year, and the rural empty homes initiative developed in Tayside in conjunction with the Scottish Landowners Federation has been evaluated as a success. There have been other initiatives such as the lead tenancies initiatives, under which housing associations are enabled to lease empty properties and sublet them to the homeless. There is also an important initiative in many towns in Scotland, to identify empty properties in upper floors in town centres and bring them back into use. Grants for rent and ownership are also a help in that respect.

    Burns Day
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will bring forward proposals to make Burns day a national holiday.
    Mr. Lang: Although there are no plans to propose that Burns day be made a national holiday, I do not think that we need such an event to remember our greatest poet. We have continued to celebrate his works since his death almost 200 years ago, and I am sure that we shall do so for many years to come.
    Mr. Canavan: Does that negative, disappointing reply have anything to do with the fact that Burns was an ardent supporter of a Scottish Parliament and a fierce critic of the Unionists, who used treachery, bribery and skulduggery to destroy Scotland's last Parliament?
    Why are the Tories' prospects dim?
    Could it be the reputation
    Of Ian, Allan, Hector and Jim—
    Such a parcel of rogues in a nation?
    Mr. Lang: Now I know what the poet meant when he spoke of
    "A rhyming, ranting, raving billie".
    I will say to the hon. Gentleman:
    "Hale be your heart, hale be your fiddle,
    Lang may your elbuck jink an' diddle."
    As to Burns being a supporter of a Scottish Parliament, I remind the hon. Gentleman of his words in "The Dumfries Volunteer":
    "Be Britain still to Britain true
    Amang oursels united
    For never but by British hands
    Maun British wrangs be righted."
    Mrs. Ray Michie: If the Secretary of State will not honour our national poet in that way, will he consider making 30 November, St. Andrew's day, a national

    349
    holiday? I wonder why Scottish Office Ministers lack a sense of adventure, which would allow them to dare to make a change, go out on their own and do something about a national holiday for Scotland. Never mind the Prime Minister and his dark words of danger and more danger.
    Mr. Lang: I take the opportunity to welcome the decision by the Royal Mail to publish a set of stamps to commemorate the bicentenary of Burns's death. As to another public holiday, I do not think that it would be an appropriate step to take at this time. As the poet said:
    "I am the keeper of the law
    In some sma' points, altho' not a'".
    Mr. Donohoe: As the only Ayrshireman in the House, I believe that the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) should be considered much more seriously than the Secretary of State suggested. I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a bizarre decision in Irvine to shift the Burns monument from the moor to the middle of a busy roundabout. If anybody is killed, will the Secretary of State take responsibility for that crazy decision, which was taken partly by Ayrshire Enterprise? Instead of such officials' salaries being increased, perhaps they should be docked.
    Mr. Lang: I was not aware of the case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but if he will send me details, I shall have the matter investigated and—to the extent that the matter may be the responsibility of the Scottish Office, although I suspect that it lies primarily with the planning authority—I shall see whether there is anything appropriate for me to do.
    Mr. Gallie: Given that Robert Burns was born in Alloway in my constituency, will my right hon. Friend congratulate Ayrshire Enterprise and all those who are supporting the Burns bicentenary next year on ensuring that the works and words of that poet are broadcast loud and clear world wide?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There will be major opportunities for not only his constituents but Scotland as a whole to celebrate that important occasion, which will be internationally recognised. I am sure that the poet would approve of the actions of those who, as he put it,
    "doucely manage our affairs in Parliament".
    Mr. Salmond: Before the Secretary of State determines whether to make Burns night a national holiday, will he tell the House whether he has seen the cartoon in The Scotsman today, which depicts the Prime Minister as a giant puddin' over the caption:
    "Great Chieftain o' the Puddin' Race"?
    Is the Secretary of State in any way offended that he was not depicted as a wee puddin' in the same cartoon?
    Mr. Lang: I am impervious to all cartoons and all other comments, whether written or drawn.

    Hospitals
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for new hospital development in west central Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There are proposals for new hospital development and refurbishment in west central Scotland, most notably in the Greater Glasgow and Lanarkshire health board areas.
    Mr. Hogg: Is the Minister aware that in 1992, and immediately prior to the general election, the then Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for health, the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), had a positive approach to the building of a new hospital in Cumbernauld, and announced that it would be built?
    Is the Minister further aware that the Minister who now has responsibility for health appears not to have done anything about the hospital? He appears to be bewildered by the breadth of support for it and fumbles with health matters to the extent that we do not know what is happening with regard to the hospital. Lanarkshire health board does not even do me the courtesy of replying to the letters that I write on the subject. Will the Minister intervene personally to ensure that the hospital is built, and built soon?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The health board is working on revised proposals, which we have not yet seen. The latest proposals will give future occupants much more privacy and comfort. The aim is to continue to assess demand against need. It would not be right for us to impose an artificial deadline on the board's deliberations. The hon. Gentleman's letters should have been answered, and I shall draw that to the attention of the board.
    Mr. Hood: The Minister will be aware that the present trust management at Law hospital in my constituency will be in charge of the new trust hospital, New Law hospital, in Netherton. Will he comment on the announcement this week that the management has put out press releases telling people not to turn up at the casualty and emergency department? As a result of its mismanagement, it has failed to get contracts signed to man the department after 1 February, in a few days time. Is it not truly alarming that our health service is being run with a so-called market and trust philosophy, and that in less than seven days a casualty and emergency department which served 40,000 patients last year faces closure?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have made inquiries. The proposed restrictions at the accident and emergency unit at Law hospital are the result of recruitment difficulties. There is no substance in the allegation that there are funding problems. The temporary arrangements involving locums will ensure that an adequate service is maintained. All emergencies will be dealt with. Only those patients with minor injuries and ailments are being asked to consult their general practitioner first. Efforts are being made to find a more permanent staffing solution. The intention is that Law

    351
    hospital will transfer to the new district hospital at Wishaw. Services at Stonehouse will transfer to the redeveloped Hairmyres hospital.
    Mr. George Robertson: Is it not a fact that the latest and newest hospital in west central Scotland is the Health Care International in Clydebank, which survived the Secretary of State's official opening for only 110 days before going into liquidation? Is it not also a fact that 80 per cent. of the multi-million pound regional assistance given to Health Care International was provided on the basis of only a third of the jobs promised at that time? What possible defence is there for making another £4.4 million of taxpayers' money available to the financial drainpipe of HCI, other than that it will be a sweetener to those who are already to get a bargain basement deal, with a hospital without debt costing the entire country £180 million, or an expensive face saver for the Secretary of State for Scotland after the fiasco of the decade?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he is not correct in saying that it cost the country £180 million, because £30 million was committed from the public sector and £150 million from the private sector. No further offer of assistance has been made. There is no reason in principle why the balance of the existing offer should not be transferred to a new operator, subject to appropriate conditions, if the project is being taken forward as originally envisaged and the planned new jobs are being created. I must remind the hon. Gentleman of his words on 10 January, when he said:
    "We are not opposed to public/private partnerships—they bring in much-needed money".
    He is right on that. It was an inward investment project. If one takes all the investment projects in Scotland together, one can see that they have brought in more than 50,000 jobs, which have enormously benefited our countrymen. We very much hope that these matters will be sorted out shortly and that 350 jobs will be secured.

    Land Register
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects work on the land register for Scotland, as defined by the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979, to be completed.
    Mr. Stewart: The operation of the land register in Scotland is being progressively extended to cover all counties by 2003.
    Mrs. Ewing: Given that the Minister must be aware of the criticisms contained in the 46th report of the Public Accounts Committee, which indicates quite clearly that there was a 14-year delay in completing land registration in Scotland, will he tell the House why that delay has occurred, particularly as there will be conveyancing cost benefits to many people when it is completed? Will he also tell me why no county north of Stirling has yet been subjected to land registration, given that the land issue in the highlands and islands and in the north-east of Scotland is very topical—indeed, even contentious—at times, against a background of Scottish islands being won in German game shows?
    Mr. Stewart: The timetable was announced in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for
    352
    Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) in June 1992. If there is any delay, it is the hon. Lady's delay of two and a half years before complaining about it.
    Our response to the report of the Public Accounts Committee will be published shortly.
    Mr. Wilson: Can the Minister tell me any good reason why instead of a 14 or 20-year process to find out who owns the land in Scotland there should not be a fixed date on which every land owner, irrespective of nationality, is required to produce title deeds and thereby register his ownership of the land? Is it possible that one of the reasons why that is not done is that many of the grand old Scottish lairds, clan chiefs and all the rest of that social detritus might have great difficulty in providing title deeds?
    Mr. Stewart: That is the usual load of nonsense from the hon. Gentleman. The process of extending the land register was announced two and a half years ago and it is going ahead as announced in the original programme.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my hon. Friend find it rather strange that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) chose to raise her question, when her own party's administration in Grampian region has recently sold off large tracts of Aberdeen to an English company and is refusing to sell it to the Aberdeen tenants?
    Mr. Stewart: The House will note with interest what my hon. Friend says. I have always understood the policy of the Scottish National party to be independence in Europe, which, in principle, means that Scottish land can be sold—and should be sold—to anybody in the Community, including the English.

    River Clyde
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet representatives of the Clyde port authority to discuss the dredging of the River Clyde.
    Mr. Lang: Responsibility for flood prevention measures on non-agricultural land lies with regional authorities under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961. Clyde Port Ltd. has no statutory duty to dredge the River Clyde but has a permissive power to dredge to the extent necessary for its operational needs.
    Mr. Dunnachie: Will the Secretary of State cast his mind back to when his hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) piloted a Bill through the House, making the Clyde port authority a private firm and making three of its directors near-millionaires? It appears that the only thing that was dredged at that point in time was its accounts, not the River Clyde. Can the Secretary of State give me an assurance that, when he returns to the Back Benches, he will not become a director of that company?
    Mr. Lang: The Bill under which the Clyde port authority was privatised was general, permissive legislation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that, under the present management, Clyde Port Ltd. has been reorganised and has grown considerably. It is now valued at £55 million and increased profits last year to £4 million.
    Mr. Galbraith: Does the Secretary of State realise that my constituents are convinced that one reason for the

    353
    recent flooding is the failure to dredge the lower Kelvin and the upper Clyde? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore fund a study of the contribution that the non-dredging of the Clyde made to the flooding and, if it is shown to be a contributory factor, fund the necessary restructuring work to prevent it happening again?
    Mr. Lang: I have already made it clear that the Government are willing to consider all such studies that are put to them by the relevant regional authorities, and have already undertaken to contribute to the funding of the study by the Clyde river purification board. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the River Kelvin once it enters Glasgow, falls some 30m to reach the Clyde, so it is unlikely that the Clyde itself can be the cause of flooding in Strathkelvin.
    However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman today that, following my consideration of initial estimates now received from local authorities, I propose to increase Renfrew district's housing capital allocation for next year by £2 million and Strathkelvin district's by £500,000. I also propose to approve Glasgow district's bid for an extra £200,000 in the current year. I am sure that the House will welcome those announcements.
    Mr. George Robertson: Is not the Secretary of State worried that the interest in Clyde Port Ltd. is not just in its dredging activities but in the gold digging of those who were lucky enough to be on the board at the time that it was privatised? Is not he aware of the widespread disgust and outrage felt throughout the country at the displays of corporate greed? Is not that a classic example of where an investment of as little as £75,000 in public assets has led, through the Government's fruit machine economics, to pay-outs of upwards of £5 million to directors?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman seems to be unaware that the company was marketed entirely openly and that the best bid secured it. That is the way in which industries have been privatised to the great benefit of the taxpayer, of those who in the past have had to fund loss-making organisations, and of those organisations themselves who have not been able to raise capital resources because they have been dependent on an external financing limit controlled by the Government. Surely the hon. Gentleman has learnt by now that national ownership has been the death and damage of many major British industries which are now released, liberated, productive and tax generating to the Exchequer as a result of privatisation.

    Investment
    Mr. Kynoch: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of Scottish business and industry to discuss future investment plans; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: I regularly meet representatives of Scottish business and industry to discuss various matters, including investment.
    Recent business surveys show increasing business confidence and positive investment intentions in manufacturing and other sectors of the Scottish economy. I welcome this further evidence of the success of the Government's economic policies.
    Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend has already referred to the article in The Spectator by Leo McKinstry, the former top Labour party aide. Did my right hon. Friend
    354
    read his comments regarding Labour's proposal to return business rates to the control of local authorities? He said that under those circumstances business rates would soar. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that proposal, along with the tax raising proposals of a Scottish Parliament which would inevitably bring higher taxation to Scottish business, would mean that inward investment would be driven away from Scotland—in short, that Labour's policies are bad for Scottish business, bad for the Scottish economy and bad for the Scottish people?
    Mr. Lang: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. He will be aware that, as a result of the Government's policy, business rates in Scotland have fallen from 76p in the pound to 43p. Only last week I wrote to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), to which letter I still await a reply, asking him to confirm whether the policy announced for England to abolish capping and to allow local authorities to depart from the uniform business rate, will apply in Scotland. Perhaps he will take the opportunity of this Question Time to make his party's position clear.
    Mr. Ingram: The Secretary of State's response to the announcement by Rolls-Royce of its intention to axe 600 highly-skilled jobs smacked of complacency and indifference. Does he agree that Scotland and Lanarkshire cannot afford to lose such jobs? Has he any plans to meet the company to seek a reversal of that decision and, if not, why not?
    Mr. Lang: Of course I regret the fact that Rolls-Royce plc is to shed some 600 jobs, reducing its work force in Scotland to about 4,000. It has carried out major rationalisation programmes in all parts of the United Kingdom, and I am sure that it is in its long-term interests to face, in a sensible and realistic way, the commercial decisions that it must make.
    I invite the hon. Gentleman to join me in welcoming the fact that, last month alone, unemployment in Scotland fell by 4,500 jobs. In the past seven years, unemployment in East Kilbride has fallen by 2,300 jobs, and unemployment in Scotland is now down to 8.5 per cent. It is falling month by month, and remains lower than unemployment in the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. McFall: When will the Conservative party stop telling lies about Labour's proposals for a Scottish Parliament? We have met business people and put our views to them; it has been accepted that there will be no change in corporate taxation, in the framework of financial regulation or in banking regulation. Does not the Conservatives' peddling of crude nationalism damage Scottish business? Do not they realise that decentralisation and the establishment of a Scottish Parliament will stimulate investment in Scottish industry, and do something for the 2,000-odd unemployed people whom the Government have put on the scrap heap?
    Mr. Lang: I note that the hon. Gentleman asked that question, rather than his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), whom I invited to answer a question that I had asked him in writing. I also note that, in his long diatribe, the hon. Gentleman did not answer the specific points that I put to him. Will the Labour party abolish the uniform business rate in Scotland? Will it abolish capping? Will it allow business rates to run riot as they did in the past, and will it impose high income

    355
    tax rates on the people of Scotland through a Scottish Parliament? If the Labour party does that, it will drive away business and drive up unemployment.
    Mr. John Marshall: When he meets business leaders, does my right hon. Friend encounter any enthusiasm for a national minimum wage or the adoption of the social chapter? Does he agree that the business community realises that, while Labour may promise to freeze corporation tax, that would merely mean a tax-raising assembly having to increase the burden of taxation on individuals in business?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. I have found no enthusiasm whatever in the business community for either the social chapter or the minimum wage—or, indeed, for the Scottish Parliament itself. Business men who are realistic and live in the real world are well aware of the huge burdens that it would impose on Scotland, making it the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom and driving away both inward and existing investment.

    Deep-mine Coal Industry
    Ms Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of the deep-mine coal industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Stewart: Following the successful privatisation of British Coal, the future of the deep-mine coal industry in Scotland lies with the private sector. The Government believe that privatisation is the key to achieving our aim of securing the largest economically viable coal industry in the longer term. I wish Mining Scotland Limited every success.
    Ms Squire: Does the Minister agree that it is vital to the future that he has just outlined for the pumping operations at Frances colliery in Fife to continue, both to allow a full economic appraisal of the colliery's coal reserves and potential and to prevent widespread ecological damage to wide parts of Fife? Will the Minister press the President of the Board of Trade and the licensed coal board, or its successor, to meet the cost of such pumping operations to allow a full examination of the economic and ecological issues?
    Mr. Stewart: That is primarily a matter for the river purification board. I understand that the board has written to British Coal asking about its intentions in regard to continued pumping at Frances and, indeed, at Michael colliery.

    Highlands and Islands
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give his assessment of the prospects for economic growth in the highlands and islands in 1995–96.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As a result of the Government's economic policies, the prospects for continuing growth towards long-term prosperity in the highlands and islands look very encouraging.
    Mr. Macdonald: Does the Minister understand the disbelief and dismay in the highlands at the fact that, although the European Community has designated the highlands an objective 1 area—recognising that it is one of the poorest and most disadvantaged areas in the Community—the Government are imposing a spending
    356
    freeze on local authorities, forcing them to cut their spending plans and basic services and to propose steep increases in council tax? How can it be right for the European Union to give to the highlands with one hand while the Scottish Office takes with the other?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Grant-aided expenditure for the Western Isles in 1995–96 is £44.6 million, a 3 per cent. increase over the year before. Highlands and Islands Enterprise is being funded to the extent of £77 million. There are many exciting projects in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, not least of which is the extension to Callanish Pharamceuticals, which the hon. Gentleman knows well. I am aware that Western Isles wants a number of objective 1 projects to be included.
    Geographical targeting will apply to four programme priorities across a number of sub-areas of the highlands and islands. That will be achieved by determining a minimum level of resources to be allocated to each sub-area over the six years of the programme. There has been some good news for the hon. Gentleman's constituency about ferry services between Harris and North Uist. The hon. Gentleman is aware of that, and we shall not forget his interest in the matter.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Will the Minister be so kind as to explain how the cancellation of motor-rail services in Scotland, which carry 20,000 cars a year, many of them from abroad, and the reduction in sleeper services, in particular the cancellation of the service to Fort William, are beneficial to the economic growth of the highlands?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman asks a relevant question. I attended a meeting yesterday between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the chairman and chief executive of British Rail. Those services are important for tourism and concern was expressed. British Rail is now continuing to examine options for Carlisle and Fort William sleepers. Options for motor-rail are still being examined. We shall remain in close touch with those who are involved in making the decisions, and I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's interest in increasing tourism in his constituency.

    Entertainment Clubs
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider introducing legislation to license entertainment clubs in Scotland.
    Mr. Stewart: The Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 requires an entertainment licence to be obtained from the local licensing board where alcohol is to be sold for consumption in a place of public entertainment during the permitted hours. In other circumstances, controls may be exercised under section 41 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which enables local authorities to require places of public entertainment in their areas to be licensed.
    Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful answer. Does he agree that there is a serious gap in the law in that the Hangar 13 club is allowed to operate in spite of the fact that there have been a number of prosecutions for drug dealing at the club? Secondly, on a cross-party basis, Kyle and Carrick district council has voted to withdraw the liquor licence. Thirdly, there is now

    357
    a fatal accident inquiry into three tragic deaths at that venue. Is not it a mockery of the law that the club is allowed to operate as if nothing had happened?
    Mr. Stewart: Of course, I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's concern about Hangar 13. On, I think, 22 November last year, Kyle and Carrick licensing board resolved to suspend the licence on the grounds that the use of the premises caused undue public nuisance or a threat to public order or safety. We are considering whether it would be helpful and practicable to promote model conditions in licences for raves. We shall consult local authority licensing boards and police interests on that.

    Gaelic
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to increase the teaching and use of Gaelic.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Government financial support for the Gaelic language has risen from £60,000 in 1979 to £11.1 million in the current year. Census figures, however, indicate that the number of people who could speak, read or write Gaelic fell from 80,000 in 1981, to 69,000 in 1991. Tha mi an duil ar planaichean air foghlam Gaidhlig fhoillseachadh a dh'aithghearr. As you may know, Madam Speaker, that means that I hope to announce our plans in Gaelic education shortly.
    Mr. Flynn: The most moving moment of last year was when a psalm was sung in Gaelic in an Edinburgh church. Was not that moment shared by everyone in the British Isles? Does not the Minister agree that Gaelic and all the other Celtic languages are a great heritage and living treasure and are not the exclusive property of any one single area, political party or religion? They are the property of all of us who live in the British Isles. They are to be cherished, protected, spoken and sung.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I was indeed at the service for the late John Smith and the rendering of Gaelic was singularly impressive on that occasion. Gaelic is one of the special features of Scotland's cultural heritage and the whole country benefits directly or indirectly from the richness provided by an additional indigenous language. We have a good record in that, with the extension, we have doubled the size of the structure of the Gaelic college on Skye. The college is very much a centre of excellence, benefiting the Gaels in north-west Scotland.
    Mr. McAvoy: The Minister should be aware of Strathclyde regional council's excellent record in encouraging Gaelic education by providing special classes and extra resources. Does he agree that the foolish and vindictive abolition of that council puts at risk the development of Gaelic as an alternative language in Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I do not agree with that. Borders regional council is one of the smallest in Scotland, yet it has high standards in teaching. We are considering carefully the inspector's report on the north-west highlands, where Gaelic is spoken, because it has identified a need to increase the number of Gaelic teachers. Problems exist in small schools in remote areas of the north-west highlands.

    Housing Capital Expenditure
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the percentage change in net housing capital expenditure between 1994–95 and 1995–96.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Reflecting the growth in owner-occupation, planned net provision for housing revenue account and non-HRA capital expenditure, together with the Scottish Homes development programme, falls by 2.3 per cent. between this year and next. Gross provision is, however, a more realistic measure of the resources available to spend on housing, and on the same basis falls by only 1.0 per cent. Within that, total provision for local authority capital expenditure on its own stock, and the resources for the Scottish Homes development programme remain at broadly this year's levels.
    Mr. Chisholm: Why, in a year of cuts, has the most savage blow once again fallen on the housing budget? Will the Minister admit that, if we go forward three years, the real terms cut, even in the gross housing budget, will be 17.5 per cent.? Does not he understand that the homeless cannot wait while money for new building is postponed? Does not he recognise that people living in inadequate housing in my constituency want a speeding up, rather than a slowing down of modernisation programmes and of other improvements?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Gross capital expenditure per house in the public sector is at its highest level and is projected to rise—it is £650 in the current year. Of course, £2.8 billion will be spent on housing in the next three years. Scottish Homes is expected to provide 2,500 units. It has provided impressive work in Muirhouse, which I recently visited and which is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is bringing back into use many more rented houses, which will help the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to compare the figures for Scotland with those for England and Wales? Will he comment on the very good settlements for Scotland? Especially as we are considering the possibilities of further devolved government in Scotland, would it be helpful to the House if all statistics for Scotland were related to England and Wales, so that we could find out whether Scotland is getting a good deal out of the Union?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There is much higher public expenditure per head across the range of identifiable subjects—that is beyond dispute. Obviously, we must ensure that resources go where they are most needed. As 300,000 public sector houses in Scotland have been sold to sitting tenants, we cannot expect to spend the same funds as we would have if those 300,000 houses had remained in the public sector.

    Emigration
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scotsmen emigrated to England in the years 1975 to 1979.
    Mr. Lang: Information is not available on migration to England alone. However, between mid-1975 and mid-1979, net migration from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom was approximately 5,000 persons

    359
    annually. From 1989 to 1994, there has been an average net migration to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom of 8,000 per annum.
    Mr. Evans: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Could he tell me whether, with this devolution nonsense and the break-up of the United Kingdom that that lot over there want, which will mean that the Scots will pay approximately twice as much direct taxation as the English, he is planning to rebuild Hadrian's wall? Is he prepared to introduce work permits for Scots who want to work in England when all this nonsense takes place? Is he planning to take on the sacked governor of Parkhurst to look after the wall so that that lot cannot get into England to take English jobs?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention in his customary way to the anomalies that would arise were we ever to be so unwise as to weaken Scotland's place in the Westminster Parliament by setting up in Edinburgh a separate Parliament with tax-raising powers. Just as emigration was high under Labour but has moved in the
    360
    opposite direction under Conservative Governments, so, too, under a future Labour Government, there would be a mass exodus from Scotland.
    Dr. Reid: Does not the question reveal the contempt in which the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) and his colleagues hold more than 50 per cent. of the population of Scotland in that it deals exclusively with the Scotsmen who emigrated during those years? Is not it a testimony to the foresight and perception of Scotsmen and women that, in the years before the Tory Government, the threat of such a Government forced so many thousands of them between 1975 and 1979 to leave the land that they love? Can we not now take heart from the prospect of a Labour Government which will allow many thousands of Scots throughout the United Kingdom to return happily to the land that was once their own?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is obviously wriggling but the fact is that under socialism people left Scotland in very large numbers; under Conservative Governments they have been coming back in very large numbers.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I can hear only one point of order at a time. The hon. Lady was on her feet first.
Mrs. Mahon: You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that Friday 27 January is the 50th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz. Have the Government said what the House is going to do to commemorate the holocaust, and who will represent them at the memorial service at Auschwitz in Poland on Friday?
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. These camps were, of course, the scenes of mass extermination on a scale that the world had perhaps never known. The 50th anniversary of the liberation of the camps—especially that at Auschwitz—should concern us, as Britain was in the war against Nazism from the very beginning. In the circumstances, is it not inappropriate—I put it no more strongly than that—that the House is not being represented in any way?
I hope that I shall not be misunderstood if I say that, not only would we have liked the House to be represented, but that we hoped that you, Madam Speaker, would have been authorised—clearly, you could not do so without such authorisation—to represent us, so that people in Poland and the international community know that the House of Commons is concerned about what happened, and that we shall never forget the millions of people who were murdered for no reason other than their race, politics or some disability which, in the eyes of the Nazis, meant that they should be put to death.
Madam Speaker: I understand the sentiments, which, I am sure, are those of the entire House on this matter. The hon. Lady mentioned 27 January. I have not been informed by the Government that they intend to commemorate that date, but I remind the House that we have business questions tomorrow and that the matter could perhaps be put to the Leader of the House.
Mr. Hawkins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder if you would give me your guidance? I think that it is correct to say that you have repeatedly made it clear that, in any Question Time, especially in Prime Minister's Question Time, interventions should always be in the form of questions.
I wonder, therefore, in the light of that confirmation, whether you would kindly look at column 136 of Hansard yesterday and the second intervention of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), which certainly was not a question but a statement? Would you be inclined to remind the right hon. Gentleman of his obligation, above every other Member of the House, to put questions and not to make statements?
Madam Speaker: Yes, I think it is incumbent on any hon. Member, whether Front Bencher or Back
362
Bencher, not to make statements, but to put their questions to Ministers very briskly, so that as many hon. Members as possible may be called. I should also remind Members, especially Back-Bench Members, that, at Question Time, the Government are required to account for their policies, so questions must relate to ministerial responsibility and not go further afield. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the earlier point with me.
Several hon. MembersFurther to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that. I will not take any points of order further to it. There are other hon. Members wishing to raise points of order.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that, on 13 July, the Government made a statement on their White Paper "The Civil Service: Continuity and Change", that the statement took 55 minutes, and that over 30 hon. Members took part. It now transpires that, in a written answer that is to be tabled tonight, the Government will slip out their reply to a Command Paper and to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee report.
This is a deliberate attempt to pre-empt the Scott committee and Nolan committee reports. Therefore, would you make representations to the people involved, to see that a statement is made in the House, that the Paper is delayed until then, and that the statement is not made in Opposition time?
Madam Speaker: The House knows my views on those matters. I have stated them clearly and frequently. Important Government decisions must, of course, be communicated first to this House. I feel very strongly about that, and wish to see it carried out. Whether that is done by oral statement or by written answer is for the Minister to decide, and I have no authority over that decision.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you seen, in your official capacity, the distressing account of the death of Mr. Keith Abel, who was described by his wife as a valiant servant of the health service and who spent many years of his life saving the lives of others? He had to wait five hours, during which he was dying of a brain haemorrhage, while efforts were made to find a hospital. Five long hours went by, and no hospital could be found to deal with him. Have you had a request for a statement about that incident and the distressing state of our national health service?
Madam Speaker: I received no intimation from the Government that a statement was to be made on that matter today.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that we have had Scottish questions, but I wonder whether the Government have requested that one of their Ministers could make a statement on their new policy, and whether they have informed you about their declaration last night on television regarding the new laws on Sunday opening hours, especially in view of the fact that we know that the Tories have been hunting for money and that the

363
brewers are very happy about the proposals? I should like to know why no statement has been made, because I want to ask the Ministers concerned how much the brewers have promised the Tory party for this change of policy that has not been announced in this House.
Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman may try to use the Order Paper to put those questions to Ministers. He was really asking whether the Government are making a statement on that matter today. The answer, as far as I am concerned, is no.
Mr. George Foulkes rose—
Madam Speaker: I hope this does not relate to earlier points of order; there was a glint in the hon. Gentleman's eye as if it did.
Mr. Foulkes: It is an absolutely and completely different point of order, Madam Speaker. You may recall that, two weeks ago, you gave a very helpful answer to a point of order that I raised indicating that all questions must relate to responsibilities of Ministers, so that Conservative Members could not ask questions about the Labour party and Labour policy. Does that mean that I would be precluded from asking whether the costs of the legal action against The Guardian by the director-general of the Tory party will be paid for out of Tory party funds or out of Government funds?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not try to use the Chair of this House to put questions of that nature. He is ingenious enough, and has been here long enough, to know his way around the Order Paper and to know how to raise issues. I guessed correctly—he had a twinkle in his eye before he started.
Mr. David Jamieson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any representations from the Government making their position clear concerning the reports that, shortly after leaving Government service, many senior civil servants from the Ministry of Defence, and many people who have held very senior positions in Her Majesty's armed services, receive directorships and arrive on the boards of
364
defence companies managing large orders for the Government? Have you received any representations on that subject, Madam Speaker?
Madam Speaker: The answer is no.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is it your intention, Madam Speaker, to continue the practice of calling Conservative Members more than once during Scottish questions?
Madam Speaker: Yes, but not on every occasion; that must be left to my discretion. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has raised that matter today because he rose several times at Question Time but I could not call him—I saw the look of frustration on his face. I say to him and to other Scottish Members that I keep a list of Scottish Members who have not been called very often during Scottish Question Time. The hon. Gentleman is not on my list, because I know that he has been called quite frequently; that is probably one reason why he was not called today. I keep the list here with me at every Scottish Question Time, and try to deal as fairly as possible with all Scottish Members, whatever party they may come from.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I hope that that will not give rise to other points of order.
Mr. Phil Gallie: This is another point of order on Scottish Question Time, Madam Speaker. Did you take into account the fact that today we had extra time for Scottish questions because of the changes in the procedure of the House? I feel sure that that was welcome to all Scottish Members.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to say that, at Scottish Question Time, we do not make the progress that I would like to see. We have made a little more progress today because of the extra few minutes, but I hope that we shall try harder next time.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May one hope, Madam Speaker, that Scottish Opposition Members will remember that they are members of the United Kingdom, as are our much admired Members from Northern Ireland and from Wales?
Mr. Michael J. Martin: Oh—thanks for that information.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) always has something to say that is welcome in the House. We shall now move on to the ten-minute rule Bill.

Pensions (Divorce)
3.42 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law so as to provide for the equitable division of pensions in the event of divorce.
I introduced this Bill at the end of the previous parliamentary year, on 1 November, but because that happened at the end of the Session, it fell and it was not even possible to publish it. I hope to make better progress this year. I do not wish to restate all the provisions of the Bill, as they were contained in my speech of 1 November and can be read in Hansard, but I shall restate its main purpose and principles.
The Bill seeks a fairer distribution of assets, especially pension assets, in the event of divorce. The current system is unfair, because at present most pension fund rights are personal to the individual in the fund. On divorce, husbands often walk away with all the pension assets, while wives get nothing. One has a prosperous future; the other faces hardship.
In England and Wales, the decision whether to include pension rights in an overall settlement is entirely at the discretion of the court. More often than not, the court ignores those pension assets, either because they are not brought to its attention or because it comes up against the obstacle in the current law that it cannot overrule pension fund trustees and divide an individual's pension assets.
That is not the case in Scotland, Germany, Canada and elsewhere. In those countries, all assets, including pension assets, are considered as comprising the matrimonial assets, and divided equitably. That is what my Bill seeks for England and Wales.
The court would have the power to reallocate occupational and personal pension rights between the divorcing parties. It could arrange for a transfer payment from the pension fund member's account to the account for the benefit of the divorced spouse. She would then have a pension in her own right.
On "Women's Hour" last month, there was a statement from the Minister's office about that matter. It repeated the assertion that there is no clear evidence of the problem, that more research is needed, and that a survey had been commissioned to report at the end of 1995. That sums up the Government position.
I disagree—there is plenty of evidence. Two major reports have said that there is a strong case for a change in the law—that of the Pensions Management Institute in May 1993 and the Goode report in September 1993. The National Association of Pension Funds has added its weight in favour of a revision of the law.
The organisation Fair Shares says that it has counseled many more than 1,000 women in that situation, many of whom are desperate and forced to depend on the state against their will. Fifty-two per cent. of the organisation's members have no pension rights, in spite of having been married for a long time. Others, who receive the family house in a divorce trade-off, also receive the outstanding mortgage, and find themselves trapped on income support, with the permanent threat of losing that house.
"Women's Hour" gave some examples. One was of a 72-year-old disabled woman, who was married for more than 40 years. Her ex-husband receives a £25,000-a-year pension. He pays her £4,000 a year, but she is deeply
366
anxious that, when he dies, her maintenance will end and she will be left destitute. Another woman described that general denial of pension rights as a "double betrayal"—first by her partner, then by the law.
There is plenty of evidence in my mail of the problem; I have received many letters about the subject. Mrs. M of Devon wrote:
"I knew my husband for 50 years and we were married for 45 years…During the"
divorce proceedings, his company
"would not divulge his pension rights."
He paid up at first, but soon after, he remarried and the money was stopped.
Mrs. K of Bedfordshire was married for 32 years and, similarly, her husband stopped paying maintenance. She writes:
"I have no savings whatsoever. Just what does one do? Fall back on the State?"
Mrs. P of Essex was married for 20 years. She says:
"My husband has informed me he intends to leave me…to buy a bigger boat and live on that by himself. I asked about his pension and whether he"
would give
"me half…He said there is no way he will pay me any of his pension. This pension will amount to tens of thousands of pounds…plus a sizeable monthly income. Indirectly I feel I have been paying towards that pension but legally have no rights or access to it whatsoever. His financial future is assured. Mine holds nothing but question marks and fright".
Mrs. W of Essex said:
"I divorced my husband after 31 years of domestic violence, mental cruelty and also living with a husband who was a pervert."
It is the same story—she then had no rights to his pension.
Mrs. M of the Isle of Wight, married for 43 years, with five children, went to court to obtain her pension rights and found herself denied legal aid. When she applied, she was refused, on the grounds that
"your prospects of deriving any benefit from defending the"
divorce
"petition are too slight to justify the issue of a certificate."
Her husband, incidentally, with a larger pension, obtained his legal aid for the proceedings.
After 27 years of marriage, Mrs. L of Truro lost her pension rights under the existing law. She states:
"Through no fault of my own I now face a future of emotional and financial insecurity…In Scotland and in several other countries the courts have the power to divide a pension on divorce, and recent reports have urged the Government to alter the law in England and Wales to grant women their fair share of the pension to which they have contributed in kind. My experience shows that the courts cannot be relied upon to use the powers embodied in the Matrimonial Act to protect women in my situation. There is no substitute for an index-linked pension".
There is plenty of evidence, and it is crystal clear—the Government must know that.
The Government's survey, which is to report at the end of 1995, merely kicks the matter into touch for another decade. The Pensions Bill is before Parliament this year. If the change is not made now, there will not be another Bill and another opportunity for many years. I understand that an amendment to the Bill is to be tabled in the House of Lords and that it will be supported by peers from all parties. In the interests of fairness, I urge the Government to accept such an amendment and such a change.

367
In my last few seconds, and as it is Burns night, I thought that I would quote a bit of Burns, like the true cockney I am, and tell the Government not to be a
"Wee, sleekit, cow'rin', tim'rous beastie,"
and accept the legislation, so that
"Should auld acquaintance be forgot,"
it can be a case of
"O, gie the lass her fairin', lad".
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Ms Mildred Gordon, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms Clare Short and Mrs. Audrey Wise.

Pensions (Divorce)
  PENSIONS (DIVORCE)
  Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law so as to provide for the equitable division of pensions in the event of divorce: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 February, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]
Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  (Clauses Nos. 2, 5, 8, 15, 52, 64 and 91, Schedules Nos. 1, 4, 11 and 14, and any new Clauses first appearing on the Order Paper not later than 19th January and designed to continue the statutory effect of any of the Ways and Means Resolutions of the House of 13th December)
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 23rd January].
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir George Young): On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I wonder if it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to take clause 64, schedule 14 and the associated amendments together?
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Is it the wish of the Committee that we take the clause, schedule and amendments together? It seems that it is, and the Chair is happy to assist in that.

  Finance Bill
    Clause 64

      APPROVAL OF COMPANIES AS TRUSTS
      3.52 pm
      Mr. Andrew Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in clause 64, page 57, line 44, at end insert—
      '(1A) No approvals shall be given under this section after 6th April 1997.'.
      The Chairman: With this we shall take schedule 14 and amendment No. 11.
      Mr. Smith: Our difference with the Government is not on the importance of investment, especially for smaller and higher risk companies. We have argued long and hard that the Government should do more. A form of venture capital trust properly put together could have a role in that. Our strong concern is that the way in which venture capital trusts are designed in the Bill and the manner of their tax treatment will not provide the stimulus to the right sort of investment in an efficient way.
      If the scheme goes ahead, the Government will find—as they did with the business expansion scheme—that they end up using taxpayers' money to subsidise many low risk investments backed by property, primarily for tax avoidance purposes. Given the business expansion scheme experience, we have to ask why the Government are bringing forward a venture capital trust scheme in this way—with no explicit exclusion of property companies and only limited exclusions of property-backed companies.
      When I saw in yesterday's Financial Times that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was considering flogging off the Treasury, I thought that I saw a connection—perhaps venture capital trusts will be used to market the Treasury itself. I can see the glossy venture capital trust prospectus now: "Invest in a prestigious central location. Buildings rather tarnished by present occupants. Fake blood to be removed from office of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Real beer to be removed from the floor of the

      369
      Chancellor's office. Excellent potential in an exciting project to be under new dynamic management within two years".
      The tax breaks in the scheme are huge. Compelling though the case for assisting in flogging off the Treasury may be, we have to ask how the cost can be justified. The Government estimate that venture capital trusts will cost the Exchequer almost £700 million over three years. The House is right to ask how the Government can justify huge tax breaks to facilitate investment, including some very safe investment. The answer is that they cannot.
      As I will set out in my speech, there is every prospect of venture capital trusts as designed in the Bill and defined in the clause becoming a monumental tax avoidance device, stimulating the business of the tax planners more than that of the companies which the Government claim that they are trying to help.
      Mr. John Butterfill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I am sorry to interrupt so early in his speech, but I should like to clarify his thinking for the convenience of the Committee. I fully understand his concern about the absence of an interest-in-land rule in the proposals before us, but apart from the opportunity for what might otherwise be safe investment, would the Opposition support the principle that some tax advantages—such as roll-over relief and the freedom from ultimate capital gains tax—should be afforded to encourage venture capital investment?
      Mr. Smith: Later in my speech I shall propose some ways in which the Opposition believe that that concept could be applied more successfully. We have never argued that there is no case for fiscal incentives in investment. Indeed, we have advanced that case very vigorously in relation to much-needed investment in research and development. It is a question of weighing properly and realistically the balance between the cost to the Exchequer of the tax subsidies involved and the actual gain to the public through stimulating beneficial investment. Because of the nature of the tax breaks within the scheme and the property exclusion to which the hon. Gentleman referred, we do not think that the proposal gets the balance right.
      We believe that the Government should at least concede that there are risks involved in embarking on this scheme. They should have learnt from the experience of the business expansion scheme. It is wise to propose a sunset provision in the legislation, as Opposition amendment No.15 does, so that Parliament can re-examine the operation of the scheme after two years. We can then assess whether the cost of the tax relief involved has been justified by the additional capital invested in genuinely high risk but potentially productive and profitable enterprises. It is important to invest capital in high risk ventures, but we want those ventures to have at least some probability of success; we do not want to squander taxpayers' money. Past schemes, such as that involving DeLorean, were not always a wise use of economic resources and taxpayers' money.
      Mr. Nigel Forman: The hon. Gentleman was implying that it would be sensible to form a judgment on a company's prospects after two years, when it has been involved in the risky enterprise
      370
      that one assumes would be the frame for a venture capital trust. Realistically, does he think that two years is sufficient time for that judgment?
      4 pm
      Mr. Smith: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Even if, after two years, it seemed sensible to allow the scheme to continue, further evaluation would still be needed. After two years, however, it would be clear whether the Government are right in their contention that the scheme will direct savings into high-risk, productive industrial enterprises, backing up entrepreneurs who are currently short of capital or whether, as we feel, it is likely to divert savings from other investments.
      The terms in which the venture capital trust is structured are such that within the parameters of the scheme the influx of funds will gravitate towards the low risk investments which the limited exclusions facilitate. That judgment could be made after two years. We would then be able to assess the balance of costs and benefits and a proper evaluation could be made of what benefits there are, who gets them, and the considerable costs involved.
      The Government must face the issue squarely. The tax breaks are enormous: it appears that either the Government have made a major blunder in the way in which the scheme has been designed, or they want to give money away.
      Let us consider how the definitions in the clause will work in practice. Those putting money into the scheme will not pay tax on the dividends that they receive up to a limit of £100,000 invested per year, and they will not pay tax when they sell their shares in the venture capital trust. Indeed, it is worse than it first appears. It does not just mean that investors can get up to £100,000 back from the trust in any one year and pay no capital gains tax; it means that everything is free of tax, including the return on the £100,000 invested per year. If the £100,000 yields a £150,000 return, there would be no capital gains tax on the extra £50,000.
      Investors can claim tax relief at 20 per cent. in any one year on up to £100,000, provided that the shares are held for five years. A 40 per cent. taxpayer can thus avoid tax of up to £20,000 by putting in the maximum £100,000. So long as an investor has income of £100,000 or more, as the increasing number of privatised utility profiteers do, they need invest only £80,000 after tax because the Inland Revenue will contribute the other £20,000.In total, if the shares purchased in the venture capital trust yield a 50 per cent. growth over five years, for the expenditure of £80,000 of post-tax income the investor will get £150,000 back with no tax to pay and no tax on the dividends received in the meantime.
      Even that is not the end of it: investors can also use the venture capital trust to defer capital gains tax. A 40 per cent. taxpayer could sell assets—perhaps in shares or property—with a capital gain of £100,000, put that gain into a venture capital trust and thereby defer the capital gains tax of £40,000. The gain, at least in theory, would he liable to taxation when it was withdrawn from the trust, but there would be nothing to stop the investor reinvesting the money, perhaps in another venture capital trust, further to shelter it.
      If the Government want to establish a scheme whereby they are not taxing income which goes into saving—and academics argue that it is an intelligent direction in which

      371
      to point the taxation system—they should do so in a way which enables everyone to take advantage of the provisions and not simply gear them towards venture capital trusts and other investment schemes which are particularly beneficial to a minority of very wealthy people.
      Mr. Butterfill: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the Government are trying to encourage investors away from existing investments that are safe but are not producing the results we want and towards risky entrepreneurial activities. The investor could defer that liability just as long by leaving the money where it is. Provided that he does not realise his existing assets, he can defer liability indefinitely. He is not being offered any real advantage, other than the incentive to move his money from something safe and unproductive to something less safe but, one hopes, more productive.
      Mr. Smith: I answered that point earlier. Our fear is that the scheme will provide an opportunity to move investment from something safe and unproductive not to something high-risk and productive with tax advantages, but to something equally safe and unproductive offering a much higher rate of real return because of tax breaks. That cannot be right.
      The scheme offers huge tax breaks when the money goes in, with relief from income and capital gains tax; breaks when the money is in the trust, when dividends are not taxed; and tax relief when the money comes out, with relief on capital gains. It is no wonder that Mr. John Speirs, director of BES Investments and a leading adviser on business expansion schemes, stated in The Sunday Times on 4 December 1994:
      "I cannot see why anyone should pay capital gains tax again…If we had written it ourselves we could not have come up with a better Budget for the tax shelter industry."
      He did not say "a better Budget for high-risk, productive small companies."
      That damning indictment of the Government's scheme is anything but an isolated comment. The savings and investment press is full of more of the same. On Second Reading, I quoted from the excellent publication, Small Company Investor. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will say whether he has yet adopted my advice and taken out a Treasury subscription to that magazine, which gave a commendably informative guide to the real consequences of the Government's proposals. It published a feature headlined:
      "Life is just a bowl of tax cherries. Will you need to pay capital gains tax again? Maybe not."
      Another article in the same issue asks:
      "What has our Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, been doing to turn our smaller company investment dreams into a reality? How could he get his budget so right—"
      the Committee can tell that I am not quoting selectively—
      "and yet so horribly wrong? No, not the VAT on fuel blunder, but the tax relief for smaller company investment. He did what was needed to pump up investment by making the reliefs huge—and then he took some of it away by dragging in property. Isn't that just what happened with BES? Our bet is that there will be an avalanche of lower-risk, property-backed schemes taking money away from entrepreneurial small companies."
      372
      That is precisely the opposite effect that the Government claim. It added:
      "Think again Chancellor."
      Such comments are not confined to the savings and investment press. A number of academics have reached similar conclusions. A report produced by the SME centre at Warwick university and published by the Government entitled "An Assessment of Firms Located On and Off Science Parks in the United Kingdom" stated:
      "Other options which have been suggested for overcoming the financing problems which developing high technology businesses claim to experience include:
      The establishment of venture capital funds which would focus exclusively on the high tech sectors. Such funds, however, have been established in the past without achieving significant success."
      It continues:
      "Additional tax support for business angels. The introduction of the Enterprise Investment Scheme could be seen as a satisfactory development in this light. However, other research casts doubt upon the use of taxation incentives in inducing desirable changes in this area."
      In a study sponsored, I understand, by the Department of Trade and Industry and others and entitled "Understanding the Small Business Sector", the author, D.J. Storey, an acknowledged expert on these matters, said:
      "The research evidence suggests that government has to look very carefully at proposals to use the taxation system to provide `incentives' to modify the behaviour of individuals who own small businesses. Currently, it is unanimously recognised that small business owners have to invest more heavily in their own businesses rather, than being excluded from doing so, as was the case with the BES. For example, research evidence consistently shows that individuals who do not reinvest sufficiently in their own businesses run a much higher risk of business failure. However, the history of BES is one of desirable objectives of small firm policy being the focus of taxation exemption, for these only to be used as tax avoidance vehicles. Our recommendation would therefore be to avoid, wherever possible, the use of the taxation system to provide incentives in this area. Instead we feel that government would be best advised to use its powers of persuasion, possibly through collaboration with banks and accountants, to emphasise the investment message. The message that excessive withdrawals from the business are likely to lead to its failure has to be drilled home to small business owners, rather than emphasis being on the provision of tax breaks for the wealthy."
      That gives a wider perspective of the context in which VCTs are being introduced and their likely effect on the small business sector. Unlike the Government, Labour believes that such comments should be taken seriously, and that a measured and careful approach must be taken to fiscal incentives of these types, although we acknowledge, as I have said, that a role can be argued for them.
      Faced with the weight of comment and the quotations and analyses that I have cited, we believe that the Government must give some answers, rather than—as always—arrogantly expecting the public to accept that Ministers know best, especially when they patently did not know best about the business expansion scheme and other schemes which they subsequently had to return to the House to change.
      It was revealing that, when the Financial Secretary replied to the debate on Second Reading on Tuesday last week he had no answer to the charge that the form of VCTs that the Government are proposing will be used disproportionately for tax avoidance and tax sheltering. I expect that when the Financial Secretary replies he will

      373
      claim that the clause takes care of tax avoidance dangers. I am arguing that it does nothing of the sort. I accept that the clause excludes dealing in land, goods, banking and other financial services, some leasing business and legal and accountancy services, but most crucially of all it does not exclude, as I understand it, property-backed schemes. Similarly, it does not exclude elderly people's accommodation.
      There is ready scope for abuse of the scheme for tax avoidance purposes, which will not provide investment in the high-risk productive businesses and manufacturing businesses that the Government claim for it. That is why we tabled amendment No. 16, which would have put limits on the way that property could be used to back companies qualifying for VCT relief. A Liberal Democrat amendment which would have the same effect has been selected for debate today. It seeks to stop schemes mainly backed by property from benefiting from the extensive tax reliefs of venture capital trusts. Both amendments—the Labour amendment which was not selected and the Liberal Democrat one which was selected—introduce into VCTs the same property restrictions that the Government felt that they had to introduce into the business expansion scheme and the enterprise investment scheme.
      Given all that happened, particularly with the business expansion scheme, it is ironic that the Government propose to remove the safeguards from the BES and EIS in the Bill and not to introduce them into VCTs. What possible argument can there be for not ensuring the safeguards that the Government had accepted? Could it be anything to do with the fact that the property restriction is so unpopular with the BES and EIS tax planning industry? It is difficult to find any other reason why those safeguards should not apply.
      Opposition Members believe in learning from experience and acting with a knowledge of the way in which markets have behaved, rather than planning simply on the basis of the way in which we might like to suppose that they would behave. If two investments have the same or similar return, investors will naturally tend to invest in the lower risk option. Their advisers will advise them to do just that. Experience shows that the tax planning industry can demonstrate great ingenuity in trying to create relatively low risk investments, often backed by property. We believe that the Government could and should create better mechanisms for ensuring that tax relief ends up supporting the financing of enterprises which generate the greatest value for the UK economy and which most need extra investment capital.
      4.15 pm
      As drafted, the schemes would also lead to a very complex structure which could produce some rather bizarre results. For instance, if someone bought a narrow boat and operated it as a holiday business, he or she could qualify for VCT tax benefits, but if they leased the boat to another person, who also operated it as a holiday business, that person would not qualify for the VCT benefits. If that person operated the boat as a holiday business for part of the year and leased it to someone who operated it as a holiday business for the remainder of the year, that person would probably end up in the High Court to determine whether or not he or she qualified for VCT tax benefits.
      374
      We should think about those things while the proposed legislation is before the Committee so as to avoid the complexity and the never-ending growth in the volume of tax legislation. [Laughter.] The Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary laugh, but they are responsible for the volume of tax legislation. Nothing is more onerous to the small businesses that they claim to be helping than the huge volume of legislation and red tape for which the Government have been responsible.
      I have a suggestion as to how the scheme can be changed and improved. The Labour party believes in listening to the real arguments and considering the real nature of the market with which we are dealing. It would be well worth the Government looking at the 50 per cent. rule, which requires that a VCT must hold 50 per cent. of its qualifying assets in the ordinary shares of unquoted companies.
      Let us not forget that that requires small companies to give up a good part of control and equity to raise the funds they need. That is something that small businesses view with a great deal of apprehension. The fact that it is required reflects something of an obsession with equity in this country which contrasts with the tendency to fund through debt which is more prevalent among our successful European competitors and in the far east. There is a strong case for relaxing the 50 per cent. requirement so as to allow companies preferring to issue, for example, fixed rate securities, to benefit from the VCT advantages.
      Mr. Butterfill: When the hon. Gentleman refers to ordinary shares, does he mean only ordinary shares or would he include preferred shares? He will know that the structure of many of the schemes is that the lending institution will take the preferred shares, leaving the ordinary shares with the entrepreneurial management. That structure enables them to give a larger proportion of the ordinary shares to the management, thereby giving a greater incentive to management than would otherwise be the case.
      Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman draws attention to an important distinction. It is a useful point, but I was making the case for shifting from the 50 per cent. requirement of equity, of holdings in shares of whatever form, to the case for enabling the company requiring the capital to take it in the form of fixed interest securities, which would not involve that surrender of control. It was the importance of control from the perspective of the firm receiving the savings and making the productive investment that was of concern to me.
      Mr. Tim Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that tax relief under the scheme should be extended from equity investment to fixed interest investment? Is that what he is saying? Surely that runs counter to what he was saying just now about risk. There is far less risk in investing in fixed interest debt, which takes priority over equity in a liquidation. Surely he is not suggesting that the risk should be reduced in that way.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: I am saying that a comprehensive look at the scheme would lead to a number of the parameters which are operating being varied. The 50 per cent. requirement on shares is one of them. The case for reducing the tax breaks also bears examination. Rather than the definition that the Government are using, which is essentially that the scheme can be applied to anything

      375
      within certain broad terms and not on a list of exclusions, why not be more positive and say that the scheme will apply in the case of X, Y or Z or to those firms which satisfy the relevant criteria?
      By taking a number of elements of reform to the package one could put together a form of venture capital trust which would more successfully achieve the Government's stated aim of ensuring that available savings went to the high risk companies which are investing particularly in manufacturing or undertaking research and development. The scheme as designed by the Government will not achieve those objectives.
      Talking about venture capital trusts, the Financial Secretary said on Second Reading:
      "The Labour party is ill advised to come out against them at this early stage."—[Official Report, 17 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 673.]
      That seemed to imply that somehow we would be better advised to come out against them later when the hard earned money of middle and lower income taxpayers had been wasted in subsidies for tax avoidance by those with enough money to extract the maximum benefit from the trusts. The amendment gives us and the Government the chance to do just that.
      If the Government will not look again at the schemes now, they should look again at them in two years as we suggest. They should look at them early in 1997, which may be just the time when the electorate is taking another—and final—look at the Government. If the Financial Secretary is so confident of his arguments, so confident of the public, economic and industrial benefits of the trusts as defined in the clause, he should have nothing to fear from such a mandatory review and should find it easy to accept the amendment. If he does not, we shall not only vote to try to make him do so and support the Liberal Democrat amendment to exclude property-backed schemes, a proposal that we also tabled, but we shall vote against this ill-judged vehicle for tax avoidance by voting against clause 64 in the Division Lobby.
      Sir George Young: I hope that the Committee can be persuaded to resist the amendments.
      The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) began by saying that he supported the principles of venture capital trusts, but by the end of his speech he had so qualified his support that little remained intact. At one point he challenged the whole philosophy of using the fiscal regime and tax incentives to create fresh investment in new businesses. He focused almost exclusively on the relationship between the potential investor and the venture capital trust; he did not spend quite so much time examining the potential impact on supply-side change, job creation and investment in new and expanding businesses.
      The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I had read a particular publication. I am not conscious of having done so. I recall that the last time the hon. Gentleman read out a list of publications held by the Treasury, he came across
      376
      one called "Baking Technology". That was a misprint: it should have been "Banking Technology". However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's surprise.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: That does not stop the Treasury from cooking the books.
      Sir George Young: My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) made a pertinent and perceptive point. Having criticised VCTs for being too safe for the tax breaks, he floated a suggestion that would have made them even safer by allowing more of the money to be invested in fixed-interest securities.
      Let me try to put the debate in a slightly broader context. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor introduced the idea of VCTs in his 1993 Budget, he said that the biggest contribution that any Chancellor could make to reducing unemployment in the medium term was to ensure that the conditions were in place for new businesses to become established and for small businesses to grow. In the past year, through the industrial finance initiative, we have been examining savings and the flow of funds through the economy into the business sector. That initiative identified the shortage of equity and other long-term finance as one of the problems facing small businesses today.
      The CBI has conducted its own surveys in the past few years. Those surveys have shown that there are difficulties in the raising of funds, particularly in the range of up to £500,000. Dr. Steven Abbott, in association with the London business school, has shown that the United Kingdom economy has the capacity to produce 20,000 potential "star" start-ups, but only half that number are created, and nearly half of those rely on "funding gap" finance, mainly short-term overdrafts and loans. The VCT scheme is one of the Government's responses to a problem that has been generally recognised by serious commentators.
      Mr. George Stevenson: I do not think that anyone would deny that there is a shortage of capital, particularly in small and medium-sized businesses. When suggesting ways of dealing with that shortage, however, will the Financial Secretary bear in mind the failure of the business expansion and enterprise investment schemes, which use tax breaks for that very purpose?
      Sir George Young: This scheme is more like an investment trust—it is quoted and pooled—than the business expansion scheme.
      Having carried the hon. Member for Oxford, East with me so far, I hope that I can persuade him to stay with me for another paragraph or two. With respect to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson), the VCT scheme is not a tax scam for the wealthy, as he likes to portray it. He misunderstands the contribution that it can make to supply-side reform, the expansion of successful firms and the creation of jobs. Fiscal incentives may be needed if we are to capture those benefits. That is why I said, and I repeat it now, that the Labour party was ill advised to come out so firmly against VCTs as proposed by the Government.
      There has been an encouraging response to our proposals. Already, many people say that they are seriously considering setting up venture capital trusts, and

      377
      as far as I am aware none are focusing on nursing homes, granny farms or any of the other schemes mentioned by Opposition Members.
      The main details of the scheme have been widely publicised. Investors who buy quoted shares in a venture capital trust will be able to invest in a spread of unquoted companies. That shows that it is very different from the business enterprise scheme which, by and large, was not quoted and consisted of single product schemes. Investors will be exempt from tax on dividends from the venture capital trust and from capital gains tax when they dispose of shares in the venture capital trust.
      4.30 pm
      If investors subscribe for new ordinary shares in the VCT, they will in addition be entitled to income tax relief at 20 per cent. provided that the shares are held for at least five years. They will also be able to defer capital gains tax on a chargeable gain which arises from the disposal of any assets where that gain is reinvested in the venture capital trust by that same subscription. There is a limit for tax relief on subscriptions of £100,000 a year.
      Venture capital trusts must be quoted on the stock exchange and will enjoy the same exemption from corporation tax on capital gains as investment trusts. At least 70 per cent. of the investments of venture capital trusts will have to be in unquoted trading companies with not more than 15 per cent. in any one company or group of companies. Venture capital trusts may count investments of up to £1 million in any one unquoted trading company in any one year towards the 70 per cent. unquoted trading company requirement, provided that the gross assets of each company do not exceed £10 million before each investment. I am afraid that that knocks out doing the Treasury building under the ingenious scheme that the hon. Member for Oxford, East floated at the beginning of his speech. He will find that the sums involved are substantially in excess of £10 million.
      Each venture capital trust may put up to £1 million a year in each company. The trust would be well advised to keep its eyes on rather more than 70 per cent. because it must not fall below that percentage. To put it another way, the legislation gives the VCT a 30 per cent. leeway for when it buys and sells investments.
      The VCT may invest in most types of unquoted trading company but as the hon. Member for Oxford, East said, certain activities are specifically excluded. They are: dealing in land, commodities and other financial products; dealing in goods otherwise than in wholesale or retail distribution; banking; insurance; money lending; hire purchase financing, and so on; the leasing of assets or receiving royalties or licence fees; and providing legal or accountancy services.
      That considerably reduces the scope for the venture capital trust scheme to be used for low-risk investment. Unlike the business enterprise scheme, it does not apply to investment in private rented housing companies. The VCT legislation follows the enterprise investment scheme legislation in providing for the Treasury by order—subject, of course, to Parliament—to amend the meaning of qualifying trades and the figures of £ 1 million and £10 million. That should give a measure of flexibility in running the scheme.
      The theme of the speech by the hon. Member for Oxford, East was that the scheme would become a major tax break for the few. The Chancellor anticipated such
      378
      reactions in his Budget speech. Tax reliefs of this kind are designed to stimulate much-needed investment in business and enterprise and to create jobs rather than new tax loopholes. As I said on Second Reading, some firms have a high growth potential because they are able to benefit from innovations, but they are sometimes unable to get access to normal sources of finance through the stock market or the banks. That is because they have special characteristics which the financial system is unwilling or unable to accommodate, hence the funding gap which the industrial finance initiative has identified.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: What evidence is there that the tax treatment of investment in those companies is the problem?
      Sir George Young: The problem is the shortage of risk capital, of investors being unwilling to provide capital for such firms without some sort of fiscal incentive. Many serious commentators who have looked at that structural problem in the UK economy have been drawn to that conclusion.
      Mrs. Helen Liddell: Does the Minister accept that there is a considerable problem in the venture capital industry, particularly in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises? There is a funding gap, and one of the reasons for that, the venture capitalists tell us, is that it costs as much to service a loan for a major management buy-out or for a major privatisation as it does to service one for a small or medium firm. Nothing in the Bill gives any hint that that gap will be filled in any way.
      Sir George Young: The whole purpose of the clause is to reduce the cost of risk equity capital for small businesses. We are making it easier for those businesses to access the capital that they need. That is the thrust of the measures before the Committee this afternoon.
      The proposals in the Bill are the result of the painstaking consultation that has taken place in the past year. It is a balanced package and it has been warmly welcomed. The Association of Investment Trust Companies has said that the scheme has a good chance of success in encouraging equity investment in small, unquoted companies. Rothschilds has said that the measures will nurture business in the United Kingdom food sector. Others have said that the trusts are imaginative and bold, and that the measures will bring investment in private companies within the reach of more investors. The challenge now is to secure that potential.
      Mr. Clive Betts: The Financial Secretary has used one or two extracts from the comments of various commentators, who seem to commend the scheme because of its tax benefits. Given the calculations that are being done on the tax relief that is likely to arise from these measures, perhaps the Financial Secretary could say what sort of people on what sort of incomes will benefit from that tax relief. Will he give clear Treasury estimates of what sort of schemes will benefit, how much more investment will go into small manufacturing firms rather than into property schemes, and how many jobs will be created? Have those estimates been done or are we living in a vacuum?
      Sir George Young: If the hon. Gentleman reads the publication that we put out on Budget day, he will find the best estimate that we can make of the take-up of the scheme. We have worked out roughly what the forgone

      379
      tax relief will be. As I said, we have excluded a number of activities that we do not think are appropriate. At this stage, a number of merchant banks and investment trusts are putting together potential venture capital trusts. The information that I have read contains no evidence that they are going into the sort of low-risk, property-backed investments that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
      I have noticed the investment mentioned by Rothschilds, which is interested in helping small firms in the food manufacturing and food processing business, which needs to access high technology and where a problem exists in raising capital. I hope that no one in the Committee will criticise firms benefiting from this sort of scheme.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: The Financial Secretary has mentioned Rothschilds twice. In what form were Rothschilds' comments made to the Government? Did it make them as an adviser or as a consultant on the matter?
      Sir George Young: Speaking from memory, Rothschilds put out a press release welcoming the scheme on Budget day and it was available for everyone to read.
      Mr. Smith: Is that all?
      Sir George Young: As far as I am concerned, that is all.
      One of the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Oxford, East would restrict the take-up to schemes that were taken up before, I think, April 1997. Because the Government are keen to ensure that good-quality investment arises from the venture capital trusts scheme, I do not think that that is a sensible way to proceed. Everyone agrees that it takes time to look this out and to encourage it. VCTs will often want to research the sort of investment that they wish to make before they get off the ground. Putting a time limit on the scheme, especially one as short as two years, will tend to hurry that process, which will not always have good results.
      The second reason for objecting to the amendments is that they may have a perverse effect. More VCTs may seek approval in the first two years than would otherwise be the case, simply to meet the deadline. The purpose of the amendments may have been to save the Exchequer money, but they would not necessarily achieve that, and we could be left with a large number of potential VCTs lying dormant, without raising any new capital for the economy.
      As with all enterprise investment scheme rules that the Government now believe it is reasonable to relax, the land rule was inherited from the business expansion scheme. It was introduced to prevent companies that held more than half their assets in land and buildings from using the scheme. The rule, however, became onerous to operate because it required regular valuation of assets. Even more worrying, it could prevent a trading company—for example, a manufacturing company—that owned its own premises from using the scheme. It surely is not right to preclude a company from using the VCT scheme merely because it owns its own premises. That would be a ludicrous proposition and that is why we are not supporting that exclusion.
      380
      The proposal is a serious response to a serious problem. Nothing I have heard so far in the debate has convinced me that the premise on which it is founded is otherwise than correct. Real potential exists in taking the concept forward. A real opportunity exists to open up lower-cost risk capital for small and promising new businesses. I very much hope that the Committee will reject the amendments and give the clause a Second Reading.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I wish to speak to amendment No. 11. I hope that, in spite of his opening remarks, the Minister will consider the amendment because it recycles the Government's own argument, and with legitimate force. He has not convinced me that circumstances have changed so dramatically that serious consideration of the amendment is not required. However, let me first put the debate and the amendment in context.
      It is generally recognised that there needs to be a fundamental shift—perhaps even a cultural shift—in the way in which we finance small businesses and in the availability of finance to small businesses. To the extent that the Government's proposals for venture capital trusts are a contribution to that, I and my colleagues welcome them and, in principle, support them. The amendment is specifically a qualification; it in no way constitutes opposition to them. They could be useful and helpful although I stress that they are not the whole answer but a contribution towards the resolution, or at least a reduction, of the problem.
      One problem is that of developing new incentives for business investment by means of tax breaks. Surely after 15 years in power, the Conservatives are able to recognise that tax breaks have their uses but, by definition, create the potential for abuses. One person's tax incentive is someone else's tax avoidance scheme. That is not a contentious statement; indeed, it is accepted as part of the business of tax avoidance. However, the right balance must be struck so that we do not create a system that is geared more to tax avoidance than to the creation of investment for small businesses.
      Mr. Forman: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Standing Committee that debated last year's Finance Bill. Had he been a member, he would have had the opportunity to take part in an important debate on the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Will he place on record the fact that tax avoidance is a legitimate activity, whereas tax evasion is not?
      Mr. Bruce: I have no problem with that proposition, but the fact that something is legal does not mean that it is efficient; nor does it mean that it is in the Exchequer's interest or that it will create the benefits that the tax breaks were created to achieve.
      So that there is no doubt, I repeat that basically we welcome the proposals on venture capital trusts. I hope that they will succeed in helping more money to get to the small businesses that need it. I see no conflict of interest, but I am concerned to ensure that we get the balance right.
      Before I examine that particular part of the amendment, it is worth asking the House to make a simple comparison between small business finance and the success of small businesses in the United Kingdom and those in, for example, the Republic of Germany. There are some fundamental differences that will not carry over, but there

      381
      is a growing recognition—perhaps because of the difficulties in the property market that we have experienced in recent years—that it is a matter of culture that we tend to regard investment in property as a higher priority than investment in business. That is one difference between the cultural attitude of the average Briton and that of the average German.
      Before he buys a house or invests in property, the average German will choose to invest in a family business in which he can have a stake, either directly, if it is his family's business, or indirectly, if it is someone else's business, through which he can contribute to the wealth-creating process, the economy and, of course, his own prosperity. We have to find a way to make that cultural shift in this country.
      Perhaps the one silver lining that might yet emerge from the otherwise disappointing state of the property market is that circumstances are forcing us to reassess whether it is right for us as individuals—let alone business people—to put so much of our savings into property rather than business. To the extent that the climate is changing, I accept that the scheme may make a contribution.
      Mr. Butterfill: It has been said from the Opposition Benches that property is a low-risk investment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that view would not be accepted by many of the people who now have negative equity on their homes? Experience over the past few years shows that property is a very high-risk investment. Nor would that view be accepted by the many property companies that have gone bust or have had to be rescued by all sorts of schemes. The state of the property market in the past few years has shown that there are just as many risks in property as there are in any other business. Under those circumstances, does the hon. Gentleman think that the scheme is likely to be abused?
      Mr. Bruce: I accept the first half of the analysis. That is a fairly widespread, obvious observation of what has happened. I shall return to the hon. Gentleman's particular point when I address the detail of the amendment, because he made a fair comment, but first I shall finish the broader argument about schemes for encouraging investment in small businesses.
      4.45 pm
      Having looked a little more closely at other aspects of small business finance in the United Kingdom and in other countries, I saw that there was clearly a role for the banks in general. It is interesting that the Minister, quite without question, acknowledged that there is a venture capital gap. Most hon. Members who take part in debates on small businesses probably agree with that, but it is not always true that central bankers and joint stock bankers in this country agree. I have often heard the argument that there is absolutely no shortage of money, but there is a shortage of suitable enterprises. That, of course, is a matter of judgment and depends on what a banker decides is a good investment.
      The banks have poured money into dubious ventures in South America, which they have had to write off, while denying many potential enterprises in this country the funding that they wanted. There is no doubt at all that too much business is also funded on short-term overdraft
      382
      rather than on longer-term loan and equity. The structure is not always satisfactory, which makes businesses vulnerable.
      The Government could explore a partnership between themselves and the banks to try to find ways in which small businesses could have access to finance through the banking system comparable with that available to larger companies. In my own experience of running a small business—I am told that it has not changed all that much over the years—I went along to my bank with a proposition, a business plan and an indication of my cash flow and my requirements, and the bank more or less said that it did not want to see my business plan. I was told that, depending on my equity, if I owned my own house and if I was prepared to put it on the line, I would be given the money. That was not the help that I needed. It was not the right attitude. It meant that I had to take a considerable risk.
      However, what really irked me was that even though the bank was getting its security, I was told that, of course, as an untried small business, I had to pay cash in advance when ordering basic working capital equipment to run the business, as I could not get credit. I paid a premium rate of interest on the money that I had to borrow from the bank because I did not have a proven track record—despite the fact that the bank had total security over my home. It seemed double jeopardy for me and double security for the bank. Time and again, small business people say to me that they have to pay more interest to finance their wage bills than their customers, who do not pay them and who make them wait for payment. They say that they are being squeezed at both ends.
      You may call me to order, Mr. Morris, but the point is relevant. The scheme is helpful, but it does not deal with the problem that I outlined. I hope that the Minister will recognise that we need to look more widely at ways in which to change the culture. However, I accept that the scheme contributes to that change.
      I shall refer to the specifics of amendment No. 11 and the restrictions in it, and also address the point made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). It is true that the property market has been somewhat depressed, although it is variable. Indeed, in certain sectors of commercial properties, there are signs of an upturn. However, it is acknowledged—the Government clearly had to amend the business expansion scheme to take account of the fact—that property-based schemes, essentially, have been used as an abuse of the previous schemes. People were not investing in productive enterprise but were simply building up property portfolios—that is the cultural point that I am making.
      The Government introduced the restriction, and I am sure that the Minister is aware that the wording of my amendment is taken entirely from their own legislation on business expansion schemes. I do not think that the Government have made their case; although in the short term the climate may not be encouraging, the property market problem could lead to abuse in the future, and that could turn a good scheme into something that to some extent falls into disrepute.
      I respond to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West by saying that all that is required for there to be a potential abuse is an upturn in one sector of the property market, taking it significantly ahead of inflation—I hope that he is optimistic enough to see that that may happen in some places.

      383
      Far be it from me to give tips to those who plan such things in the City, but I represent an area that has not suffered the collapse in property prices that has happened elsewhere—we have experienced quite the reverse—and I can see that someone could easily be interested in offering a property-based portfolio in Aberdeen and the rest of north-east Scotland, where over the past few years there have been rent revaluations adding 200 and 300 per cent., and increases in both domestic and industrial property prices well ahead of inflation. People may say that we have also had a downturn, but it did not happen at the same time as the national downturn.
      Circumstances can change. I do not wish to disparage the idea that people can invest in property, or to suggest that property is not a legitimate business. However, simply investing in the capital appreciation of bricks and mortar does not fundamentally add to the national wealth. I repeat my earlier analysis that that is part of the problem of the British culture—[Interruption.] If I buy a piece of property and it appreciates, nothing has been done to create new material resources, whereas if I buy a business making or selling things or providing services, something definite has been done to create national assets. Furthermore, as we have experienced over the past few years, what goes up can come down with one hell of a crash, especially if it was based on paper revaluations.
      Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how, if his amendment were accepted, he would overcome the problem of a manufacturer with a substantial asset—perhaps his own factory—that would take him above the limit? By what methods would the hon. Gentleman cater for that?
      Secondly, how would the hon. Gentleman deal with the problem of the variations in valuations that appear from time to time, both because different valuers are used and because of rapid changes in the property market? Surely we now know that that market is far more volatile than we used to think. At the time of the BES abuses, we all thought that property values would go up for ever, but I do not think that many of us believe that any more.
      Mr. Bruce: That is a fair point, but although the Government are relaxing the provisions now, they administered the scheme on their own terms in the past. The argument about valuations is important and valid, but the question is administrative and can be resolved. There could be a periodic revaluation by the normal methods—either by using the district valuer or by having two competing valuations. That would be perfectly reasonable.
      The more specific arguments about valuations and about a manufacturer with a substantial property investment raise two points. First, if such a person owns a substantial amount of property, he also has the means to raise the finance himself. One therefore wonders whether he needs the attraction of venture capital trust funding. He has an asset against which he can borrow.
      Mr. Butterfill rose—
      Mr. Bruce: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman a couple of times.
      The second point is that I am somewhat sceptical about the idea that many companies are geared so that the value of the property is more than 50 per cent. of the value of their total business. In my opinion, unless it is a property-based business—in which case it should be
      384
      properly restricted—that business has got its gearing slightly wrong. However, that issue comes into play in some businesses, such as hotel businesses, and the potential restriction that the amendment proposes is relevant in those circumstances.
      In effect, the Minister has said, "We did have that restriction but, perhaps because the property market is rather quiescent and because people have complained that it is slightly complicated, we have decided to relax it." However, the commentators—not only myself and not only the Liberal Democrats—say that the Government are making a fundamental miscalculation, which they may live to regret. That is my argument.
      I think that the Government accept that the amendment is not a wrecking amendment, nor is it spiteful or irrelevant. It is pertinent, and its aim is to protect the virtue of the Government's scheme, to ensure that the scheme does not fall into disrepute because it becomes open to abuse of development simply as a tax shelter rather than what it is designed to be—a real contribution to opening up investment for small businesses.
      Maurice Fitzpatrick, senior tax consultant of Chantey Vellacott, commented:
      "EIS share issues are potentially subject to the same kind of marketing abuse which existed for BES in the 1980s."
      He said that investors would now be
      "bombarded with schemes, only a proportion of which made sense".
      He said that effectively they would be
      "squandering their tax relief on manager or proprietor expenses".
      The Government should be mindful of those worries.
      Mr. Tim Smith: That was referring to the enterprise investment scheme, not venture capital trusts.
      Mr. Bruce: I appreciate that, but the same problem will continue if the Government are so relaxed about it. We ask the Government not to spoil a good idea by being too relaxed about it and allowing it to become a marketing tool for tax shelters, rather than a genuine contribution to small business investment because, if that happens, the Government will need to modify it substantially later.
      It is possible to spoil a good idea by being too lax about it. After all, the Government have said that they are anxious to maintain tight control of public expenditure and public finances.
      If, as a result of miscalculation, the budget is exceeded because the take-up is greater than expected, because the opportunities are much greater, simply for tax shelter purposes, or if money is diverted away from genuinely productive investment, the danger is that people will say that the scheme is bad and did not deliver the goods, and we shall have to go back to the drawing board.
      I repeat that I believe that the Government have the basis of a good scheme. We propose an amendment that will ensure that it continues to concentrate on the objectives that the Government have in mind, which we support and endorse.
      I think that there is even uncertainty about the scheme on the Government Benches. The Government should take seriously the argument about tax loopholes. They have, understandably, poured scepticism on the argument of, for example, the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, that substantial amounts of money can be reclaimed by closing loopholes. They have retorted, also with some justification, that closing tax loopholes effectively places extra taxes on business.

      385
      However, the Government must recognise that, if they create a potential abuse that costs a significant amount, they give credence to the argument that there is more opportunity to close loopholes. In those circumstances, it is astonishing that, having recognised that they got it wrong with their previous schemes, the Government appear to be knocking that lesson aside casually and, as some commentators are saying, they are in danger of making a potentially costly mistake.
      What alternatives exist? The Red Book calculates that the scheme will cost £150 million in 1995–96, which presumably is in lost tax revenue. That figure will be up to £290 million in 1996–97. Those are only estimates, because the figures are based on the presumed take-off. If our concerns are justified and the property market goes into some sort of unexpected pre-election or even post-election upturn—that seems unlikely at present—we are concerned that the figures could soar out of control.
      The Government have a strategy to keep public finances under control. They want to cut taxes, but should they suddenly find that their figures are out by a factor of one or two, questions will inevitably be asked about how they managed to let rip the economy and how they lost control over it. The Government have not imposed cash limits or restrictions, other than the approvals that might provide some sort of control.
      5 pm
      The Government could find a substantial amount of money being used in that way. If that money was being used to achieve the cultural shift that I mentioned and for genuinely wealth-creating small business investment, I would say that it was well forfeited by the Exchequer. But if it was simply being used for schemes based on an upturn in the property market rather than for real wealth creation—schemes that were being promoted as tax shelters and havens—I would not regard that as good use of the money. The Government would be rightly criticised for failing to get a grip on public finance.
      We are proposing a constructive and helpful amendment that is entirely in accord with the Government's realisation of what happened under their previous schemes. While I acknowledge that the Minister contends that the proposals are fundamentally different from previous ones, it is clear that they are not—not just to me, but to those who make a living in the City out of such packages. They believe that the Government may have made a mistake. The Government may find that the policy will be abused and the finances will go out of control. They may have to forfeit more tax revenue than they intended for less productive gain.
      In those circumstances, I genuinely and sincerely commend the amendment to the House. It is constructive and designed not to undermine the positive and beneficial effect of the Government's proposals, but to ensure that they are targeted where they will be most beneficial—productive investment.
      Mr. John Horam: The clause, and the amendments and schedule associated with it, involve the subject of the financing of small businesses, and all our speeches today will concentrate on that. We should remind ourselves of the importance in the economy of small businesses. There are about 5 million businesses in this country at present, 97 per cent. of which have fewer than 20 employees and 90 per cent. of which have fewer than 10 employees. None of us are in any doubt as to the
      386
      significance to the economy of small businesses, which are growing in importance, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) acknowledged.
      The down-sizing of large businesses, the stripping out of layers of management in a relatively ruthless fashion and the out-sourcing of all sorts of competencies that have traditionally been done inside large companies provide opportunities for small businesses and starting up small businesses. I am delighted that my hon. Friends, not only in the Treasury, but at the Department of Trade and Industry, have come up with a large number of schemes.
      I do not think that the Opposition have questioned the size of the Government's effort, although they may have criticised the direction. I understand that in the Budget alone, the schemes combined add up to about £1.7 billion over the next three years—a substantial sum. That takes into account, not only the VAT thresholds, but the transitional relief for business rates and the venture capital trust scheme.
      I have one concern. The measures fail in one crucial sector: start-ups. A surprisingly small number of the schemes we are discussing help people to start businesses as opposed to helping them to expand them. The balance between providing help to start a business and providing help to expand a business is wrong. More help is needed at that crucial stage.
      In my experience of talking to venture capitalists I have found that they are not concerned to consider schemes that require less than £2 million—
      Mr. Forman: Half a million.
      Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend says that the figure is £500,000. But even if the minimum level of interest is £500,000, the same is still true. Venture capitalists say that it is simply not worth their while to put all their effort into such schemes, when the figures involved are often £50,000, £100,000, £150,000 or maybe £200,000 at maximum.
      In The Times I read of a dentist who had created a new portable dentist's drill to carry out dentistry at home—God forbid that we should have dentistry at home as well as in the dentist's chair. He was searching for finance and was quoted in The Times as saying:
      "The attitude in Britain was all wrong. It seemed as if we had to prove we were not defrauding anybody before we could start. Abroad we were welcomed with open arms."
      That dentist has taken his business to Austria, where he is receiving £200,000 from the Austrian Government towards research and development prior to launching his new product. We have missed the opportunity—perhaps to our regret.
      Although the measures are welcome—I fully concede that they are substantial—they do not tackle that problem. Many of the other schemes that are part of the Treasury's armoury—for example, the loan guarantee scheme—are also not helping. The hon. Member for Gordon mentioned banks and the role of banks within small companies. His comments about how banks approach the issue were correct. But the approach taken by the banks does not help start-ups, and banks are becoming less and less concerned with start-ups.
      The welcome new schemes in the Budget do not provide a great deal of help for start-up businesses. In addition, the money that has previously been available for start-ups is not as great as it once was. I learnt with

      387
      consternation that one of the training and enterprise councils has recently had to cut out entirely all the money previously available for supporting enterprise. As a result of the new arrangements brought together in the single regeneration budget of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, all the money is now being spent on training. As a result of the new framework, one TEC will have no money next year to support enterprise schemes.
      We need patient money—money that is willing to wait for a return for perhaps four, five or six years. Obviously, it is hoped that the return will be all the greater. In its excellent little pamphlet "Agenda for Enterprise", the Federation of Small Businesses states:
      "in order to encourage enterprise we would welcome the provision of secure, stable, long-term finance, with preferential, fixed, low-interest loans for small businesses … A Government-funded `soft loan' scheme should replace the plethora of Government enterprise schemes (Enterprise Allowance Scheme, Loan Guarantee Scheme etc)".
      That is what small businesses want.
      Mr. Forman: It is precisely because my hon. Friend is right about patient money that it is foolish of the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who is not currently in his place, to suggest a fundamental review after two years. In many cases, much longer periods will be needed to form an intelligent assessment of the genuine risk capital prospects.
      Mr. Horam: I agree. I do not think that we need any reviews. The balance of the schemes is broadly correct, but in the one sector that I have mentioned, more effort needs to be made. The effort required would not involve much money. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and also to my noble Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms at the Department of Trade and Industry with specific proposals on helping start-ups. The suggestions were made to me by a company called Alpha Europe Associates, which has considerable experience of the subject.
      I suggested that a small fund with a mixture of Government and private sector money—perhaps not more than £100 million of Government money—topped up with £200 million of private sector money, managed by people with experience of starting up small businesses, would constitute the core of an effort to get quite a lot of small businesses off the ground. We are talking about only £10,000, £50,000 or £100,000; we could start a lot of small businesses with £100 million or £200 million.
      I wrote to my right hon. Friend and, as usual, I received a well-written and sympathetic reply. However, he raised three objections to my proposals: first, they would cost money; secondly, they were bureaucratic; and, thirdly, they would distort competition—very traditional arguments from the Treasury.
      First, my proposals need not cost a lot of money. We could do a great deal of good with a small amount of money. We could achieve good value for money by putting Government or private sector funds in a proper framework behind small business start ups. If we were slightly less generous with the venture capital trust proposals—which are costing £290 million—and allocated some of that money to a start-up scheme, I think
      388
      it would prove a wiser use of public funds. My proposal could cost the Treasury nothing but a redistribution of the effort that it has already made.
      Secondly, I do not think that my proposals are in the least bureaucratic. The machinery for assisting small business is already in place. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has developed the business link scheme throughout the country. That sort of machinery could be used to provide some small financial help together with the counselling and training already provided under the business link scheme. There would need to be only a small guiding core of people at the centre of Government helping the process along.
      Thirdly, any scheme—the Government have a large number—can be construed as distorting competition. Surely one more scheme would not distort competition unduly. I do not take that argument very seriously.
      Although I fully support the imaginative, large-scale and generous schemes which my hon. Friend has introduced in the Budget, I think that more attention must be paid to the problem of business start-ups. The competitive economic climate created by the Government in the last few years offers the opportunity to generate many more enterprises and reduce unemployment significantly.
      Mrs. Helen Liddell: I am delighted to be called to speak after the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) because I agree with a number of points in his speech. I wish to address my remarks to the area of business start-ups.
      As the Financial Secretary said, it is important to look at the broader context of the purpose behind establishing venture capital trusts. The aim is to provide assistance to small and medium-sized enterprises but, regretfully, I believe that the Government have missed a valuable opportunity by going down this route.
      There is a problem with the venture capital industry in this country. The hon. Member for Orpington referred to the reluctance to invest: it is difficult to raise money for projects of £2 million and less, particularly in the area of business start-ups. If the start-ups are high risk or high tech, the difficulties are even greater. The venture capital industry in this country is not adventurous; like our banks, it tends to be risk averse. If we are to promote the growth of small businesses we have to ensure easier access to finance.
      I regret that the Government are concentrating on the tax-incentive side of releasing finance under venture capital trusts. I recognise, as does the hon. Gentleman, that we need to establish a fund to assist small businesses. However, I think that the Government must give a signal to the banking community that small business has an important and growing role in our economy. If people have to access finance for small business start-ups through a maze with a carnivorous plant at every corner we will not see the kind of growing, wealth-creating economy which allows everyone to benefit from the enterprise of a few.
      The venture capital trusts as proposed by the Government are the son of the business expansion scheme. The Government have learned very little from the chaotic shambles that that scheme became when it was hijacked by those who used it to make a quick buck. We

      389
      must also consider the role of advisors. Advisors are often the ones to benefit most from Government schemes, not the businesses which receive money in the first instance.
      Many people who start up in business are faced with a plethora of difficulties. The one-stop shop concept has not percolated through the economy to the extent that the Government anticipated and people are bemused by what they are expected to do in order to set up a business.
      5.15 pm
      As the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) pointed out, new business men and women confront difficulties every time they go to the bank. At the small or medium-sized enterprise level, property provides the collateral which enables people to raise money to start a business. At present, banks are willing to lend only if people are prepared to put everything on the line—not just their house, but preferably their granny also—as security for the loan.
      The Government's venture capital trust proposals address only one side of the issue. I am particularly interested in the field of business angels. I see nothing in the Government's venture capital trust proposals that will create a meaningful environment within which they can thrive. I have seen good business angels and I have also seen very bad business angels—those who seize any opportunity to rip off people who are prepared to put their livelihoods and careers on the line in trying to establish a business.
      We must harness all available savings into the investment process in order to expand the small to medium-sized enterprise sector of the economy. The business angel comes into his or her own when he or she has a commitment to the business that is being established. A concern that I had about the business expansion scheme—notwithstanding the fact that it was hijacked—that I also have about the Government's proposals for venture capital trusts, is that they build a remoteness into the relationship between the investor and the enterprise.
      Businesses require long-term commitment. I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington's point that money is increasingly available to small and medium-sized enterprises in the short term, but at the first hint of trouble—for a start-up, it is usually about 18 months in—the money starts to dry up and people face a tremendous void which can lead to business failure and personal bankruptcy. The Government have not proposed anything to ease that situation.
      I would like to see more imaginative thinking in providing finance to small and medium-sized enterprises—not least because, as a Scot, I recognise the difficulties within the Scottish economy. Throughout the 1980s, there was a disproportionately low number of business start-ups in Scotland. I have cited the figures in the Chamber before and I hope that hon. Members will not be bored if I repeat them. They are extremely dramatic. If Scotland had kept pace in job creation terms with the level of business start-up experienced in the south-east throughout the 1980s, we would have created 195,000 extra jobs. Even if we had imported the death rate of businesses throughout the recession, we would still have been ahead by 36,000 jobs.
      There is a supplement in today's edition of The Scotsman which examines business start-ups. Every survey that has been undertaken by the newspaper and by
      390
      Scottish Enterprise has found that 70 per cent. of small businesses say that the biggest obstacle they have encountered relates to raising start-up finance and finding the funds that they require after about 18 months. Starting a business is an extremely risky venture. As the hon. Member for Orpington said, many people start up businesses because they have been made redundant from bigger enterprises. They are not used to a small business environment, and it takes them time to adjust. The proposals in the Bill represent a missed opportunity to help create the environment which would allow small and medium-sized enterprises to become established and grow.
      I am concerned about the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) about the property exclusions. There is always an attraction for money to go where the easy option is— towards property. That is what happened in various schemes in the past and it is extremely disappointing that the Government have not sought to recognise it and plug that loophole.
      Referring to amendment No.15, it is important that we get some empirical evidence of how the schemes operate. Particularly throughout the 1980s, there were numerous schemes aimed at generating finance for small and medium-sized enterprises, but we in Britain have not yet got it right. We are still getting wrong the structures that we create. Too much emphasis has been placed on providing tax incentives for those with money. Perhaps some of those on vastly inflated salaries from newly-privatised utilities will consider putting some of their money into schemes that will help create small businesses. Quite frankly, We have missed the opportunity to do something meaningful for the small business community.
      Two years is an inadequate time in which to assess the scheme. Here in the Chamber it may be an interesting debating point, but in two years a man or a woman seeking to set up in business can go from being prosperous and hopeful, with plenty of opportunities, to personal bankruptcy and the need to dig oneself out of a hole that one is in because of the inadequacies of the financial sector in Britain.
      I was interested that the Financial Secretary referred to the role of Rothschild. Perhaps he has an inside track into the thoughts of Rothschild through Lord Wakeham who joined the firm yesterday.
      He referred to the Association of Investment Trust Companies that initially welcomed the proposals from the venture capital trusts, but has since entered caveats into the operation of the trusts and wishes the Inland Revenue to take a closer look at how the trust companies can operate in the best interests of investors. I should like the Inland Revenue and the Treasury to examine them to make sure that they operate to the long-term benefit of the businesses that, hopefully, will be started.
      I share the view of the hon. Member for Orpington; there is a need to take start-ups into account. I greatly regret the fact that the proposals in the Bill represent a massively missed opportunity and I have even more regret that, after more than a decade of looking at how we can fill the equity gap for small businesses, the Government have failed to grasp the nettle and address the problems that the businesses create and, in failing to do so, limit the potential for economic growth in Britain.
      Mr. Forman: I shall try to be brief, because many of the most important points have already been made.
      It is clear from the speeches of the hon. Members for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) that there is a great deal of common ground on both sides of the Committee, at least on the principle that we want to attract more risk investment into business start-ups and small and medium-sized businesses generally which, in certain circumstances, could have a really dramatic future. One thinks of the drugs sector and some of the high-tech firms that have grown up on science parks and so on.
      Even in Britain, with all the criticisms levelled against our systems and our culture, we achieve some significant breakthroughs and that is a good thing. We need more of that, and the answers to be provided to encourage it do not consist simply of tax relief measures, although they play an important role and the idea of venture capital trusts is very helpful.
      Clearly the banks have a much more important role to play than hitherto. I agree with the hon. Member for Monklands, East that business angels—an idea very much promoted by the Government—also have an important role to play. We want a country in which they are many more high-net-worth individuals who are prepared to take risks because they are attracted by them, and not necessarily with the benefit of tax relief. That would be the best outcome.
      I am rather saddened by the way in which the Labour party—and to some extent the Liberals, too—seem still to be obsessed with a form of voodoo economics whereby, when examining any form of tax relief, they immediately look not so much at the potential benefit of the relief and the result for the supply side of the economy or the jobs, as at who is likely to put their money into it or be induced to do so, and whether it is fair.
      All money, so long as it is legally earned, is welcome as investment, whether for business start-ups, small businesses or anything else. Britain needs more investment and more risk taking. We should not be so preoccupied with where the money comes from.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman's re:mark was a little cheap. Is he suggesting that, when the Government amended the business enterprise scheme because of the abuse of property, they were also behaving in a somewhat disgraceful manner?
      Mr. Forman: Not at all. I was trying to speak in a friendly and ecumenical spirit, as the hon. Gentleman will learn if he listens on.
      The evidence that the Chancellor's idea for venture capital trusts goes back to 1993 demonstrates that the Government have been keen to learn such lessons as have been appropriate from the experience of the business expansion scheme.
      It has been said that this is not a business expansion scheme; it is a different approach, but the very fact that it is a different approach suggests that Ministers and officials have learned that there were shortcomings in the BES—that are now widely acknowledged—and they are not repeated in this approach.
      Mr. Betts: Is it not true that exactly the same comments were made by Ministers when the business expansion scheme was introduced? They said that there
      392
      were no problems, there would be no abuses and there was no need for proper monitoring. All the problems came to the fore many years later, and the Government had to take action, so it is not surprising that the Opposition should be suggesting that the scheme should be reviewed in two years to see whether abuses exist as they did with the business expansion scheme.
      Mr. Forman: One of the main concerns that emerged from the business expansion scheme was the emphasis on investment in land and stationary property which did not generate development potential or much else in the way of extra activity.
      The Opposition seem to have got their knives into property companies, but there are two issues that they have not considered. First, in answer to the hon. Member for Gordon, if someone were dealing only in the buying and selling of land, that would be excluded under the terms of the clause.
      Secondly, Opposition Members frequently complain about the need for the Government to do something to boost the construction industry and all the professions related to it. We hear them talk about all the unemployed building workers, but whether a company is engaged in the building of new capital plant or the maintenance of buildings, it is creating jobs in the economy and it will have a real and virtuous effect on the economy, even if the venture capital trusts lead to new companies being created which essentially are involved in property development. I see nothing wrong with that; it creates jobs and economic activity that is recycled into the economy.
      The Opposition seem to fail to recognise that riskier ventures—which are, by definition, the ventures that the Government are seeking to promote in the clause—can and do generate higher rewards for some investors prepared to take risks. The higher risk necessarily engenders the higher reward on those occasions when it works out. It seems perfectly proper to spend some £290 million of taxpayers' money on that very good cause.
      I am not over-enamoured of tax relief as a general principle. If we were not starting from here, I would prefer a tax system that embodied the minimum tax expenditures and reliefs, lowest possible rates and broadest possible base—but that argument is for another day. As long as we deal in the currency of tax reliefs as a way of encouraging certain forms of activity that are not sufficiently buoyant at present, the scheme represents an effective, targeted and adequately circumscribed approach.
      I am surprised that Opposition Members complain that the scheme is full of potential loopholes. It occupies four and a half pages of what is already a long Bill. If hon. Members take the trouble to read them closely, they will find all sorts of caveats and belts and braces, to ensure from the Revenue's point of view that the scheme does not lead to unintended abuse. If it does, we can all be sure that the Revenue will act promptly to close any loopholes in next year's Finance Bill.
      I say, not in anger but in sorrow, that, despite all the pretensions of the Opposition parties to be new Liberals, new Labour, new this and new that, a lot of the old thinking was evident in the speeches of Opposition Members. I wish that they would modernise as fast as the small companies being backed by the clause are modernising themselves.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Stevenson: This is another Government scheme that has tax perks at its base, and no Conservative Member has challenged that fact. There may be differences at the margin, and from previous, more fundamental schemes, but the proposal is dependent on tax relief for any chance of success. We have been that way before under this Government. However much Conservative Members protest the valid points made from this side of the House, they seem reluctant to address the fundamental issue.
      I understand that the tax relief will be backdated to April 1994, presumably because the Chancellor announced the scheme in 1993. The proposal is based on several fragile assumptions. One is that presumably dynamic and go-getting venture capital trusts will be unable to survive unless they enjoy tax relief. That is a dubious proposition. If I were involved in such a trust, I would not be filled with confidence if the Government based their proposals on that assumption.
      It is also assumed that the proposed legislation is watertight enough to give the Government some confidence that their proposals will eliminate abuse. Both assumptions raise important questions.
      We would not be having this debate were it not for the fact that the financial sector has let down small and medium-sized businesses—if banks and financial institutions had not been racked with such chronic short-termism that they failed that sector. That factor has not been acknowledged in any speeches by Conservative Members.
      Mr. Tim Smith: Ludicrous.
      Mr. Stevenson: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to challenge my remark, I am willing to give way.
      Mr. Smith: I thought that the one point on which there was a consensus in the Committee is that the equity gap in the UK was first recognised by the Bolton committee more than 30 years ago, and that we are trying to find a solution.
      Mr. Stevenson: I am not sure that I am grateful for that intervention. I was making precisely the point that one must question the elements that created that equity gap. I argue strongly that the financial sector has played an important role in creating the investment gap from which small and medium-sized businesses in particular are suffering. Therefore, the Government's faith in the financial sector is touching.
      Conservative Members said that the cost of the proposal will be £290 million. I accept that my arithmetic may be wrong, but from the Government's own publications it appears that the cost to the Exchequer over a three-year period is likely to be £680 million—and that figure should be on the record. It is dependent on venture capital trusts achieving their objectives over three years. They may or may not do so, and that will have a considerable effect on the cost to the Treasury. The figure will be high at the start, and may prove incorrect. The estimate is probably on the low side, because it ignores tax perks on capital gains and dividends.
      Despite propaganda about the way that the financial sector has created investment, the scheme has the hallmarks of another expensive and . unfounded experiment. My hon. Friends referred to reports that cast
      394
      serious doubt on the value of tax breaks, including that produced by Warwick university and quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). Such reports cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. They were produced after careful research and consideration, and reached the conclusion that tax relief-based schemes do not deliver the goods.
      Mr. Tim Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that financial institutions have failed to fill the equity gap, and that he does not like tax relief as a way of dealing with the problem? How does he think the problem should be tackled, if not through the tax system?
      Mr. Stevenson: I cannot remember saying that tax relief cannot be used in a positive way. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening carefully. I repeat that there is no real evidence to suggest that tax relief-based schemes have worked or will work. It does not matter how much Conservative Members try to manoeuvre or manipulate the argument, because there is evidence to justify our concerns.
      When I intervened on the Financial Secretary earlier, I compared venture capital trusts with the business enterprise and enterprise investment schemes. He rightly said that one problem with the BES was that it was not spread widely enough, and that the Government are trying to avoid concentration in the new scheme. That may be true, but schemes based on tax relief do not deliver the goods.
      The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) presented a different scenario, but I am sure that he is aware, as we are, that his proposals would be anathema to the Government.
      Expensive schemes are being put forward with no empirical evidence to justify them. The Government, with their head down, are sailing as if in the Mary Celeste. At the end of the day, they will be discovered with nothing on board. That is why we are concerned.
      The Department of Trade and Industry part-sponsored a report entitled "Understanding the Small Business Sector". When considering the business expansion scheme, which I am prepared to argue is ill-fated, it stated that the objective of the scheme is that small and medium-size enterprises should focus on tax breaks as "tax avoidance vehicles". The terms "tax avoidance" or "tax abuse" can be used in whatever way we wish, but a report that was partly sponsored by the Government creates great doubt about schemes that are based on tax relief. Will the Government ever learn?
      I turn to the amendments. It is—
      Mr. Forman: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is about to speak to the amendments. Before he does so, will he tell us what approach he would favour? He has not done so yet, although he has told us what he does not favour.
      Mr. Stevenson: There is a strong case for the Government to use whatever resources they may have available, but not in the way they propose, which is indirect and possibly extremely expensive. We should be looking to the Government to take direct measures to stimulate investment in an important sector of the economy. There is the distinction between the

      395
      Government's approach and the one that I would take. I would agree with some of the elements of the approach that would be adopted by the hon. Member for Orpington.
      Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Stevenson: No. I think that I have given way enough. I would like to bring my remarks to an end.
      We, the Opposition, are saying that there are sufficient doubts about the assumptions that the Government have made to justify support for the amendment. Unless the Financial Secretary can give reasonable assurances that the Government's proposals will not result in tax abuse—I think that everyone recognises that there is potential for that—and that the scheme has a reasonable chance of delivering investment in small and medium-sized businesses that has been so lacking and that we all want to see, it seems sensible to say that, in two years' time, we should be looking again at how the scheme has developed and whether there need to be any changes to make it effective.
      Mr. Butterfill: I should preface my remarks by reminding the Committee that the Register of Members' Interests shows that I am an adviser to the British Venture Capital Association. I remind the Committee also that the association has warmly welcomed the proposals for venture capital trusts that we are discussing.
      I know that the BVCA would be unhappy if VCTs were used in the way suggested by Opposition Members to create tax shelters or property-based schemes. That would not be attractive to its members to whom I have spoken. The BVCA would certainly not be happy if that were the outcome of our deliberations. At the same time, the BVCA recognises that there is an urgent need, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) said, to encourage more investment in venture capital and to make finance available to smaller companies. It believes that a scheme of the nature proposed by the Government is a worthwhile way of achieving that.
      There is a difficulty that became apparent during the course of the research undertaken by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, of which I am a member. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who unfortunately is no longer in his place, was a member at the time.
      It became clear that there was a funding gap. Many of the large institutions did not feel able to invest directly in very small companies because the costs were, as they saw it, disproportionate. That is why the venture capital industry is one of the fastest growing industries in the United Kingdom, to try to bridge the gap.
      In response to the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell), I do not think that it is risk-adverse. It makes mistakes, some of which have been well publicised, but on balance it achieves success. The industry has made a worthwhile contribution to the British economy in recent years.
      Some venture capital companies are prepared to make low-level investments. For example, 3i will make investments down to £50,000 in individual companies. Many other companies will go down to £250,000, and sometimes to a lower level if they think that a company
      396
      has an interesting future. Nevertheless, there is a shortage of available funds. Many other financial institutions are reluctant to help provide funds.
      5.45 pm
      The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South criticised the banks. It should be recognised that, essentially, the banks borrow money short-term. They take our deposits, and they may have to repay them at short notice. For example, the hon. Gentleman may go to his bank tomorrow and take out everything he has in it, and so may other depositors. The banks are required by law to maintain liquidity levels that make it difficult for them to make long-term investments, and especially risky ones. Their role in life is to take in money in the relatively short term and lend it out in the relatively short term. That lending role is their prime function.
      Major investment must surely be made by insurance companies, which have long-term commitments arid long-term money coming in, and by the pension funds. There are difficulties for both in investing in risky ventures. They obviously have a fiduciary duty, especially in the case of pension funds, to their beneficiaries. They can invest only a limited amount of their portfolio, therefore, in high-risk investments.
      There is a problem with the funding that is available for venture capital in the United Kingdom. The BVCA tells me that only a small proportion of the total sum that it has been investing in the past year or so has been provided by UK investors. A much greater proportion of its money has come, curiously enough, from overseas investors, especially American pension funds. In the United States, a recent provision encourages pension funds directly to invest in venture capital, in a way that does not happen here.
      We may be taking a slightly different route. In the new legislation that we are proposing to introduce for pensions, we are rightly focusing on the need to maintain minimum solvency ratios to protect pensioners. The changes that we are making will make it even more difficult for pension funds to invest in the provision of equity—even equity for major companies—and still more difficult, because of the valuation and yield rules that we shall be introducing, to invest in venture capital. They may have to accept that no money will come in through dividends for the first couple of years, three years or even four years. They may even have to wait much longer than that.
      There is fear in the venture capital industry about the very provisions that I support, as chairman of the all-party group on occupational pensions. I am passionately committed to the idea of adequate solvency for pension funds, but that in itself may in future make the provision of money for venture capital much more problematical. It is important, therefore, that we try to stimulate other forms of raising money. The provision of tax incentives is an important way to encourage that.
      First, we must encourage the provision of money. Secondly, we must encourage our brightest and ablest managers, who may at present be in major companies, arid perhaps in receipt of high salaries with a comfortable arid secure existence, perhaps even with comfortable share option schemes, to abandon all that and start new enterprises, using their skills to create new wealth for the economy. To tempt those people out, to tempt the capital

      397
      out, we must provide an incentive. I believe that the incentives that we are providing through the trusts are important in that process.
      Opposition Members criticised the fact that we propose rollover relief from capital gains for money invested in that type of activity. I would remind them, as I said earlier, that there is no need at the moment for people to pay CGT unless they particularly want to realise the investment in which their money is located. That location may be secure and unexciting, but as long as they keep it there indefinitely, they will not crystallise their CGT liability.
      In my view, it is the minimum requirement if one says to them, "You will not crystallise your capital gain if you put your investment into a venture capital trust," because those people would be penalised if they moved their money from an existing investment into a VCT. Surely that is not what we want to encourage. I would go further and give them exemption from their existing CGT—if that were possible—because then we really would encourage people to move their money into something more dynamic and exciting.
      Similarly, I believe that the other tax breaks that are incorporated into the proposals are important in motivating people to undertake what are really quite risky activities. The structure of the trust, too, is important, because in contrast to enterprise investment schemes, where one is investing in a single-company operation, we are encouraging a broader spread of risk. Although all the components of a VCT may be high-risk activities, by spreading the risk over a number of different activities, we minimise to some extent the problems that can arise from total failure of a single company. I applaud that.
      The Labour party suggests that there should be a statutory requirement to review this in two years. Other hon. Members have pointed out that that is a short time horizon in which to assess the success of a new enterprise. As hon. Members who are involved in the venture capital industry will know, most companies are really only just getting off the ground at that stage.
      In contrast to what the hon. Member for Monklands, East said, it certainly is not true that companies invest for the long term. 3i, for example, still has almost all the original investments that it made. It is not in there for a quick buck, and that applies to most of the other members of the British Venture Capital Association.
      Mrs. Liddell: I can appreciate that the hon. Gentleman referred to 3i, but in doing so he emphasises one of the points that I sought to make: large venture capital organisations such as 3i will not go for the small to medium-sized enterprise that needs a small sum of money. The small to medium-sized enterprise is much more vulnerable to short-termism than the larger enterprise.
      Mr. Butterfill: I am sorry that the hon. Lady was not in her place when I referred to her speech. She is quite wrong. 3i invests down to a level of £50,000 in individual companies, so it is the worst example that she could give. It goes down to a low level: it is precisely for that reason that I mentioned it. I am sorry that she did not hear my earlier remarks.
      Mrs. Liddell: I referred to 3i with some feeling, because, in my previous occupation, which was interrupted by the parliamentary by-election .that brought me to this place, one of my jobs was to try to get money
      398
      from venture capital companies such as 3i, for start-ups that would have a turnover, within one to one and a half years, of £1 million to £1.5 million. Believe me, if I could have got money out of 3i, I would have been a much happier lady than I was when I entered the House.
      Mr. Butterfill: I accept that the hon. Lady may find that not every proposal put before 3i or any of the other venture capital organisations is likely to find favour. It is always difficult. One must convince whomever one wants to invest in one's company that it will be a good investment, so I accept that many propositions are turned down.
      But an awful lot are accepted, and if the hon. Lady reads 3i's annual report, or those of CinVen, Electra, Candover—or any of the other venture capital organisations—she will see the huge volume of companies that have been assisted. The point that I am making is that what we propose tonight will make that process much easier.
      Let us return to the amendment. I do not think that a review in two years is an appropriate time horizon. Nor do I think that it is necessary, for reasons that I shall come to in a moment. I do not think that the proposals suggested by the hon. Member for Gordon are appropriate either, because there is no doubt—I have been advised quite specifically by venture capital organisations—that genuine business activities fell foul of the 50 per cent. rule and were precluded from obtaining funding on that basis. It is certainly no business of any of us tonight to wish to preclude genuine businesses from that support, simply on the basis of an arbitrary rule.
      I accept that there is a genuine fear that VCTs might conceivably be used for some form of abuse of the tax system. They might conceivably be used for the same sort of abuse that we saw with the BES. I would be the last to wish that to happen, and the whole of the venture capital industry would be against it.
      We have to look at a different climate today. In the 1980s, when BES schemes were popular, property prices, it seemed, were rising for ever, by huge margins every year. Property was the fashionable thing to be in. It was secure. One could not lose one's money. In fact, the longer one held it, the more it would be worth.
      I do not think that anybody would pretend that we have the same scenario today. Property values have fallen substantially, whether it is residential property or major commercial property investments. Indeed, the developers of Canary Wharf, people in the City of London and throughout the nation lost huge amounts of money. I do not think that the risk of repeating the BES is very likely, given the present climate for property.
      It is conceivable that, if we had a major revival of the property industry, some people might forget the chastening experience that they have had over the past three or four years and seek to go back into it again, but a provision in schedule 14 (12) of the Bill can deal with that. It provides that the Government can make regulations if it seems that they may be necessary as things arise in the future. I ask the Minister to give an undertaking that, if in future it appears that there is some abuse of the kind feared by Opposition Members, he will not hesitate to use those powers to put it right.
      I go further. Between now and Report, when we shall have an opportunity to consider the clause again, although we shall have an opportunity to consider the principle of

      399
      it when we consider clause 60 of the Bill upstairs in Committee—I hope that I will be able to participate—if it becomes clear to the Treasury that all sorts of schemes are gathering place which are primarily asset-based schemes designed for tax avoidance, I hope that my hon. Friend will say that he will look again to see whether something more severe might be required. However, if it becomes necessary, I urge him not to consider the 50 per cent. rule, which caused so many problems in the past.
      Mr. Ian Pearson: I begin by making some wider comments on finance for small businesses and drawing the attention of the Financial Secretary to the second report of the Bank of England on finance for small firms, which was issued recently. I do not know whether he has had an opportunity to read it. The Bank of England always talks in very coded terms about anything that it produces that might be mildly critical. Nevertheless, it has some interesting comments to make on finance for small firms.
      In particular, it talks about relationships between small businesses and the banking community—the high street banks. It says:
      "There is still considerable room to improve further both relationships and the level of service provided."
      That is the strong feeling that I receive from businesses in Dudley, West. They still feel that high street banks offer little alternative. They still find that the banks are extremely risk averse and are not considering cash flow, despite instructions in many cases from head office to do so when deciding on bankable propositions. The banks still very much consider security.
      6 pm
      One reason for that is the performance management targets set by some of the banking industries. I do not know what might be done about that. Setting performance targets to reduce the number of company failures, and so on, creates significant problems. It also creates problems at Government level, particularly when attempts are made to encourage small businesses to be more open and share financial information with banks.
      If banks know that a business is in trouble, they will immediately want to pull the plug on it, because they understand that the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, as preferential creditors, are competing with each other to put banks into receivership because of their own performance targets.
      Mr. Forman: In order to bring the hon. Gentleman's point up to date and to give a full picture, does he also agree that, in a recent speech, Pen Kent, the executive director of the Bank of England, to the parliamentary group for engineering development at the House of Commons, of which the hon. Gentleman probably has a copy, said that there is a continued shift away from overdrafts towards term loans in terms of banking support for small and medium sized businesses?
      He went on:
      "When we first got involved in this subject, overdrafts were typically around 60 per cent. of all bank lending to small and medium sized enterprises. Now over 60 per cent. is .in the form of term loans."
      400
      Is not that a message of some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman?
      Mr. Pearson: Yes, it certainly is a message of reassurance. I welcome the growing awareness of the small business community of some of the deficiencies of bank overdrafts and some of the benefits of other financial mechanisms that are open to them—not just term loans, but debt factoring and invoice discounting.
      One reason for the great movement away from overdrafts is that many small businesses have seen them as a bad bet, and invoice discounting and debt factoring have provided far more attractive deals. The progress of term loans is welcome, but they are still very much granted on the basis of security rather than the cash flow position of a business.
      It is also interesting that the report on finance for small firms comments on business angels and the dangers of the fragmented approach to business angels that currently exist throughout the country. That fragmented approach is equally apparent across a range of financial mechanisms that are available to small firms in Britain. We simply do not have an adequate and coherent package of small business support measures.
      As an economist and a previous employee of an economic development and venture capital company, I believe that the case for venture capital trusts rests principally on market failure. Companies that wish to grow are unable to gain access to appropriate forms of finance at acceptable rates. That is a clear example of market failure.
      However, venture capital trusts do not address the principal problem of small businesses that wish to grow and require finance—the need for long-term patient capital. I fully endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) on that.
      The venture capital trust legislation is complicated. I am slightly disappointed to see that it defines what is not allowed, leaving a number of grey areas, rather than positively defining what is allowed. As a result, the Opposition are concerned that it gives a licence to fertile City imaginations to devise tax avoidance schemes for the very rich which will do nothing to support growing businesses. I hope that that is not the case, and that the Chancellor will use what power he has to ensure that that is not the case.
      The 70 per cent. rule on qualifying holdings in a company does not strike an adequate balance. I would be interested to hear from the Financial Secretary what restrictions, if any, are placed on the remaining 30 per cent. of the funds available to venture capital trusts. As I understand it, there is nothing in the legislation to prevent that money being invested in Pacific rim countries and other stock markets. I do not see why tax incentives should be provided to British taxpayers to allow a proportion of a venture capital trust's funds to be invested in the stock markets of other countries.
      The three-year rule in reaching the 70 per cent. criterion creates the danger that money can be invested either in blue chip British companies or in ventures all over the world for a minimum of two years and that then there will be a final rush to meet the three-year criterion for investing in small unquoted businesses. I should like some assurance that that will not be allowed to happen.

      401
      The level of 70 per cent. for investing in small and medium sized companies is wrong. Venture capital trusts are likely to be set up with sufficient critical mass in terms of funding, so a level of 80 per cent. overall would be more appropriate.
      I appreciate the need for flexibility when buying and selling companies, but with venture capital trusts of £50 million or £100 million that restriction does not apply. The tax incentives that are available mean that, although the shares in the venture capital trust will be tradeable, I would not expect that tradeability to be so significant as to mean that an 80 per cent. criterion would be acceptable.
      With regard to the 50 per cent. limit on eligible shares, I appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) that that might influence deal structures and be insufficiently flexible. However, I assume that most venture capital trusts will probably invest pari passu with other institutions, which will provide other forms of finance, whether it be mezzanine finance, term loans or a range of other financial packages.
      That brings me to a point that I want to discuss later in terms of eligibility. Schedule 14 sets out requirements with regard to a company's business and what is a qualifying trade. We have had a useful debate on property. There is a consensus on both sides of the House that no one wants to see VCTs used as primarily asset-backed property schemes.
      I fully accept the arguments, and I know of a number of companies requiring development capital whose major assets would be their land and buildings. Therefore, I understand the reasoning behind what the Government are seeking to do. Nevertheless, I see no reason why what is regarded as an investee company should not be defined by its principal business activity, and primarily property-based companies excluded.
      I welcome the provision for royalties and licence fees for research and development: I know of a number of organisations that hope to amass funds to invest in new technological inventions and early pre-market trading. I hope, however, that venture capital trusts will also be able to take equity stakes in some of those companies when they reach the trading stage.
      The Bill imposes a maximum for qualifying investments in a relevant company. My experience in the venture capital industry suggests that a limit of £1 million in any one company in any one year is too high. There is currently strong competition among venture capitalists for any reasonable proposition requiring development capital of £500,000 or more, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) pointed out. Given that strong competition and the fact that the money is clearly available—there has been no instance of market failure—I see no compelling reason why tax incentives should be made available for investments above £500,000.
      In view of the present structure of VCTs, I anticipate a desire to invest in million-pound projects, which may be part of wider deals. That is not the real purpose of VCTs, which I support: the provision of development finance for those who cannot secure it by any normal means.
      I also feel that the gross asset level of £10 million is far too high. The chief executive of the 3i group suggested that it might be worth considering £2 million, and in view of that, £5 million or so strikes me as .much more appropriate. I suspect that the scheme will gravitate
      402
      towards the financing of more robust businesses that could be funded conventionally—that VCTs will piggy-back on top of larger deals.
      There is also a strong indication that VCTs will be used to fund management buy-outs and buy-ins. I have no objection in principle to companies' changing their ownership and management structures in that way, but I feel that such a churning of assets is not the primary purpose of the Bill, which is intended to support businesses that will grow, employ more people and deal with some of the country's unemployment problems.
      Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman really think that VCTs will be used extensively to fund management buy-outs? It is fairly simple to finance them in existing circumstances. Complex rules will govern the use of VCTs; will not many of those planning management buy-outs decide that, given the complications, their use is not worth the hassle?
      Mr. Pearson: Not at all. I believe that those who will run VCTs are exactly the people who are likely to provide institutional finance for management buy-outs. I think that they will say, "We will provide you with a £6 million package for your management buy-out, because the company can meet the £10 million criterion. VCT money will provide £1 million, and ordinary institutional venture capital will provide £5 million." I ask the Financial Secretary to impose an embargo on VCT funding of management buy-outs.
      6.15 pm
      I understand that the financial intermediaries and claims office of the Inland Revenue will be responsible for supervising it; the task would be greatly assisted, and financial probity assured, if regulations were introduced providing for an annual independent valuation of each VCT's unquoted portfolio.
      The purpose of VCTs is laudable, but some of the detail is fundamentally flawed. As a result, the money that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree is necessary to support businesses is unlikely to be forthcoming. I expect the risk-reward ratio to prove unfavourably balanced in favour of reward in the long term. I think that VCTs will be used to fund management buy-outs at too high a level, providing deals involving £1 million VCT money as part of a syndicated deal with loan-funding institutions.
      VCTs are only part of a piecemeal response to small business finance. A more coherent approach is required, and I welcome the comments in the Bank of England's second report about the need for a White Paper on the subject.
      Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) has considerable experience of the market, and he is entitled to ask whether the proposed tax relief is directed specifically towards what we all consider to be the area of market failure. That, I think, is the starting point for the debate: the area of market failure is the equity gap.
      Although the equity gap has been identified by countless reports over the years, we have not yet found a satisfactory solution to it. Whether it makes sense to address it by means of the tax system is an interesting question. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), I am not always

      403
      enthusiastic about creating new tax breaks: on the whole I prefer a broad tax base and low tax rates. First, one man's tax break is another man's tax bill; secondly, there is no doubt that tax breaks affect economic behaviour, and may distort it. They may not achieve what Parliament hopes to achieve.
      The fact is, however, that we have been living with the equity gap for many years. I consider that we are justified in introducing this new relief, as long as it is focused as the Committee wishes it to be. It should be focused on smaller investments. There is, I think, a consensus in the Committee that venture capitalists are normally able to provide amounts of £500,000 or more, and that therefore the level should generally he below that.
      Why does it matter? It matters because, as some growing small businesses are unable to obtain the equity finance that they deserve, they must go to the bank--but the cost of bank finance makes it unsuitable for a rapidly growing business, and in certain circumstances may cripple it. It makes much more sense for at least the fixed as opposed to the working capital of a business to be financed by equity, although long-term bank debt is certainly a possibility. That is what the new relief is all about.
      Obviously, one has to try to find a satisfactory balance that will provide a sufficiently attractive tax incentive to bring in investment that would not otherwise accrue. At the same time we must try to ensure that the scheme is not so attractive that all sorts of tax avoidance experts abuse it. In practice, it is difficult to strike such a balance.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) that in such circumstances it makes sense for the Government to provide in the schedule a provision to allow the Treasury to change by regulation the definition of a qualifying investment. That means that if there is evidence of the kind of abuse that some Opposition Members obviously fear, it can be dealt with quite quickly. The Revenue is quite capable of dealing speedily with such abuses. It can issue a press release which states that the law will change from the date of that release and, under the schedule, it can table regulations quite soon thereafter to put the matter beyond doubt.
      That is important because we must avoid the marketing of venture capital trusts principally for tax reasons. Far too many people went into business expansion schemes for the wrong reasons and many of them got their fingers burned. They may have received tax relief, but that is not much use to people who lose all their money. Many of the schemes were not viable and lost a great deal of money. That is unsatisfactory for taxpayers and the Treasury, and it is certainly unsatisfactory for the economy because we are debating means to grow businesses. We are not debating any old small business but growth businesses. We are trying to identify businesses with real growth potential which can be encouraged by venture capital to grow and create jobs quite quickly.
      Venture capitalists say that there are three requirements for a satisfactory investment. First, one obviously needs money. Secondly, satisfactory management is required and, thirdly, there must be a sensible business proposition. In practice, it is often difficult to find . satisfactory management. Some business propositions are clearly
      404
      much more attractive than others and, in practice, shortage of capital is not normally a problem. At the moment capital comes from the United States rather than from the United Kingdom because UK institutions feel that they have enough invested in venture capital.
      Generally, there is no shortage of capital, but particularly there is a shortage of amounts of £500,000 and below, and that is the area on which the new scheme needs to be focused. It should be made clear that that is the scheme's object.
      Mr. David Shaw: My hon. Friend says that there is no shortage of venture capital, but surely there is a shortage of venture capital provided by private individuals. There has been far too much investment by institutions in high-risk areas and the individual who may also bring management skills to a company has not been given the opportunity to invest. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need an increase in the proportion of such venture capital rather than to have just institutional investment?
      Mr. Smith: I entirely agree. People talk about capital gains tax, which has a very narrow base. My hon. Friend will know that many institutions pay no capital gains tax. It was quite possible to have a venture-capital backed company in which the only investor paying capital gains tax was the person who worked in it and managed it. Because all the other investors were tax exempt institutions they did not pay capital gains tax. That is indefensible, and it shows how unsatisfactory is the present capital gains tax regime. I agree with my hon. Friend that for people who take a considerable risk it is right that after a period of five years, during which they will have their money locked up, they should be able to take advantage of capital gains tax relief. That is an important aspect of the issue.
      Another aspect which has perhaps not been sufficiently emphasised has been compared with the business expansion scheme. It is that under the business expansion scheme tax relief on the up-front investment was 40 per cent. The maximum relief in this instance will be 20 per cent. and that significant difference means that only half of the investment will be tax-deductible. That considerably changes the balance about which I spoke.
      Mr. David Shaw: It has gone too far.
      Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend thinks that it may have gone too far, but it changes the balance of advantage between the two aspects which I described. We need an attractive arrangement to bring in investors. My hon. Friend may feel that offering only 20 per cent. may make it difficult to persuade individuals to come in. However, offering 40 per cent. under the BES created the difficulty that people were able to say to prospective investors, "Look, you can simply eliminate your entire tax liability in relation to the amount which you invest in this company."
      Relief of 20 per cent. is the right level at which to start and if it is found that it is insufficient to attract people we could have a look at increasing it. The fundamental difference between the two schemes will change the balance considerably.
      The Liberal Democrat amendment seeks to eliminate property development. If I have understood it correctly—and the legislation is complex—property investment and

      405
      property dealing are already excluded. Therefore, it is property development that the amendment seeks to exclude. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) suggested that property development did not create any new economic wealth. It seems to me that if somebody builds a factory or a warehouse he adds to the total of the nation's assets. There is often considerable risk involved in that. The property may be pre-let but it will often be speculative. A large warehouse may be built and only afterwards will an effort be made to let it.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Perhaps I could clarify the matter. I did not say that property development per se was incapable of creating wealth but that the simple appreciation of property value was a paper transaction that did not create wealth. The Government introduced restrictions last time because it was non-productive.
      Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West dealt satisfactorily with that point. Over the past few years the property market has been transformed, to the point where the idea that one can make a fast buck out of property has gone. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman is seriously advising his friends to invest in property. Perhaps he knows something that we do not, but I cannot see that.
      The Government have inflation so effectively under control that we are in a new environment, but it is difficult to persuade people of that. For over 30 years we have had a culture of inflation and people are finding it difficult to become accustomed to the new environment. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Gordon made that point earlier. People will not make money simply out of the appreciation of property or any other asset over the next few years. That is not a threat. However, if the hon. Gentleman turns out to be right there is provision in the Bill to deal with that at the moment at which the Treasury feels that action is appropriate.
      The difficulty with the hon. Gentleman's proposition, which I think he said he had taken from the business expansion scheme, is that it precludes some genuine business propositions and commercial arrangements from being eligible under the scheme. It is again a question of balance but we should not accept the Liberal Democrat amendment and allow such schemes to be advanced.
      The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) tried to encourage us to impose a time limit of two years. That is not necessary because it is open to us to reconsider the matter. We consider these matters when we are debating the Finance Bill each year. It will be some time before a venture capital trust is launched. There will have to be a stock market flotation to raise the capital and it will be some time before the cash can be invested because nobody will rush into that: the money will be invested only when satisfactory investments come along.
      The period of two years in the amendment is totally unrealistic because the average time will be considerably less than that. Imposing a two-year limit would be premature. We need more time to review matters as they develop. If there is abuse in the meantime the provisions in the Bill will deal with it.
      Mr. Betts: A consensus exists among hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that the short-termism of the financial markets and the so-called equity gap are a
      406
      problem. There has not been much dissent from the fact that that issue must be dealt with, as we need to get more investment into our industry.
      I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) on the pensions industry. I agree that that is one of the industries that should be looking long term. People have their investments in their pensions and that involves a long period. We should accept that the short-term requirement of investment managers in that industry—to show how high up the performance league table they can come each year—causes concern, and militates against the long-term approach that should be taken.
      6.30 pm
      Some of the Bill's requirements are being considered in another place. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that they are a cause for concern in relation to the investment side of the pensions equation. I hope that, at some stage, consideration will be given to the potential effects of the legislation. The issue may have been lost in the concerns that people rightly have about people receiving a proper pension when they retire.
      All the issues are being considered separately. It is generally accepted that a problem exists in relation to the equity gap, short-termism and the lack of investment, especially in small companies, and it is recognised that small companies will be the vehicle for growth and jobs—a growth in employment is likely to come from that sector—but where is the overall strategy to which the various mechanisms, ideas and suggestions may relate? That worries me. Where is the Government's overall approach, which identifies, deals with and proposes a range of measures that can be taken to deal with this real and pressing problem in the next few years?
      Earlier, in response to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) drew attention to the fact that the proposal contains no specific assistance to companies that are just starting up. That omission should be dealt with. It would presumably be dealt with if the Government had an overall strategy that identifies the range of issues that need to be solved, and that produces a range of mechanisms and solutions to the problems. Many issues, such as that of start-ups, do not get a look in and are not properly dealt with because the Government approach the matter by producing one single mechanism and claim that it will address the equity gap problem.
      Tax relief has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. I do not think that Opposition Members are objecting to the principle of tax reliefs. However, it is our duty, as the Opposition, to raise the question of whether tax reliefs are effective. I agree to a great extent with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), but we must be careful, when dealing with tax reliefs, that we do not introduce to the market distortions whose impact we cannot predict.
      In the Committee that considered the Finance Bill last year, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that a good case had to be made for tax reliefs to be introduced, and that one had to be clear about what their impact would be. All too often, it is believed that tax reliefs can be introduced and that no real cost is involved.
      If, however, the Government pay money in the form of grants or subsidies, they must be much more careful because such public expenditure is taxpayers' money.

      407
      Effectively, tax reliefs are exactly that. They use the public's money. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, tax reliefs are someone else's tax increase or someone else's service cut, if the Government choose not to raise extra tax to fund the relief that they are introducing. We must be careful to ensure that we know what impact tax reliefs will have.
      The Opposition's concern is that the scheme before us may generate a lot of activity. The Government are forecasting the tax relief level that they will take into account in their public expenditure accounts. The Opposition ask how one can be sure that that tax relief will achieve for the British people a benefit that makes the tax relief worth while. We have a right to ask that question and to receive a detailed answer to it.
      How can we be sure that the schemes that are introduced will not generate an increase in the productive capacity of the economy and an increase in jobs? The schemes might lead simply to property development that is aimed, not at producing more manufacturing capacity, but at taking advantage of the tax relief. How can we be sure that, if the schemes improve and increase our manufacturing base, that would not have happened without the tax relief?
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) made the point that venture capital is available for some schemes at present, so we cannot be sure that venture capital that would have gone into schemes before the change will not simply go into the same schemes, but with the benefit of tax relief. Those questions must be dealt with. The Government must convince us if we are to acknowledge that the scheme is worth while.
      On VCTs, the Financial Times said:
      "The chancellor had barely sat down after last months's Budget before Rothschild Asset Management said it would set up a venture capital trust".
      Two articles in the Financial Times used the words:
      "The chancellor had barely sat down".
      If Rothschild Asset Management said that it would set up a venture capital trust when the Chancellor had "barely sat down", either it knew something about the nature of the scheme before the Chancellor's Budget speech—I would not like to imply that that was the case—or the scheme was such an obvious benefit in terms of tax relief and an easy make that the company got in before it considered the nature of investments. That is our worry. Such companies are not sitting down and examining the nature of the investment and whether it is a good risk, because they know that there is easy money to be made.
      We become a bit more worried when, within a matter of weeks, an organisation that apparently believes that it is going to do very well out of the Government's scheme appoints a senior member of the governing party to its board. Somehow, that does not fit comfortably and easily with the Government's comment that the proposal is all about real jobs for real people in manufacturing. It is certainly about one job for one high-profile member of the Conservative party in an asset management company. It caused concern that that organisation believed so quickly that benefits existed.
      Mr. Forman: On real jobs and the equation always with manufacturing, does the hon. Gentleman realise that
      408
      only 20 per cent. of all people employed are employed in the manufacturing sector? The difference is that they are producing a great deal more per man and per woman.
      Mr. Betts: I accept that not all jobs are in the manufacturing sector and that many real jobs are in the service sector. I was questioning whether it was a real job when an ex-Minister was involved in activities in the House for the benefit of a certain organisation, and then got a job with that organisation. The term "real job" should not be applied to such a job.
      Our concerns are reinforced by the fiasco of the business expansion scheme. We would be a lot more reassured if the Government, who introduced that much-derided scheme, had recognised the problems quickly and had done something about them quickly. Everyone else saw the problems with the BES. Everyone else could see that the money was going into property development. The Government, however, sat there for year after year, and Finance Bill debate after Finance Bill debate, and refused to act.
      Therefore, we are naturally concerned when the same Government claim that their proposed new scheme will not be the same as the BES. They say that we will not have the same problems and that, if problems arise, they will act on them. What confidence can the Opposition have that the Government will be as good as their word, when we know from past experience about their reaction when property development was the name of the game, when the scheme was abused, and when no real risk existed because the scheme included guaranteed exits?
      I accept that that particular loophole will be closed under the proposals, but property development is still a cause for concern. The property market may not be in a healthy state at the moment. It is interesting to hear Conservative Members talk about the impact of Government policies on that market but, unfortunately, it is not only they and some of their colleagues on the investment side but individual home owners who have suffered. Nevertheless, there is the possibility of a return to better days and the potential for the scheme to be abused.
      The Government say that we should not worry because, as is too often the case, schedule 14(12) states:
      "The Treasury may by order amend this Schedule for any or all of the following purposes"—
      that is, the businesses and trades that qualify for the purposes of venture capital trusts. Conservative Members may draw comfort from the fact that the Treasury can change the rules to deal with any anomalies or abuses but we worry that the Treasury, run by the Conservatives, might change the rules to benefit even further their friends who might be seeking tax relief and a quick buck through such a scheme. If the scheme can be altered one way—loopholes can be tightened—it can equally be altered in the opposite way without reference to the House. Pure speculation in land assets could be allowed through modification by the Treasury without reference to, or the approval of, hon. Members.
      I also seek reassurance from the Financial Secretary on a matter that is not made clear in the Bill. Although there are limits on the amount that can be invested in one particular company by a venture capital trust, and although there is a limit to the assets of a company that can be owned by a venture capital trust—a limit of 15 per cent., as I understand it—is there anything to prevent two

      409
      venture capital trusts, owned by the same organisation, acting in concert and between them owning 30 per cent. of a particular company' assets? Or can an organisation establish more than one venture capital trust and, in so doing, breach the rules set out in the Bill for one VCT? If there is no such restriction, it means that there is a loophole and someone will walk through it before too long. I would appreciate the Financial Secretary's comments.
      We are suggesting a two-year limit not because we believe that the scheme will not work but because previous Government action in this sphere leads us to be cautious. We want to be assured that there will be a proper monitoring arrangement and that Ministers will not walk away and pretend that everything will be fine once the legislation is passed; they must ensure that we get proper reports and that the Government are held to account for the expenditure of public money. That is absolutely right and proper.
      The Financial Secretary has already forecast the amount of tax relief that he believes will be given under the scheme. We have a right to be concerned and ask who will benefit. Surely some assessment has been made of the income levels of those who will benefit. I do not say that because we are against people on high incomes and for those on low incomes. We are rightly concerned to ensure that when tax relief is offered and when potential benefits are available, it is not only one section of the community that receives them. Will such benefits be available for smaller investors? What is the Government's view at this stage of who will receive tax relief from VCTs when they are established? The Government have a duty to give us some idea of the work that they have done. What are their plans?
      The Government have listed the industries and trades that will not qualify for investment under the scheme but where do they anticipate that the money will be invested? What part of our economy's capacity will be enhanced? How many and what sort of jobs will be created? Ministers will probably shrug and say that they do not have such information, but why not? It should be available if public money is being spent. If the Government were putting forward a scheme for grants, they would be able to explain the expenditure involved and the number of jobs to be created.
      Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate the fact that we do not know how much money is being spent until we know how much money is forthcoming. The two things are interrelated, so how can the Government possibly know?
      Mr. Betts: The Government are proposing to spend public money on a large scale. They would be highly critical of us were we to propose such expenditure without being able to explain how it was to be spent and what the consequences were going to be. We are asking for strict monitoring of the scheme, and the two-year period is included in the amendment to establish a definite limit on the time within which information must be made available, not so that the scheme can be stopped but so that it can be reviewed to ascertain how effectively it is working. I hope that the Financial Secretary will take our suggestion seriously.
      We are not saying that we want to stop the scheme but we have suspicions and concerns. Let the Government reassure us that they have planned how the scheme will
      410
      work and that there are to be proper reports and monitoring so that it can be amended in the event that it does not work as the Government claim that it will.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: It is common ground among the parties that there is a need for investment in small firms. The question is whether the venture capital trust is the best way to achieve it.
      In its second report on finance for small firms, the Bank of England referred to the fact that bank finance available to small firms fell 5.1 per cent. to £37.2 billion between December 1993 and June 1994. As has already been said, the equity gap is a failure of the free market and VCTs are an attempt by the Government to intervene in the market to deal with that failure. It is interesting that the way in which the Government choose to intervene is by creating circumstances in which the well-off will pay less tax. That is certainly how the media have identified the prime appeal of the VCT—a big tax avoidance scheme. It is legal, but is it in the public interest?
      On 15 January, the Observer ran a story with the headline "Taxfree Trusts for the Adventurous Investor". Most of the article was about the advantages available to the person who became involved with a VCT. In December 1994, the magazine Small Company Investor asked:
      "Will you need to pay capital gains tax again?"
      "Maybe not" was the answer. Media focus appears to be on the tax benefits, but the issue of the equity gap remains. The venture capital trust is at least an attempt by the Government to deal with it.
      We need to help small businesses and to get the capital to them to create jobs and prosperity. In its report, the Bank of England raised the issue of how to do that. Those involved often find that it is not viable for venture capitalists to invest relatively small sums of equity. Typical professional venture capital investments are certainly in excess of £250,000 and early-stage and start-up finance, for example, accounted for only £69 million, or 6 per cent. of the total invested by British Venture Capital Association members in 1993. Clearly, therefore, we need a way to channel investment.
      In its first report on financing small businesses, the Bank of England dealt with the role of the so-called "business angels", venture capital providers who link up with particular enterprises, often contributing their expertise and adopting a hands-on approach. However, the problem identified by the Bank of England is that, although banks such as NatWest have launched two pilots for national business angel networks, the majority of existing business introduction services remain fragmented and unco-ordinated. There are numerous business introduction magazines and, of course, the training and enterprise councils in different parts of the country provide services that are often useful. But we need a comprehensive business angel network to reduce costs and to simplify the process of making deals.
      That leads me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). The Government need to have a more comprehensive approach to the problem of small businesses, ensuring that the equity gap is bridged by not only looking at one solution to the problem but addressing issues such as the need for a business angel network. At the moment, the

      411
      Government have not shown that they are adopting a much broader approach. In his winding-up speech, will the Financial Secretary say what the Government are proposing to do about the business angel network?
      There is clearly a need for investment and the question is whether venture capital trusts are the way in which to encourage it. I accept that it is right in certain cases to give tax breaks to encourage investment, but it is important that it is done with caution to ensure that the Exchequer uses those subsidies to best effect because, as Conservative Members have said, one person's tax concession is another person's tax increase. The business expansion scheme has raised questions about the use of tax breaks and the Government should therefore be prepared to answer openly and clearly questions about the way in which this new venture of theirs will deal with the concerns raised.
      How much will the VCT scheme really cost? The Government estimate that it will cost £150 million in 1995–96, £290 million in 1996–97 and £240 million in 1997–98—a total cost of about £680 million. Does that include relief on capital gains tax and income tax relief? If the figures do not include those two, what is the overall figure? What is the actual loss to the Exchequer?
      When the Government lost the vote on VAT on fuel, the Chancellor was most definite in the argument that, even if relatively small sums of tax were involved, it was essential that the Government should be able to account for them and say how that money was to be raised—hence the 4 per cent. increase in beer prices and the various other tax increases.
      I have always taken the view, as I know the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has, that the loss from not imposing the VAT increase was probably within the margin of error of any Budget. After all, last year, the Chancellor must have had at least a margin of error of £4 billion because of the way in which the public sector borrowing requirement panned out. Given that the loss of revenue due to the VAT vote was much less, the Chancellor was well within the margin of error and need not have increased those taxes on beer and so on.
      If the Chancellor felt that it was essential to come up with clear figures for the loss of revenue from extra VAT on fuel, surely he must provide clear figures of exactly how much money is being conceded in the VCT tax relief. Will the Financial Secretary also tell us what analysis the Government have done on the defects in the business expansion scheme? How can the faults that arose at various stages in that scheme, which required some remedy, be avoided in the VCT scheme? How will the Government ensure that?
      Are such high tax concessions really necessary to get the venture capital trusts going? They are very large concessions and the Financial Secretary has not properly justified the size of them. Would not venture capital trusts be workable without such large tax concessions? That is a legitimate question that Labour Members should ask.
      What calculations has the Treasury done on the possible diversion of capital that is currently invested in small businesses? If a person who is considering investing in a small business goes to his financial adviser to find out the best way in which to invest and says that he is thinking of becoming a business angel and getting
      412
      involved in direct investment, what risk is there that the financial adviser will tell him that, from a tax point of view, it is best to get involved in venture capital trusts and to try to get the tax concessions available?
      The business would presumably have to apply to the venture capital trust scheme to get the investment that it needed and, obviously, judgments would have to be made by the venture capital trust investors. They may decide to invest in less risky businesses than the business in which the potential business angel was thinking of investing. Therefore, will the Financial Secretary state the Treasury's calculation of the potential diversion of investment? Again, that is a legitimate question that needs to be answered.
      Will the Financial Secretary set out exactly which trades will qualify? The Bill says which trades will not qualify by excluding particular types of businesses. Will he try to define to some extent his target qualifying companies? Will he also set out clearly his thinking on venture capital trusts and property-backed schemes? He appears not to want entirely property-backed schemes and I accept that. He referred to those schemes in his earlier speech, but he did not set out clearly the Treasury's exact attitude to schemes that involved property. A great deal more detail is required.
      What about residential homes for the aged? Does the Financial Secretary intend to include them in the scheme or to exclude them? It was not clear from his earlier reply exactly what his view was. He said, as I remember, that he had not had notice of many people seeking to exploit the venture capital trusts with residential homes in mind Is it his intention that the scheme would be available for such uses if people chose to use it for that purpose?
      Does the Financial Secretary agree that the legislation is extremely complicated? While it appears that two investment trust groups, Murray Johnstone and Rothschild Investment Management, have said that they are interested in VCT, will not the complicated legislation deter investors from getting too involved in the scheme?
      Why did the Government settle on restricting income tax relief to companies with initial growth assets of between £1 million and £10 million per annum? Why not extend the limits above and below those figures? There is greater availability of finance for the larger companies and we need to tackle the smaller-scale investment of around half a million pounds. Will the Government set out how they reached the conclusion that those two levels were appropriate, so that we may at least have some understanding of Government thinking?
      The key issue for Labour Members is this: if the main focus of venture capital trusts becomes tax avoidance rather than investment, what will the Government do about it? Clearly, the media have identified venture capital trusts in that way so far. The Government must take into account why that has taken place. If it appears that VCTs will go the way of the business expansion scheme, how do the Government plan to deal with that?
      I repeat that I agree that investment in small firms needs to be enhanced. The Government say in the Red Book that they intend to boost overall investment across the economy to 11 per cent. in the next year—a tremendous boost given that the current level is around 3 or 4 per cent. It is certainly nowhere near 11 per cent. That target of 11 per cent. has an awful lot of wishful thinking about it and a certain aura of unreality. Likewise, I suspect that

      413
      venture capital trusts embrace a combination of wishful thinking and a lack of reality about the market. That is why the amendment to limit venture capital trusts to two years initially gives us an important chance to review the scheme in future—an opportunity that the House ought to have.
      Mr. Denis MacShane: In preparing myself for this interesting debate—I have enjoyed the exchanges—I turned to the spiritual father of venture capital in this country, Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. In his memoirs, he says that by 1993 the business expansion scheme and other start-up schemes had been brought to an end, which could be justified because
      "the UK had by then a venture capital industry equal to that of any in the world".
      If that is the case and if, as the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) said, the Bank of England in the form of Mr. Pen Kent said yesterday that the banks are now far more co-operative, lending more generously and moving from overdrafts to loans, how come we need venture capital schemes? In the middle of what the Government say is a boom, with everything going unbelievably, wonderfully, incredibly well for the economy, how come we need the schemes?
      7 pm
      The term "tax break" has been used as often by Conservative Members as by Opposition Members in this debate on venture capital, so the queries raised by Opposition Members come into focus. If I may paraphrase Humbert Wolfe after Hilaire Belloc
      "You shouldn't need to bribe or twist
      The British venture capitalist
      Just provide a tax break or two
      And you will see what he can do".
      There is a problem in my constituency, and the deputy chairman of the Conservative party, Mr. John Maples, who was heavily involved in the Wellington BES in the 1980s, is giving evidence in a court case involving a lot of people who lost their jobs. Mr. Maples advised Virginia Wade, Michael Parkinson and others to put their money into a scheme and it has now emerged that a great deal of money has been lost.
      Conservative Members have said that venture capital initiatives often become adventure capital initiatives, and although it is hoped that real money may be made, a lot of money can be lost, too. The core lesson of the 1980s was that we need more supervision. What worries some Opposition Members is not the tax write-offs for the deputy chairman of the Conservative party or for rich sport and television personalities, but cases such as that in Rotherham, where 55 people lost their jobs and are now on the dole without any security at all.
      If we have identified an equity gap—what the Macmillan committee as long ago as 1929 called the finance gap—it needs to be dealt with, but Opposition Members have genuine reservations about whether the venture capital proposals in the Bill will do that. I certainly want more investment in Rotherham, but I am in regular contact with Rotherham business men, with the economic partnership and with Business Link, and they all tell me that venture capitalists need to target the lower end of the market.
      414
      Apparently, venture capitalists have little interest in the kinds of small businesses that want to get going in Rotherham. They need a quicker turnround. There seems to be some contradiction in the debate, because although it seems that, even before the Chancellor sat down after his Budget speech, Rothschild was ready to put a venture capital trust into operation, Conservative Members who are experts and have declared their interest have said that such schemes take a year or two years to get going. The message from Rotherham is, please can that be done quickly and at a much lower cost?
      In my constituency I have been told that the venture capital trusts do not have a customer-friendly feel to them. The rate of return that they expect—generally 30 per cent.—is very high, which illustrates the short-termism and the lack of what is known as patient or stakeholder capitalism, whether venture or otherwise, in the United Kingdom economy. Indeed, as has already been said, in 1992 as much as 60 per cent. of NatWest's lending, excluding personal mortgages, was for less than one year. That shows the impatience and the "wham, bam, get out" approach of so many lending institutions in this country. My constituents in Rotherham are affected by all that.
      It is not only the review period that is missing—although if Mr. Maples is planning to put more money into the new schemes being set up, let us have a review so that he and other investors can be protected. We also need venture capitalists much closer to the base where British business has to be carried out.
      It is interesting that all the Conservative Members who have spoken have lived within commuting distance of the City. I should like there to be some form of ring-fencing that would help to turn venture capital trusts towards the needs of the regions. Every other country has regional banks in some form. The United States, which was the source of venture capital trusts before they were put into effect in this country, has laws which do not allow banks to operate outside their own state. There is no all-American venture capital trust industry, but a Californian industry, an Oregon industry, one in Texas, one in Massachusetts, and so on. That is what we desperately lack—an orientation that will take the money outside the hothouse growth areas protected by the Government, notably in the south-east.
      We could also consider the activities of the Prince of Wales's Youth Business Trust, which does wonderful work in Rotherham. The prince is responsible for 17,500 start-ups in Rotherham, at exactly that small business level, with perhaps one or two individuals trying to make a go of it. Those are people such as the managers leaving a company who were mentioned by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), and those who have lost their jobs and have the initiative and the get-up-and-go to start out on their own. On the whole I am a republican, but I find it strange that we have to turn to the royal family to get small businesses going in this country because the banks and the venture capitalists have let them down so disastrously.
      Finally, we could consider introducing an export element into the equation. I am struck by what happened in Korea in the 1970s and 1980s when no company, whatever its size, got credit unless it could prove that

      415
      there was an export element in its business. I am not sure whether that would be possible, but perhaps we could think about it for a future Finance Bill.
      Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Every time I have spoken in the House in the past two weeks I have been asked to be brief. I hope that that is because I have been speaking towards the end of debates, and not for any other reason.
      The Opposition have a record of real concern about investment in our economy, the lack of which is one of the main problems, if not the most important problem, in the economy now. We are therefore interested in any measures designed to increase investment, including investment in small businesses. However, we have at least four concerns about the proposal before us.
      Our first concern is the sheer scale of tax reliefs available and the consequent loss of money to the Exchequer. We are told that that will be £680 million over the next three years, but that calculation assumed 27 per cent. tax relief, and it has already been asked whether that was an underestimate. The amount of tax relief available is astounding. Initially it can be up to 60 per cent.—that actually applies to £200,000, because although a person can invest no more than £100,000 in a venture capital trust the same person can also put £100,000 into an enterprise investment scheme. On Second Reading I quoted from "BESt Investment", which was full of exclamation marks because it could not believe how many tax reliefs and tax breaks there would be. It asked whether anybody would ever have to pay capital gains tax again.
      Secondly, we worry about the type of investment into which the money will go. It has been said that much venture capital money goes into management buy-outs, and those do not appear to be excluded. However, an even more serious worry exists about property, which was mentioned by various hon. Members. An explanation was given by the Financial Secretary of the abolition of the interest in land rule, but we are still worried about the type of companies that will now be brought in—companies that will have a big interest in land and property. As other hon. Members said, there is no specific exclusion of property. Why is there not? People will be suspicious that that is what the money will be used for if a specific exclusion is not written in.
      It is also a fact that only 70 per cent. of the money has to go into qualifying holdings, so 30 per cent. of the money can be invested in literally anything, whether in this country or abroad. That is surely unacceptable when there is massive tax relief.
      The third worry is about the displacement effect. Will the money go into the new investments and come out of other investments? My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) quoted from a magazine Small Company Investor, which graphically illustrated how experts thought that money would go into property-related investments and come out of the small businesses which needed it.
      The fourth worry is about whether investment will be targeted at the companies that need it. That was first mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson), who is an expert in those matters. He said that the companies that needed help were the ones that were starting up—the small companies. He asked
      416
      why the £1 million limit and the £10 million limit were not reduced, because investment was not properly targeted.
      I fear that that badly targeted device is all that appears to have emerged from the great review about which we heard last year of ways to channel savings into investment. The key problem remains of how small companies can obtain long-term finance—long-term loans. Other major investment issues are totally ignored by the Finance Bill.
      I suppose that we should be grateful that we have got anything, because in the Budget, when he argued against capital allowances, the Chancellor said that he did not think that we should distort investment decisions. I am all in favour of distorting investment decisions when investment is not being made, but I am afraid that this measure is the only thing that is included in the Finance Bill. The rest of the Bill is a vacuum. We should have measures to encourage investment throughout the economy. The missing subject is dividends, which the previous Financial Secretary was considering until Lord Hanson told the Government that he was a socialist; then he stopped doing it.
      I urge hon. Members to support our amendments tonight, because they provide that, if the measure goes through, at least we shall be able to review it in a couple of years' time and discover how it is working. We are also asking for specific exclusions of property, so that we do not create a second business expansion scheme.
      Mr. Alistair Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm). The reason why we ask him to be brief is that we know that he can make his arguments extremely well briefly, which he does time and again——and I say that not only because he happens to be one of my next-door neighbours in an Edinburgh constituency.
      The debate has been extremely useful. On few occasions that I have witnessed in the eight years I have been a Member has the House spent so much time discussing directly problems which affect so many of our constituents, and also a problem that is fundamental to the future development of the economy.
      There is no difference between the two sides of the House on the principle of venture capital trusts. We all agree that it is desirable, and from time to time necessary, to use fiscal incentives to ensure that investments are made in the sectors where we need it.
      The difference between us is threefold. First, we believe that the Government need to consider other sectors, which have been mentioned on both sides of the House. Secondly, we believe that there must be safeguards to ensure that, if one gives a tax incentive, one does not end up subsidising undesirable behaviour, such as the behaviour that occurred when the business expansion scheme was set up. In that respect, too, there was common ground on both sides of the House. The difference between the two sides is that those who support the Government do not appear to accept that there is a case for ensuring that there should be safeguards in relation to venture capital trusts.
      I suppose that the third difference between us is that we believe that the Government have given fiscal incentives in undesirable ways, such as the business

      417
      expansion scheme, but the Government will not accept that the taxpayer's money has thereby been poured down the drain. I shall perhaps discuss that later.
      7.15 pm
      The Minister appeared reluctant to accept that there is no difference of principle between us, so we should perhaps not spend too much time trying to make differences where none exist. Perhaps British industry as a whole will welcome the fact that there is cross-party support for the principle of encouraging investment in what is known as the investment gap, which has been identified by almost every hon. Member who has contributed to the debate.
      However, I took exception when the Minister said that because no one was focusing on granny farms, as he put it, that was all right. In support of his proposition, he cited the fact that Rothschild's supported the Government. What a surprise—Rothschild's supports the Government. I am sure that a bank such as Rothschild's, which has no fewer than 14 times been the recipient of public largesse, either as an adviser to the Government or as an underwriter of its flotation schemes, should say, "Well done the Government for coming up with that scheme."
      Indeed, as my hon. Friends the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said, if venture capitalists do take great care in assessing the risks and evaluating the projects before them, it is scarcely surprising that the Chancellor hardly sat down after his Budget statement before our old chums at Rothschild's announced that they were going to set up a venture capital trust. They could not have known what was in the Budget, could they? How on earth would they know what a surefire bet it was—unless, of course, they had the amazing foresight of the noble Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare?How could Rothschild's say so confidently that it was going to set up a venture capital trust unless it had made an evaluation of the type of tax breaks available and knew that, no matter what the risk, no matter what venture it backed, it was guaranteed to obtain a suitable return?
      I do not think that the Minister can rely on Rothschild's for support, therefore, and I believe that both he and Conservative Members generally, today of all days, would do well to be very quiet about Rothschild's and the Conservative party, for reasons that people outside and inside the House will understand.
      The main subject to which successive hon. Members drew attention was the funding gap between quoted companies and small businesses, many of which are funded by family money or by bank overdraft. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) said, that is starting to change; nevertheless, there is obviously a funding gap and we welcome the fact that the Government are tackling it.
      I want to take up an argument that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made about property. I think that we all accept that if inflation remains low—a big "if'—obviously property will not be the kind of bet that it was in the past 30 or 40 years. However, in my travels around the City of London I have been surprised how many people tell me that they are getting back into property again. We all remember the property collapses of the 1970s, the late 1980s and the early 1990s; yet people are getting back into property because it is regarded as a major asset in a portfolio.
      418
      I do not think that we can take it for granted that, simply because inflation is low at the moment, the bad examples that the BES scheme threw up when it was in force will not return. I think that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) conceded as much in his contribution. Although he said that he believed that it was unlikely that property speculation would become a problem again, none of us can rely on that being the case for ever. That appears to be another reason to support the Opposition amendment, which says that we should review the scheme in a couple of years' time.
      Several Conservative Members have said that two years is not long enough to evaluate the schemes, and I accept that. I am not asking for schemes to be considered after two years, but obviously in the two-year period we shall have a pretty good idea if we notice the bad old habits re-emerging. If, as we have suggested, and on the basis of the many articles that have been mentioned, people do regard the scheme as a honeypot for tax avoidance and if we notice bad habits returning, it is surely right to ensure that taxpayers' money is not used to subsidise wholly undesirable behaviour.
      As Conservative Members never tire of telling us, it is not the Government's money, but the taxpayer's money. They should think long and hard about using taxpayers' money to subsidise behaviour that most Members on both sides of the House find objectionable. Granny farming is not an activity that should be encouraged in general, and it certainly should not be encouraged by subsidy.
      It was interesting that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) and my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) made similar arguments. I wondered whether the hon. Member for Orpington was having second, or perhaps third thoughts, and reverting to his original beliefs as he rightly drew attention to the fact that there is a problem with start-up finance, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East, who has considerable experience in that sector. The hon. Member for Orpington argued that it is sometimes difficult to obtain funding for projects of less than £2 million.
      I have an annual debate with the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West on the subject of his various interests. Each year, he is a member of the Finance Committee. I would advise him not to make the British Venture Capital Association his only port of call as the authority that no business need go without funds. Of course, that association has a view, but it is not the only one. As has been said, there is a funding gap and the Government should tackle that problem.
      Mr. Butterfill: I am sure that when he reads my speech carefully the hon. Gentleman will see that I did not make that association my only point of reference. I referred specifically to the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry—of which I am a member—which looked into the matter in great depth.
      Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman mentioned one or two other points, but he put considerable weight on that association. However, we shall return to the subject.
      As usual, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) made an informed and highly enjoyable speech—apart from the silly crocodile tears that he wept over whether we were new or old Labour or new or old Liberal. Closing tax loopholes is a matter of right or wrong, not new or old. Our concern is not to open a mammoth tax loophole without adequate safeguards.

      419
      I emphasise that we all agree that Government intervention may be necessary where there is market failure. We must surely all also agree, however, that if fiscal incentives are to be used it is essential for the Government to ensure that those incentives achieve their intended aim and are not abused. That was the point behind the campaign launched by Labour to close tax loopholes. We are not against high rewards for those who undertake high risks, but we are against high rewards for low risk.
      I commend to the Minister the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West, who knows a thing or two about such matters. I also commend to him the suggestions made by others of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) and for Rotherham.
      One or two hon. Members spoke about the tax avoidance industry. I wish that Conservative Members would pay more attention to that industry. Tax avoidance is wholly legitimate; we are all entitled to reduce our tax bills and are obliged to render unto Caesar only that which is due to Caesar. That does not mean that we should help the tax avoidance industry. Conservative Members sometimes seem to regard that industry like piracy: it demonstrates the entrepreneurial spirit and they cannot bring themselves to criticise it or get in its way.
      Mr. Forman: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is the very complexity of many Finance Bills which creates the opportunities that many of us wish to eliminate?
      Mr. Darling: Absolutely. Although it is not a declarable interest, I am happy to declare a sort of interest in that I am a member of the Institute for Fiscal Studies committee set up to examine the complexities of taxation. I cannot remember which Conservative Member represents that party on the committee.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: My hon. Friend can sort out all the complexities.
      Mr. Darling: My response to the sedentary intervention of my good colleague the shadow Chief Secretary is that I am not going to sort them all out myself: I shall report back to him so that he can sort it out in two years' time when he is sitting in the Treasury along with the Japanese tourists or whoever else happens to populate it then.
      The need for investment in this country is crucial—no one has denied that—but I wish to return to the issue which appears to separate the two sides: the need for safeguards. Conservative Members and the Minister said that we should not pay too much attention to what happened with the business expansion scheme. I have a quotation on which the Minister might wish to reflect. It comes from an interesting speech that was made a couple of years ago. It states:
      "Think back six years. The yuppie revolution was in full swing . . . But it was built on sand. The wheeler-dealer was the man of the moment. The best returns were to be found in trading financial assets. Demand for property seemed inexhaustible. Money inevitably flowed towards these apparently sure-fire winners. But the system"—
      the business expansion scheme—
      420
      "was giving the wrong signals. Far from being sure-fire winners, many were, in fact, sure-fire losers. We can see them today marked by To Let boards outside brand-new buildings that will never make a return for the people who built them.
      The absence of a proper return matters to the developer, but it also matters to the rest of us, because the resources that were attracted, like moths to a lamp-bulb, to the lure of easy money are resources that have been wasted."
      No one in the Labour party said that. Conservative Members will remember who said it, because it was none other than the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
      Conservative Members may wish to reflect on the fact that those words were said by a member of the Cabinet, and perhaps one of the most decent and informed people to be sidelined in the Cabinet reshuffle. Indeed, he may have been sidelined not only because he set up a committee to look into the long-term and short-term attitudes in the City, before Lord Hanson said that that had to stop, but because he was astute enough to say that resources that were attracted
      "like moths to a lamp-bulb, to the lure of easy money"
      have been wasted. The case is made for our amendment by a member of the Conservative Cabinet. Conservative Members can surely learn from the mistakes that they made quite recently—not long ago in their 16-year span—with the business expansion scheme.
      We are anxious to ensure that investment and entrepreneurial spirit is encouraged and that where there is a gap in the market the Government use all their powers to fill it, but we cannot and will not support a device which is likely to give rise to yet another tax break. I suspect that the present Government are responsible for creating more tax breaks than any other Government in history. That is partly because some Conservatives are, by inclination, attracted to such breaks and partly because some of them have connections with people in the tax avoidance industry.
      The public interest demands that if public money is to be spent there must be safeguards in the public interest to ensure that money is directed to those sectors which need investment and have a high risk. They could include high-tech sectors and the very sectors in which Britain has not, historically, been able to compete. It seems that hon. Members on both sides of the House have tonight recognised that gap and the fact that far more needs to be done.
      With our amendment we are merely asking for an assurance that the Government will not create a huge tax break for people who do not deserve it. Conservative Members are right to say that people are entitled to take advantage of the tax system, but it should never be a function of the Government or of the House simply to nod something through while knowing full well that there is a substantial risk that it will create the mother of all tax breaks. It is for that reason that we tabled our amendment.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I wish to press the Minister on the subject of property. The issue has been debated, but I am not convinced that all aspects of it have been taken into account. We are trying to ensure that, at the start, the right signals are given to show that venture capital trusts are designed to divert money, by tax efficient means, into productive investment.
      Despite the debate about the state of the property market and the intervention of one or two Conservative Members, I must repeat that the problem in the past has

      421
      been that investing simply in the management of existing properties on the basis of speculation about their value, while it may be a perfectly legitimate business and has, at times, been profitable, does not add to the sum total of real wealth. However, it can be the source of a great deal of attracted, diverted, tax-ubsidised investment.
      The property market is currently in a more complex state than it has been for some time. One cannot say that the property market is globally depressed, as some sectors are performing reasonably well. There is no doubt that a well-managed property portfolio has every prospect of attracting a return that is significantly better than the rate of inflation. That being so, clearly the added benefit of a tax incentive is likely to encourage the promotion of more such portfolios.
      In recent years, I have been a very small investor in a unit trust-related property fund which, throughout the recession, has not only out-performed the property market but out-performed the general index, even in the depths of the property recession. It did so because it was astutely managed and well targeted. I do not criticise that, but I criticise the fact that such funds should be encouraged for purely tax-relief purposes.
      An ironic, contradictory, but equally valid point is that a tax incentive might provide the reassurance to secure a property portfolio and give it extra underpinning. Having a tax investment built in might allow people to hedge their bets. On both counts, I think that the Government are in danger of opening up a very good scheme to speculative investment which will be unproductive and which could divert a great deal of money away from the Treasury and from the businesses which need it. For that reason, I believe that the Committee should accept the amendment, and I hope that the Government will rethink their position.
      7.30 pm
      Sir George Young: I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling): it has been a good debate, with hon. Members starting from the common position that there is a problem which needs to be addressed. I shall deal with the major questions raised during the debate and I write to those hon. Members whose questions I do not reply to directly.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage who was, quite rightly, promoted from the Treasury to the Cabinet in the July reshuffle. His reference to my right hon. Friend being "sidelined" is one of the most preposterous things that I have heard in the Chamber for many years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be "sidelined" in due course—if that is how he interprets it.
      I agree with some of the things that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said. There has been a cultural shift, but there has also been a change in the perception of property and property development in the past 10 years. That is one reason why investments are less likely to go into those sectors. I shall return to that matter in a moment.
      On his point about the interest in the land issue, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should read the Revenue Law Committee memorandum written by the Law Society entitled "Revenue Law Reform". It states:
      "Many bona fide trading companies, although not property-based, will not satisfy the requirement that the value of their interest in land does not exceed half the value of the company's assets as a
      422
      whole. Further, although the test may initially be satisfied, it may inadvertently be breached subsequently during the relevant period. Although the effect will be to exclude asset-backed companies, the restrictions will extend more widely than this".
      In other words, it says that the rule which the hon. Gentleman wants to apply could exclude a company manufacturing widgets which happens to own its own factory. That cannot be right.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) identified the opportunities for small companies presented by the structural changes in the economy. He will be reassured to know that the enterprise investment scheme has already provided help for start-ups. Approximately 30 per cent. of schemes funded so far under the EIS have been start-ups, and they have raised an average of £80,000, which hits the target that my hon. Friend identified.
      The hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) asked why there was nothing in the Bill to help business angels. That assistance was provided in the Finance Act 1994 which introduced the enterprise investment scheme designed specifically for business angels. The hon. Lady is quite right: there is a role for them, but I think that their role is focused more accurately on the EIS rather than on the venture capital trust scheme in this Finance Bill. More than 50 per cent. of the enterprise investment schemes reported to Inland Revenue have involved business angels.
      I am afraid that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) is just unreconstructed. There is a risk of being committed in theory to the principle of VCTs but then undermining and qualifying that commitment to such an extent that one is left with very little.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) made informed speeches correctly identifying the gap in funding that the VCT meets. I shall respond to their anxiety—I think that it was the main anxiety to come through the debate—about what we shall do if the investment goes into schemes about which hon. Members have expressed reservations.
      I can tell the Committee, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West, that we shall keep the VCT scheme under close review. If there is evidence of the scheme being used for tax avoidance purposes or if a disproportionate amount of funds is invested in low-risk activities we shall not hesitate to take action to prevent that occurring. We shall make immediate use of the power included in schedule 14 to add to the list of non-qualifying activities if the need arises. I hope that that also gives some comfort to the hon. Member for Gordon.
      The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) asked a number of questions and I think it will be easier if I reply to him in writing as some of them were highly technical and the Committee would like to make progress.
      There have been extensive consultations about the scheme. It is a worthwhile proposal which has been welcomed by those who will operate it. There is a real need for small businesses to access the funds and I think that the Committee should make progress and put the scheme into action.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 242, Noes 321.

      Division No. 49]

      [7.34 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Ainger, Nick

      Fisher, Mark

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Flynn, Paul

      Allen, Graham

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Foulkes, George

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Fraser, John

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Fyfe, Maria

      Ashton, Joe

      Galbraith, Sam

      Barnes, Harry

      Galloway, George

      Baron, Kevin

      Gapes, Mike

      Battle, John

      George, Bruce

      Bayley, Hugh

      Gerrard, Neil

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Bell, Stuart

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Godsiff, Roger

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Benton, Joe

      Gordon, Mildred

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Graham, Thomas

      Berry, Roger

      Grant Bernie (Tottenham)

      Betts, Clive

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Blunkett, David

      Grocott, Bruce

      Boateng, Paul

      Gunnell, John

      Boyes, Roland

      Hall, Mike

      Bradley, Keith

      Hanson, David

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hardy, Peter

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

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Burden, Richard

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Byers, Stephen

      Henderson, Doug

      Caborn, Richard

      Heppell, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Hoey, Kate

      Canavan, Dennis

      Home Robertson, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Hood, Jimmy

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Church, Judith

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Clapham, Michael

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Clelland, David

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Coffey, Ann

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hutton, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Illsley, Eric

      Corbett, Robin

      Ingram, Adam

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Corston, Jean

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jamieson, David

      Cox, Tom

      Janner, Greville

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Dalyell, Tam

      Keen, Alan

      Darling, Alistair

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Davidson, Ian

      Khabra, Piara S

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Lewis, Terry

      Denham, John

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Dixon, Don

      Litherland, Robert

      Dobson, Frank

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Dowd, Jim

      Loyden, Eddie

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      McAllion, John

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      McCartney, Ian

      Enright, Derek

      Macdonald, Calum

      Etherington, Bill

      McFall, John

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      McKelvey, William

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Fatchett, Derek

      McMaster, Gordon

      424

      McNamara, Kevin

      Rooney, Terry

      MacShane, Denis

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McWilliam, John

      Rowlands, Ted

      Madden, Max

      Ruddock, Joan

      Mahon, Alice

      Salmond, Alex

      Mandelson, Peter

      Sheerman, Barry

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Martlew, Eric

      Short, Clare

      Maxton, John

      Simpson, Alan

      Meacher, Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Michael, Alun

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Soley, Clive

      Milburn, Alan

      Spearing, Nigel

      Miller, Andrew

      Spellar, John

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Morley, Elliot

      Stevenson, George

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Stott, Roger

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Straw, Jack

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mudie, George

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mullin, Chris

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Timms, Stephen

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Tipping, Paddy

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Turner, Dennis

      O'Hara, Edward

      Vaz, Keith

      Olner, Bill

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      O'Neill, Martin

      Walley, Joan

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Pearson, Ian

      Wareing, Robert N

      Pickthall, Colin

      Watson, Mike

      Pike, Peter L

      Welsh, Andrew

      Pope, Greg

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carmarthen)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Wilson, Brian

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Winnick, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Wise, Audrey

      Randall, Stuart

      Worthington, Tony

      Raynsford, Nick

      Wray, Jimmy

      Reid, Dr John

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rogers, Allan

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

      Rooker, Jeff

      Ms Tessa Jowell

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Biffen, R Hon John

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Body, Sir Richard

      Alexander, Richard

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Booth, Hartley

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Boswell, Tim

      Alton, David

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Amess, David

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bowis, John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Ashby, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Atkins, Robert

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Baldry, Tony

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Burns, Simon

      Bates, Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Batiste, Spencer

      Butcher, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Butler, Peter

      Bellingham, Henry

      Butterfill, John

      Bendall, Vivian

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

      425

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hannam, Sir John

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Cash, William

      Harris, David

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Harvey, Nick

      Chapman, Sydney

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Chidgey, David

      Hawkins, Nick

      Churchill, Mr

      Hawksley, Warren

      Clappison, James

      Hayes, Jerry

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Heald, Oliver

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hendry, Charles

      Colvin, Michael

      Hicks, Robert

      Congdon, David

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre Forest)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Horam, John

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Couchman, James

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Cran, James

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

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

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Day, Stephen

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Delvin, Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Dicks, Terry

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Jack, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Dover, Den

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Duncan, Alan

      Jessel, Toby

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Dunn, Bob

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Elletson, Harold

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Key, Robert

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Evennett, David

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Faber, David

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Fabricant, Michael

      Knapman, Roger

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Fishburn, Dudley

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

      Forman, Nigel

      Knox, Sir David

      Forth, Eric

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      French, Douglas

      Legg, Barry

      Gale, Roger

      Leigh, Edward

      Gallie, Phil

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Lidington, David

      Garnier, Edward

      Lightbown, David

      Gill, Christopher

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Lord, Michael

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Luff, Peter

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Gorst, Sir John

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Maclean, David

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Hague, William

      Maddock, Diana

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Madel, Sir David

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      426

      Mans, Keith

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Marlow, Tony

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Marshal, John (Hendon S)

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Marshal, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Mates, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Spring, Richard

      Merchant, Piers

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Mills, Iain

      Stanley Rt Hon Sir John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Steen, Anthony

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Stephen, Michael

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Stern, Michael

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Stewart, Allan

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Streeter, Gary

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Sumberg, David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Sweeney, Walter

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Sykes, John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West),

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Norris, Steve

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Ottaway, Richard

      Thomason, Roy

      Page, Richard

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Paice, James

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Thumham, Peter

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Tracey, Richard

      Pawsey, James

      Tredinnick, David

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Trend, Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Trimble, David

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Trotter, Neville

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Tyler, Paul

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Rathbone, Tim

      Viggers, Peter

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Rendel, David

      Walden, George

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Richards, Rod

      Wallace, James

      Waller, Gary

      Riddick, Graham

      Ward, John

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Watts, John

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Wells, Bowen

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Whitney, Ray

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Whittingdale, John

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Willetts, David

      Sackville, Tom

      Wilshire, David

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Wirrterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wood, Timothy

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Yeo, Tim

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Shersby, Michael

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sims, Roger

      Mr. Derek Conway and

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Dr. Liam Fox.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 319, Noes 242.

      Division No. 51]

      [8.03 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Church, Judith

      Ainger, Nick

      Clapham, Michael

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Allen, Graham

      Clelland, David

      Alton, David

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Coffey, Ann

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Cohen, Harry

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Connarty, Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Corbett, Robin

      Barnes, Harry

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Barron, Kevin

      Corston, Jean

      Battle, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cox, Tom

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Cummings, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Bell, Stuart

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Dalyell, Tam

      Benton, Joe

      Darling, Alistair

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Davidson, Ian

      Berry, Roger

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Betts, Clive

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Blunkett, David

      Denham, John

      Boateng, Paul

      Dixon, Don

      Boyes, Roland

      Dobson, Frank

      Bradley, Keith

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dowd Jim

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

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

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Burden, Richard

      Enright, Derek

      Byers, Stephen

      Etherington, Bill

      Caborn, Richard

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fatchett Derek

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Flynn, Paul

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Canavan, Dennis

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Cann, Jamie

      Foulkes, George

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

      Fraser, John

      Chidgey, David

      Fyfe, Maria

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Galbraith, Sam

      432

      Galloway, George

      Madden, Max

      Gapes, Mike

      Maddock, Diana

      George, Bruce

      Mahon, Alice

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mandelson, Peter

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Martlew, Eric

      Gordon, Mildred

      Maxton, John

      Graham, Thomas

      Meacher, Michael

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Meale Alan

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Michael, Alun

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Milburn, Alan

      Gunnell, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Hall, Mike

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hanson, David

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hardy, Peter

      Morley, Elliot

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Harvey, Nick

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Henderson, Doug

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Heppell, John

      Mudie, George

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hinchliffe, David

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Hodge, Margaret

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Hoey, Kate

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Home Robertson, John

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hood, Jimmy

      Olner, Bill

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      O'Neill, Martin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Pearson, Ian

      Hoyle, Doug

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pike, Peter L

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Pope, Greg

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hutton John

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Illsley, Eric

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Ingram, Adam

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jamieson, David

      Randall, Stuart

      Janner, Greville

      Raynsford, Nick

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Reid, Dr John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Rendel, David

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Rogers, Allan

      Jewell, Tessa

      Rooker, Jeff

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rooney, Terry

      Keen, Alan

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Khabra, Piara S

      Salmond, Alex

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Lewis, Terry

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Short, Clare

      Litherland, Robert

      Simpson, Alan

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Soley, Clive

      McAllion John

      Spearing, Nigel

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Spellar John

      McCartney, Ian

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McFall John

      Stevenson, George

      McKelvey, William

      Stott, Roger

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Maclennan, Robert

      Straw, Jack

      McMaster, Gordon

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      MacShane, Denis

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      McWilliam, John

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      433

      Timms, Stephen

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Tipping, Paddy

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Turner, Dennis

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Tyler, Paul

      Wilson, Brian

      Vaz, Keith

      Winnick, David

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Wise, Audrey

      Worthington, Tony

      Wallace, James

      Wray, Jimmy

      Walley, Joan

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Young, David (Balton SE)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Watson, Mike

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Welsh, Andrew

      Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Mr. Simon Hughes.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Alexander, Richard

      Couchman, James

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Cran, James

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

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

      Amess, David

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Day, Stephen

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Ashby, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Atkins, Robert

      Dicks, Terry

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole Valley)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Dover, Den

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Duncan, Alan

      Baldry, Tony

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Dunn, Bob

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bates, Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Batiste, Spencer

      Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

      Bellingham, Henry

      Elletson, Harold

      Bendall, Vivian

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Booth, Hartley

      Evennett, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Faber, David

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bowis, John

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Forman, Nigel

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Forth, Eric

      Brazier, Julian

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      French, Douglas

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Gale, Roger

      Burns, Simon

      Gallie, Phil

      Burt, Alistair

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Butcher, John

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Butler, Peter

      Garnier, Edward

      Butterfill, John

      Gill, Christopher

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Carrington, Matthew

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Cash, William

      Gorst, Sir John

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Grant, Sir A (Cambs SW)

      Churchill, Mr

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Clappison, James

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hague, William

      Colvin, Michael

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Congdon, David

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Conway, Derek

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      434

      Hannam, Sir John

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Harris, David

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hawkins, Nick

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hawksley, Warren

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hayes, Jerry

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Heald, Oliver

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Norris, Steve

      Hendry, Charles

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hicks, Robert

      Ottaway, Richard

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Page, Richard

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Paice, James

      Horam, John

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

      Pawsey, James

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Pickles, Eric

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jack, Michael

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Jessel, Toby

      Richards, Rod

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Riddick, Graham

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Key, Robert

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Knapman, Roger

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Sackville, Tom

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

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

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Knox, Sir David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shersby, Michael

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Sims, Roger

      Legg, Barry

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Leigh, Edward

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lidington, David

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lightbown, David

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lord, Michael

      Spring, Richard

      Luff, Peter

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Steen, Anthony

      MacKay, Andrew

      Stephen, Michael

      Maclean, David

      Stern, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stewart, Allan

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Streeter, Gary

      Madel, Sir David

      Sumberg, David

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mans, Keith

      Sykes, John

      Marlow, Tony

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Thomason, Roy

      Merchant Piers

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Mills, Iain

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      435

      Tracey, Richard

      Wells, Bowen

      Tredinnick, David

      Whitney, Ray

      Trend, Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Trotter, Neville

      Widdeoombe, Ann

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Willetts, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Wilshire, David

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Walden, George

      Wolfson, Mark

      Wood, Timothy

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Yeo, Tim

      Waller, Gary

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Ward, John

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Watts, John

      Dr. Liam Fox.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 14

      VENTURE CAPITAL TRUSTS: MEANING OF "QUALIFYING HOLDINGS"
      Amendment proposed: No. 11, in schedule 14, page 257, line 32, at end insert—
      '(6) The value of the interests in land held—
      (a) by the relevant company or qualifying subsidiary of that company;
      or
      (b) (where lower) the adjusted value of the interests in land which were held by the relevant company or any qualifying subsidiary of that company immediately following the issue of the relevant holding
      must not exceed half the value of the company's assets as a whole.
      (7) The provisions of section 294(2) to 294(7) of the Taxes Act 1988 shall apply for the purposes of determining the value of the interests in land held by a relevant company or a qualifying subsidiary of that company. The provisions of section 295 of the Taxes Act 1988 shall apply for the purpose of sub-paragraph (6)(b) as they apply for the purposes of section 294(1)(b) of the Taxes Act 1988 to adjust the value of interest in land held immediately after the issue of a relevant holding.'—[Mr. Malcolm Bruce.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made: —
      The Committee divided: Aves 263, Noes 298.
      Question accordingly negatived.
      Schedule 14 agreed to.

    Clause 91

      RETURNS AND SELF-ASSESSMENTS
      8.15 pm
      Ms Hilary Armstrong: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 107, line 2, at end add—
      `(9) Her Majesty's Government shall, before 31st January 1996, present a report to Parliament on:

      (a) the guidance and explanatory material made and to be made available to the public for the purpose of ensuring that returns and partnership statements under self-assessment reflect the taxable position after claims to relief and allowances and after taking into account tax suffered on, and tax credits with, the items in the return,

      (b) the training provided and to be provided to Inland Revenue and other relevant staff on the provision of advice and support to taxpayers in the completion of their returns for the purpose of ensuring that returns and partnership statements under self-assessment reflect the taxable position after claims to relief and allowances and after taking into account tax suffered on, and tax credits with, the items in the return, and

      (c) amendments made and to be made to the Taxpayer's Charter relating to ensuring that for the purpose of ensuring that returns and partnership statements under self-assessment reflect the taxable position after claims to relief and allowances and after taking into account tax suffered on, and tax credits with, the items in the return.'.

      I know that the Chair examined the amendment carefully before selecting it and was not able to select the other amendments tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, because the clause was drawn up exceptionally tightly and carefully by parliamentary draftspeople who were anxious to ensure that we could not amend the text to any great extent.
      The clause seeks to tighten up provisions that were made last year. I might say that anyone who is riot an accountant would have great difficulty understanding what on earth it is about, but, as I am learning, most Finance Bills are written in that way. I certainly do not aspire to be an accountant, despite the fact that my local university seems to produce more accountants than anything else.
      The clause tightens up the provisions and regulations around self-assessment. It is somewhat ironic that the proposed legislation is so impenetrable, as the clause is supposed to open up the system and simplify it so that the
      436
      ordinary taxpayer will be able to fill in his or her return and assess liability. The official Opposition are happy to agree with the Government that the procedure should be simplified. The rules need to be written in such a way that proposed legislation does not become a tax avoidance charter.
      I took the opportunity to read the deliberations of last year's Committee, because the clause builds on what was in last year's Finance Bill and, indeed, the Finance Bill before that. I was quite amused by them and know that the Committee will miss the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), who was always able to bring a light touch to those matters. I apologise to the Committee, but I know that I shall not have quite that lightness of touch. I was never as good at jokes as my hon. Friend, but nevertheless will plod my way through.
      This is a radical provision. It is a radical approach to the taxation system and the assessment of liability. The House has already had the painful experience of legislation insufficiently scrutinised, over-bureaucratic and insensitively implemented. Such recent legislation has not always emanated from the Treasury. Examples were given in the previous debate when the business expansion scheme was mentioned.
      Talk of legislation which is over-bureaucratic and insensitive and which has led the Government into all sorts of difficulties brings to mind the Child Support Agency. This measure is not in the same league because it does not set up a new department. However, we fear that its implementation will be bureaucratic and, instead of it simplifying matters and easing the way for the taxpayer, it will present the taxpayer with a difficult passage. The complexity and denseness of the clause must give rise to concern. Those who seek to move to self-assessment in the first instance will have many problems.
      Most of the amendments tabled by the Opposition were not in order because, as I said, the clause has been crafted so carefully. They sought to push the Government into considering whether they had taken appropriate and cautious steps in arriving at this radical change in the manner of clarifying tax liability.
      Since last year's Finance Bill, the taxpayers charter has been published. It says:
      "You"—
      the taxpayer—
      "are entitled to expect the Inland Revenue …
      To help you
      To get your tax affairs right
      To understand your rights and obligations
      By providing clear leaflets and forms
      By giving you information and assistance at our enquiry offices
      By being courteous at all times".
      The Inland Revenue's attitude towards the taxpayer must undergo a radical shift. Instead of its current probing, challenging approach, it will have to be helpful, supportive and encouraging. It will have to develop a relationship of trust and that will be critical in ensuring the success of the venture.
      The taxpayer's attitude, too, must undergo a radical shift. The legislation applies to the 8 million people who currently fill in a tax form, not all taxpayers. It requires

      437
      from them co-operation and keenness. They should want and be able to find their way through the complex provisions.
      Most people I know fill in their tax forms with some apprehension. They wonder where it will land them and whether they have got it right. Not everyone shares my father's approach to taxation. He tells me that he would tell his accountant that he did not want to avoid paying tax and that he wanted to pay all that he was liable to. It was clear from our previous debate that that is not the attitude of all taxpayers when it comes to filling in their tax forms. I suspect that my father's attitude has something to do with his Methodist upbringing. We are entering a regime where the relationship between the taxpayer and the tax inspector will have to change.
      The Government made it clear last year that there would have to be a change in the number of tax inspectors. That goes without saying. There was some debate in Committee last year about what would happen to the approximately 3,000 tax inspectors who are expected to have to move. At that stage the Minister could not clarify whether they would be redeployed or whether the Government would take the opportunity to reduce costs by reducing the number of people employed.
      We are anxious that the Government should consider the matter carefully. Given the changing relationship between taxpayers and tax inspectors, the Opposition contend that those tax inspectors should be redeployed within the Inland Revenue in order, specifically, to help, advise and support the taxpayer, particularly in the early stages of moving to self-assessment, with the change in the base year on which the tax form is to be completed.
      We are not content that there has been sufficient retraining or opportunity for the relevant staff to be able to provide comprehensive advice and support to assist taxpayers in the completion of their tax returns. The Inland Revenue staff association is not content that sufficient effort has been put into the retraining of staff. It shares our anxieties that the scheme could falter because insufficient attention has been paid to matters of detail and the specific area of retraining for the tax officials to fulfil their new role. One of the major criticisms of the Child Support Agency was that the staff were not prepared for or effectively trained to face the new challenges presented by the legislation. It would be a travesty if, because of that, the Government faltered into a new way of assessing tax liability.
      8.30 pm
      Self-assessment will not be introduced for a couple of years. The year of its implementation is likely to be a general election year, and the offical Opposition are therefore particularly anxious to ensure that all the necessary steps are taken to prevent taxpayers from feeling that they have been led up the garden path, and from becoming, as it were, the equivalent of the CSA protesters. We do not want good self-employed small business people to be driven to such lengths. I hope that that is an exaggeration, but I also hope that the Government are learning some of the lessons of inappropriate and insufficient preparation for major changes. I hope that they are beginning to realise that we Members of Parliament must ensure that all the necessary preparations are made—and, as I have said, the role of Inland Revenue staff will be crucial in that regard.
      438
      So far, taxpayers have not been given any preparatory information and advice. Consultation papers have been issued this year, and Treasury press releases have suggested that changes in the Finance Bill would deal with the matter, but I am not satisfied—and nor are several outside bodies—that that is the case.
      We tabled a number of probing amendments—which, because of the tight drafting of clause 91, were not in order—in an attempt to give taxpayers more leeway in the first year of self-assessment. We wanted not to encourage tax avoidance, but to minimise the problems: problems in the early stages of the implementation of the clause would undermine the principle of self-assessment and the Government's objectives, which we fully support.
      When the consultation papers were issued, the Institute of Taxation wrote to the Treasury expressing a fear that the cost to employers would rise significantly. The institute felt that the Government had not taken sufficient account of that. I spoke to the institute this week, and it remains exceedingly sceptical, feeling that the Bill does not tackle the points that it raised during consultation.
      Following the issue of the documents, the institute wrote—and it stands by that view:
      "The Revenue must devote sufficient resources to educating employers and employees about the impending changes. They must also simplify the taxation of benefits and expenses and bring national insurance contributions into line with other taxes … If assessment may benefit a very small minority of employed taxpayers but the most obvious result of the proposals will be a significant increase in compliance costs for employers.
      This arises not only in providing the annual information that employees generally will need … but also because employers will find themselves supporting the Inland Revenue's efforts to make employees more tax aware. Increasing taxpayer awareness on this scale involves a change in culture and attitude that may well take a generation to achieve. In the meantime the employer is inevitably likely to bear the brunt of employee difficulties and indeed we believe that self assessment for employees cannot be made to work by the Inland Revenue without the active co-operation of very many employers."
      If that is the case, we have a long way to go before the Government's aims are achieved. Over the past two years they have consistently reiterated their anxiety to remove burdens from employers, but the Institute of Taxation foresees an additional burden.
      As I have said, we welcome the principles of self-assessment and simplification of the tax system, but no one who reads this year's Finance Bill will be convinced that the system is indeed being simplified. Indeed—as we shall point out later in Committee—in some ways it is being made more complex. We must be confident that legislation passed by the House will be implemented in a way that achieves the House's aims, but the Opposition remain unconvinced that the Government are serious enough about that.
      We want to be sure that the taxpayers charter takes account of these important changes in the assessment of tax liability. I am cynical enough never to expect the Government to accept an amendment in full, but I am always open to persuasion, and I hope that they will accept at least the spirit of this one. We want to ensure that the House can implement the self-assessment proposals with confidence: that is the only way in which we can be certain that the changes work in the interests of taxpayers and, indeed, the taxation system as a whole.
      Mr. Alan Milburn: As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong)

      439
      said, the introduction of self-assessment is a radical shake up in the tax system. The Opposition do not argue against the principle of self-assessment but we are concerned about its implementation. On the plus side it is fairly clear that it will mean less bureaucracy, less paperwork and fewer Revenue overheads. But it will be a culture shock for taxpayers. For the first time the onus will be on them to supply the correct information and submit a return within the required time. Obviously, automatic penalties will be imposed on those who fail to get their tax return in on time.
      I hope that a new impetus will be given to tackling some of the problems that have become evident in recent years. I mention in particular the alarming statistic that at the moment about 2.5 million taxpayers file their tax returns late. That has a cost to the Exchequer and to the taxpayer. Has the Treasury assessed the impact of those appalling late filing figures? How many people does the Minister expect to file on time and how many does he expect to file late? What assessment has the Treasury made of the financial implications of those figures? Has the Minister assessed the cash-flow implications for the Exchequer? At the end of the day that means the taxpayer because, as Conservative Members continually remind us, it is the taxpayer who foots the bill.
      I hope that the Treasury has paid close attention to the Public Accounts Committee report. Our fourth report entitled, "Inland Revenue: Getting Tax Right First Time and Dealing with More Complex Postal Queries" raised a number of concerns about current practice and raised some doubts about the implementation of the self-assessment system. If the onus is placed on the taxpayer and Parliament is broadly in agreement with that principle, the onus is on Parliament and especially on Ministers to make taxpayers fully aware of their self-assessment responsibilities.
      What thought has been given to the sort of public education programme that will be necessary not just for taxpayers but for employers and Inland Revenue staff? My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West spoke about the need to ensure that adequate training mechanisms are in place not when the system is introduced but before its introduction, so that teething problems are minimised.
      The next issue that I wish to raise was highlighted in paragraph 18 of the PAC report:
      "The success of self-assessment will depend in part on the use of forms that taxpayers can readily understand. The Department accepted that such forms are a critical piece of documentation for the new system."
      I understand that some preliminary forms have been trialed, but I also understand that the Plain English Society has not yet been consulted about the wording of the forms. That might seem trivial but according to rumour the Treasury has in mind forms that run not to one or two pages but to 17 pages. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to dispel that rumour because if I were a small self-employed business man dealing with the plethora of problems that such business men have to deal with the last thing that I would want to face would be more red tape, bureaucracy and paperwork by way of 17-page forms from the Inland Revenue.
      440
      The most important point about implementation is contained in the PAC report. It noted the complexity of tax legislation and the problems that that causes for taxpayers and Inland Revenue staff. The Committee recommended that the Treasury should continue to take every opportunity to simplify the tax system.
      8.45 pm
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West said, the Finance Bill contains 348 pages. Whatever else it has going for it, it certainly does not simplify the tax system. Some complicated rules will need to be made clear to all taxpayers. What does the Minister have in mind for simplifying the tax system? Unless the system is made straightforward and clear, self-assessment will not be a boon for individual taxpayers and certainly not for Inland Revenue staff.
      However, it will be a boon for the private accountancy industry. There will be privatisation of the tax system because taxpayers and small businesses which rely upon the Inland Revenue properly to assess their affairs will have to turn to private accountancy firms and pay for the privilege.
      That brings me to the important matter of what is to happen to the 3,000 Inland Revenue staff who could be displaced as a result of self-assessment. Self-assessment is a threat to those staff but it is also an opportunity because it will provide a chance to redeploy staff so that back room officers will be transferred to the front line and district officers will be turned into more public-friendly people. Advice shops could be opened in district offices. Has the Treasury any plans on that?
      As I understand it, self-assessment will give Inland Revenue staff an opportunity to monitor taxpayers' returns. How many of those self-assessment forms will simply be nodded through and how many will not be properly assessed or queried? We need an assurance that a thorough-going monitoring process will apply to as many return forms as possible. If implementation goes wrong, self-assessment will turn into a tax avoidance industry. The last thing that Ministers want to do is to give the green light to tax avoidance, especially when we hear from the Inland Revenue that the current system means that annually £100 million worth of tax is not properly collected from taxpayers.
      Some concerns exist therefore. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with them in his reply to the debate. We had a debate on self-assessment in the Committee that considered the Finance Bill last year, and this Finance Bill takes the issue a stage further. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that it is a positive step forward. We all agree about the need to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, but dangers exist in the process of implementation. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West has pointed out some of those dangers. I hope that I have as well. I would be grateful if the Minister would deal with the concerns that have been expressed.
      Sir George Young: I very much welcome this opportunity to reassure the House that the Government take self-assessment reform seriously. We have taken and are taking on board the words of caution that have been voiced in the debate. I hope that, in the few minutes that I propose to take to deal with these issues, I shall be able to reassure hon. Members on the specific points that they have raised.

      441
      Like the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) I am not an accountant. Like her, I experienced a culture shock when confronted with the legislative text in the Finance Bill. Like her, I am climbing a fairly steep learning curve. She asked if the Government were taking appropriate cautious steps to introduce the measure. She is right so to do. Self-assessment is a major change to the personal tax system. We are introducing it after an extensive period of consultation, both public and with representatives of business and the professions, and it has already been debated at some length in the House.
      The hon. Lady outlined qualities that Inland Revenue staff will need if this is to be a success. I am confident that they have those qualities already and that they will apply them to the challenge that lies ahead.
      The Government are committed to the new system, which has been widely welcomed. I was pleased that, in the debate, the principle of self-assessment has been broadly accepted. When we debated the matter in 1994, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) graciously acknowledged that broad agreement existed on the issues, and that they were not controversial.
      A few days ago, I happened to meet Inland Revenue staff from Darlington when they were in London. They were finalists in a competition organised by the Revenue to promote details of schemes worked up by staff which especially emphasised customer service. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) can be proud, therefore, of the Revenue staff in his constituency in that they reached the final of the competition.
      Both he and the hon. Member for Durham, North-West complained about the length of the legislation. If one wants to simplify the tax system, one may have to legislate. Some of the reforms in the Bill simplify the system. Personal incidental expenses are an example. The length of the Bill, therefore, does not necessarily mean that the legislation is becoming more complicated. I hope that it contains proposals that simplify the system.
      The main legislation for self-assessment was passed in the Finance Act 1994 with all-party support. Some of the changes have already come into effect, or will do so soon. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage made clear last year, some of the more detailed clauses would need longer to complete and would be introduced this year. He also committed the Government to making changes where, on further examination and consultation, it was felt sensible to do so. That remains the case.
      The Bill contains a considerable number of clauses that have as their origin the desirability of making changes to make self-assessment easier—something that was advocated by both Labour Members who have spoken. The Government have, wherever possible, taken the opportunity to simplify the underlying rules at the same time. For example, the Bill contains measures that will introduce substantial simplifications for the taxation of income from property, and the beneficiaries of the estates of deceased persons. In developing measures for self-assessment, I am determined that they should be as straightforward as possible.
      It is perhaps worth reminding the Committee about the main features of self-assessment. It is a clearer, more streamlined system for taxpayers. Self-assessment will also simplify matters for the Revenue. It will free up
      442
      resources. In response to the hon. Member for Darlington, some of those will be devoted to improving customer service, as well as the Revenue's compliance work.
      The introduction last year of the current-year basis for businesses has paved the way for taxing all income and gains in one sum and with common dates. It will no longer be necessary for the Revenue to make estimates of an individual's tax liability as a matter of course, leading to the familiar but costly rigmarole of sorting out, often over a long period, how much tax should be paid. Instead, taxpayers will be able to put all their income, gains, deductions and allowances for one year on the one tax return, and send it to the Revenue within a clear and realistic timetable.
      The hon. Member for Darlington asked about the timetable. The returns will have to be in 10 months after the end of the tax year, as against the current position—in theory, the limit is 30 days. Ten months is a generous time, particularly if one compares it with the time that is allowed in other European countries.
      Taxpayers will have the opportunity to work out their own tax if they wish, but, as I made clear on Second Reading, they do not need to do so. The Revenue will do it for them if that is what they choose.
      Hon. Members will know that self-assessment will apply directly only to people who receive tax returns. They number 9 million people and are the self-employed and others with relatively complicated tax affairs, such as directors and higher-paid employees. Pay-as-you-earn will continue to operate as now for all employees, of whom four out of five, some 20 million people, do not receive returns and will notice little change. I say to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West that of course the Government will learn from experience as they introduce the new reform.
      It is important that such a fundamental change should be made only after careful thought and extensive consultation. We have recognised that throughout and, to allow more time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) decided, when announcing the go-ahead in 1993, to put back the start date by one year. The emphasis now must be on doing all that we can to make the new system work well from the start.
      To help achieve that, the Revenue has already begun an extensive programme of research and education. It is preparing a publicity campaign to start later this year. It is consulting widely on the design of the tax return, which the hon. Member for Darlington mentioned, as well as on many other aspects of self-assessment. It will test its plans for the new system in a live trial—a pilot, if you like, Madam Deputy Speaker—starting this April. That will involve some 5,000 volunteers and their advisers and employers. It will be based at the Revenue's "model office" in Leicester.
      That is not a theoretical exercise. It is real Revenue staff dealing with real taxpayers. The trial and the lessons that are learned from it will help the Revenue to ensure that the introduction of self-assessment goes as smoothly as possible. In response to both Labour Members who have spoken, the Revenue has also started an extensive training programme for its own staff to ensure that they are properly prepared for the new system.

      443
      The key aim of self-assessment is to reduce the overall costs of running the tax system. A more straightforward system will deliver that, and will provide significant savings for the self-employed by sweeping away all the complexity of the old rules. That will allow businesses to concentrate their energies where they really belong—on creating wealth.
      As with any new system, people in business and others who receive returns and their advisers will need to learn new rules. I recognise that there will be some initial costs for those affected. Some employees will need more information than they do now about benefits in kind and expenses payments, so that they can complete a tax return if they receive one. That will also mean more work for some employers—those who do not provide that information to their employees, but who will need to do so.
      We have tried to keep business costs to the absolute minimum by consulting as widely as possible on the best way forward, listening carefully to what people had to say. We are continuing with those consultations. Indeed, members of the self-assessment consultative committee were good enough to come to a meeting at the Treasury just before Christmas, so that I could hear their views at first hand. A substantial programme of publicity and education for taxpayers is planned and is under way. Particular emphasis will be given to raising awareness and to tax advisers understanding the changes through mailings and presentations.
      Some deregulatory savings will arise from self-assessment. Both the cost and savings are documented in detail in the comprehensive compliance cost assessment that we published on Budget day. Notwithstanding such costs, the overall impact on business is expected to be positive and to produce continuing savings of between £125 million and £250 million per year in business costs. The main beneficiaries of that will be the self-employed. I can tell the hon. Member for Darlington that the aim of self-assessment is to help people to get their tax right first time. This will involve making them aware of their responsibilities through the programme of education and publicity that I mentioned.
      9 pm
      The design of the tax return and the guidance notes will also have an important role. We are consulting taxpayers, professional advisers and Revenue staff and we are also undertaking research to help design a return that is as easy to understand and as simple to complete as possible. The response to the consultation has been excellent, with strong interest from not only agents but the public. Indeed, more than 1,000 people volunteered to try out the new return for themselves—it says something for the popularity of the new scheme when people are volunteering to fill in a new return that they are not obliged to fill in. Consultation on the new tax return will continue throughout 1995.
      The consultations centre on the traditional paper tax return but self-assessment is a system for the future and clause 136 includes the measures necessary to enable taxpayers to file their returns electronically. However, our plans do not stop at electronic lodgement. Many taxpayers already have personal computers at home and, in the
      444
      future, even more will have computer skills. Filling in a tax return, especially under self-assessment, is an activity which, I believe, lends itself naturally to the use of a personal computer—it can do the calculations and it can access the right help screen. I have, therefore, encouraged the Inland Revenue to consider urgently the possibility of producing a version of the return on computer disk, but it need not be something that the Revenue itself produces—it is a natural candidate for private sector involvement or partnership. Either way, I regard it as an exciting development and the right way forward.
      Finally, whether people decide to use a paper return, a computer disk or electronic lodgement, self-assessment will be a big change and people are likely to need help of one kind or another from the Revenue. That brings me to a point made by the hon. Members for Darlington and for Durham, North-West. The Revenue will be embarking on an ambitious and comprehensive customer service programme to inform and assist taxpayers so that they can understand the new system and comply with their obligations.
      The Revenue is currently conducting research into taxpayers' needs and consulting extensively on all aspects of its programme. The results of that work will help it develop the most effective and efficient service using, for example, carefully targeted written guidance on the telephone and face to face through the network of tax inquiry centres. The Revenue now has nearly 400 such inquiry centres and I have been impressed by the high standards of service that they provide. Hon. Members may have raised other issues but I shall write to them, if I may.
      We shall, of course, continue to keep the House informed of developments as we move towards full implementation of self-assessment. We expect to introduce further self-assessment legislation, the third and—I hope—final tranche being in next year's Finance Bill. That will provide ample opportunity for further parliamentary discussion on the progress of self-assessment and other clauses which will be dealt with in Standing Committee.
      Against that background, I hope that I have given the hon. Member for Durham, North-West sufficient assurance to persuade her not to press the amendment to a Division.
      Ms Armstrong: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Bates.]
      Committee report progress: to sit again tomorrow.

      CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL
      Ordered,
      That in relation to the Children (Scotland) Bill, Standing Order No. 91 (Special Standing Committees) shall have effect with the following alterations:

      (a) in line 6, leave out 'four morning sittings' and insert 'two morning and two afternoon sittings'; and

      (b) in line 18, leave out 'three morning sittings' and insert 'one morning and two afternoon sittings'.—[Mr. Bates.]

Queen Elizabeth II Hospital (Welwyn Hatfield)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
9.4 pm
Mr. David Evans: As the House knows, "Queen Elizabeth II" stands for the greatest living monarch and the world's loveliest cruise ship, but only the people of Welwyn Hatfield know that Queen Elizabeth II is also one of the country's finest hospitals. It dispenses more love and care to my constituents than probably any other hospital in the United Kingdom does to its patients. That is why it is named after a great lady and a great ship.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Hatfield. The QE2 is an efficient, successful and vibrant hospital. Since receiving trust status in 1991, in-patient and day case operations have increased by 28 per cent.; the average waiting time has dropped from seven months in 1989–90 to just three months in 1993–94, which is well below the national average; and, since 1991, the QE2 has introduced a number of new developments and schemes.
They were: first, the Danesbury home for the accommodation of physically handicapped people; secondly, a day surgery unit; thirdly, a magnetic resonance imaging unit which saves unnecessary journeys to central London; fourthly, new ultrasound equipment to enable the women of Welwyn Hatfield to produce bigger bouncing babies; fifthly, new computer systems to take care of patients' medical records; sixthly, delivery suite recovery rooms for the bigger bouncing babies; seventhly, the construction on level 8 of Cuffley ward for general surgery, thus freeing other facilities for medical emergencies; eighthly, the conversion of level 6 Bramfield ward for medically dependent patients; ninthly, the construction of a stroke rehabilitation unit at Queen Victoria memorial hospital to help the victims of heart attacks; tenthly, the construction of a children's out-patients facility helping mums and dads stay together; eleventhly, the construction of a post-natal mother and baby unit called Thumbswood ward; twelfthly, the installation of security closed circuit television to prevent baby snatching; thirteenthly, an assessment unit for the accident and emergency department; fourteenthly, a new orthopaedic unit to get my constituents up and running as soon as possible; and, fifteenthly, a host of minor works, repairs, improvements and new equipment. Since 1991, total expenditure has amounted to £13 million. That is £175 for every one of my constituents.
May I take this opportunity to thank all my parliamentary colleagues in Hertfordshire for their support over a long period on this issue? I would especially like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and for Stevenage (Mr. Wood). Since my hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) came into the House, they have given me equally strong support. I thank them for all the effort that has gone into this hospital.
I am very proud of our national health service. It has developed and flourished under successive Conservative Governments, who have invested additional funds in real terms in the service each and every year .since 1979. Indeed, that commitment has resulted in an even greater
446
proportion of gross national product being directed towards health; from 4.7 per cent. in 1979—the legacy left for us by the Labour party—to 6.1 per cent. currently.
The Secretary of State has already announced a further large injection of funds for the forthcoming year. For the year 1993–94, a massive £37,000 million has been invested to provide a comprehensive and efficient health service, which is still the envy of the world and which is available to every man, woman and child in Britain, irrespective of age, race, colour or creed.
Why is it the envy of the world? Why do health professionals visits from Europe and America to find out how we provide such good value for money in health care? The answer is simple—because of the health service reforms introduced by this Government in 1991. As a result of those reforms, the country now benefits from more health facilities and ever-increasing quality. But that cannot be taken for granted—nor would it continue under a Labour Government. Let us, to set the background, take the lot opposite for a trip down memory lane and remind them exactly what happened under the last Labour Government.
First, in 1977–78, the health budget was cut by 3 per cent. in real terms. Secondly, the capital spending was cut by one third in real terms; the largest ever cut inflicted on the NHS capital programme in the entire history of the national health service. Aneurin Bevan, eat your heart out. Thirdly, between 1974 and 1979, in real terms, nurses' pay fell by 21 per cent., doctors' pay by 16 per cent. and surgeons' pay by 25 per cent.
Fourthly, in 1978–79, the NHS went on strike, led by the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the National Union of Public Employees. Telephonists were on strike and clinical staff were manning public call boxes to get calls into the hospital. Clean linen was not allowed through picket lines. Foul linen was destroyed, because the unions would not let it out of the hospital. Meals were provided by volunteers and cleaning of the hospitals was virtually non-existent. Drugs and medicines were not allowed in. Cancer parents were refused treatment and left on the pavements. Hospitals were brought to their knees and the QE2, under Labour, was shut down.
During the winter of discontent, Barbara Castle, the former Labour Secretary of State for Health and Social Services, described her attack on pay beds as an "essential political sweetener" for the trade unions. Let no one forget that the Labour party has 156 Members who are sponsored by unions, including the whole of their Front-Bench team. As we all know, balding Bambi is sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union.
We will not be fooled by their £500 suits or their £60 hairdos. They are still committed to tossing political sweeteners to unions and, in return, the unions toss financial sweeteners to the Labour party. As the leader of the TGWU said last year, "No say, no pay." One has to ask oneself what sort of health service we would have under the direction of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who cannot even remember where he parked his car.
Labour's political interference in the Government's health reforms could be identified back in 1990, when the poisoned dwarf, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who at the time was the Labour spokesman for health, threatened NHS managers working on implementing the Government's health reforms. In a

447
blatant threat, the hon. Member for Livingston told them to go slow on the Government's health reforms, because they would all be reversed by the next Labour Government.
The Health Service Journal condemned the outrageous interference of the hon. Member for Livingston when it stated:
"The threat was barely veiled: Everyone judged to have appeared too enthusiastic about the White Paper need not expect to have their contract renewed by a Labour Health Secretary."
The journal went on to describe the hon. Gentleman's actions as
"outrageous interference in NHS management and flagrant intimidation of NHS managers."
So much for democracy.
Now let us consider what has been achieved by the Government, and the implications of that for the QE2. Between 1979 and 1992 the number of nurses and midwives increased by nearly 25,000, and the number of medical and dental staff by nearly 10,000. Nurses' pay has risen by not less than 53 per cent., and doctors' pay by 35 per cent, since 1979.
Since the reforms were introduced in 1991, the number of patients treated in hospital has increased by 5 per cent. a year, compared with an increase of 2.4 per cent. a year between 1979 and 1991. The rate of increase during the latter part of the 1970s—the last period of Labour so-called Government—was a paltry 1 per cent. Of course, under Labour the number of shop stewards in the health service increased even faster than the number of top-class doctors leaving the country. Denis Healey made the pips squeak all right, and under Barbara Castle they were left squeaking.
The number of patients treated in hospitals has increased from 7 million in 1991–92 to 8 million in 1993–94—a truly remarkable achievement. Waiting times have fallen, as have the numbers waiting. Half of all patients are seen immediately and 30 per cent. of the rest are seen within 2 weeks; 75 per cent. of patients are seen within three months, and 98 per cent. within the year.
The reforms have changed the system from a provider-led to a purchaser-led service. Under Conservative leadership, there has been a substantial programme of hospital modernisation and building. More than 800 hospital building schemes, each worth more than £1 million, have been completed since 1980, and almost another 300 are in the pipeline.
The purchaser now calls the tune, identifying need and responding to the requirements of the local population, setting contracts to ensure that hospitals and community units know what services and how many services will be required of them, so that they can plan their delivery with optimum staff numbers and the right number of beds.
Gone is the boom-bust mentality that characterised the provision of care before the reforms—hospitals working flat out with all their beds open for the first two thirds of each year, and then coping with bed closures because the money had run out, resulting in the indiscriminate cancellation of urgent as well as routine operations. Yes, I am proud to be associated with a Government who have had the vision and courage to introduce such fundamental
448
changes, and who have ensured that care has improved so much. Until the reforms, most hospital calendars ran for only nine months of the year.
However, there is a problem. That success depends on the highest quality of purchasing if services are to be provided in the best possible way. My constituency has suffered because purchasers published an ill-conceived, badly researched and poorly written document. It is called "Where do we want to be?"—God knows, but not where they suggest. That so-called strategic discussion document was released because the purchasers wanted to tell the public that all their services had to be reviewed and that the number of accident and emergency departments in Hertfordshire might be reduced from four to two.
The proposal, which was based on badly researched data, has caused enormous anger and resulted in great anxiety for the population of Hertfordshire, not least our proud independent senior citizens, who want to be loved and cared for as they reach old age, not to have some upstart terrify them with an awful ill-conceived document.
Why has there been so much trouble? First, because we love our hospital and, secondly, because that document implied, although it did not state it, that our local hospital, the Queen Elizabeth II hospital of Welwyn Garden City, was the prime candidate for reduction of accident arid emergency services and for subsequent complete closure.
Such a proposal, albeit for discussion, is a disgrace, because our hospital has provided a model for demonstrating the success of the reforms. During the 1980s, it was not successful. Morale was low. There were financial difficulties. Delays for treatment were considerable.
In those days, we were starved of cash, not by the Government, but by Sir William Doughty. I have to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that he did not receive his knighthood for a contribution to the health service—that would be too much of a joke. In his role as chairman of North West Thames regional health authority, he enabled the more favoured inner-London parts of the region to be overfunded. For every £1 spent on health care for someone in Brent, only 75p was spent on care for someone living in Welwyn Hatfield.
Back in 1989, the North West Thames regional health authority used a formula designed by Mr. Doughty for allocating the money provided by Government, which resulted in 11 districts being overfunded and two underfunded. East Hertfordshire was underfunded by £400,000.
It was unacceptable to watch the budget for East Hertfordshire district continually cut to subsidise financial disasters such as the construction of the Chelsea and Westminster hospital, which, let me tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, was originally estimated to cost £70 million. It did not cost £70 million; it did not cost £80 million; it did not cost £90 million, or £100 million, or £110 million, or £120 million, or £130 million, or £140 million, or £150 million, or £160 million, or £170 million, or £180 million, or £190 million, or £200 million, or £210 million, or £220 million, or £230 million. It cost £245 million.

449
Every capital project in our region was suspended for five years to accommodate Sir William Doughty and his bloody silly hospital.
Mr. Vivian Bendall rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly, but I do deprecate some of his language, and I would ask him to moderate it.
Mr. Bendall: So my hon. Friend would agree with me that inner London has been doing very well at the expense not only of his area but also of peripheral London?
Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend makes his own argument very well. It is a disturbing fact, and we are seriously worried about it.
However, when East Hertfordshire obtained trust status, it changed entirely. It became an acknowledged success, recognised as such by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) when he visited my constituency in his capacity as the Minister of State for Health. Waiting times have declined. Contracts for services were all met and the trust has finished its financial years either in balance or in surplus.
During the 1980s, I used to hear lots of complaints about the way that services were provided.
Now, the population is proud of its hospital and the high quality of care that it provides. Its accident and emergency department, which was threatened by the purchasing agency, is the biggest in the county of Hertfordshire. It is the most central, the newest and the only department that already meets the patients charter standards for out-patients.
According to the purchaser's own publication, it is the cheapest department per patient in Hertfordshire. It is the only accident and emergency unit where patient numbers are increasing. It is forecast that, within five years, it will be one third larger than the next largest department in the county. It has the lowest management costs in the region. It serves a catchment population of 500,000 people, all of whom live within 20 minutes travelling time, which means that it is pivotal as an emergency hospital service in the county of Hertfordshire.
The residents of east Hertfordshire have lost access over the past 10 years to accident and emergency services at the Hertfordshire and Essex hospital, Hertford county hospital and St. Albans city hospital. Part of the argument to support the closures of those units was the existence of the accident and emergency unit at the Queen Elizabeth II hospital which has, as a result, grown from one of the smallest units, to overtake all others and become the biggest unit. It will treat more than 50,000 new patients this year.
Why should that success story be overshadowed by threats of closure? The reason is simple—bureaucrats. A few managers in the purchasing authority decide that a hospital can be closed. Despite such phenomenal success, all the principles that I have espoused will be sluiced away with the bedpans. Purchaser dogma cannot overrule popularity, people, patients and success. Surely, the thrust of the Government reforms is that successful hospitals and accident and emergency units attract more patients and so receive more funding. Funding follows the patients—at least, that was the idea until the paper-cushioned bureaucrats stuck their biro in.
450
Jenny Griffiths, the chief executive of the Hertfordshire health agency, who has a closet socialist background, followed her own little principles. She believes—as all socialists believe—that the funding should follow the white elephants and cause mayhem within a Conservative success story. As always, the Labour party, nationally and locally, has tried to make the matter a political one. Its claim that there is not enough money in the Queen Elizabeth II hospital is clearly a blatant lie, and shows a total lack of knowledge of trust status. In any case, the issue is about how a local purchaser behaves. The Hertfordshire health agency is for the benefit of patients and their families.
If the issue is to be party political, so be it. Let me tell the world that the Conservative party and the Government have ensured that the Queen Elizabeth II hospital has flourished. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and the bureaucrats between her and the point of patient care need to know and understand that the hospital belongs to the people. We, the people of Welwyn Hatfield, will not allow anyone who seeks promotion by trying to be too clever by half at the expense of patients who are my constituents.
I will be vigilant, aggressive, abrasive, determined and committed to the well-being of my constituents, the hospital management, doctors, consultants, nurses, ancillary staff and the hospital itself. If anyone in the House or outside it regards that as a threat, I can tell them right now that it is—"Davie Evans is watching you. Hands off our hospital". Can the Minister say here and now that there are no plans to close any accident and emergency departments in Hertfordshire, particularly the accident and emergency department at the Queen Elizabeth hospital?
9.30 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) has done the House a service in bringing this important matter before us tonight. My constituents in north Hertfordshire use two hospitals. In the south and the west, they use the QE2 and they consider it to be as good a hospital as my hon. Friend has explained to the House. To the north and the east of my constituency, my constituents use the Lister hospital in Stevenage.
I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) is in his place on the Treasury Bench. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield said that his hospital provides excellent services and has improved its facilities in recent years, and so too has the Lister hospital, the other main hospital that my constituents use.
The hospital has a new renal unit, an improved cancer facility and improved screening facilities. There is a new entrance at the hospital and new car parking facilities. A brand new outreach clinic at Baldock costing £500,000 opened last year. The other satellite hospitals that look to the Lister—such as the Hitchin hospital and the Royston hospital—also provide excellent facilities, including local physiotherapy services.
The people of Hertfordshire and the county health service have embraced the Government's reforms. We were the first county with a major tranche of general practitioner fundholders—we led the way. We adopted trust hospitals at an early stage because we believed in them. We said that the Government's reforms would reduce waiting lists—and, by goodness, they have.

451
It is against that background that the disgraceful and insensitive consultation document, published in October last year, proved such a shock to everyone in Hertfordshire. It was an opaque document; people could not understand it. It seemed to suggest that accident and emergency departments at the QE2 and Lister hospitals, which are needed and valued by my constituents, might be closed. It suggested that, because of the number of admissions that would be lost to our hospitals, one of them might have to close.
The community health council was shocked. The district councils—all 10 of them—wrote to the health agency saying that it could not happen. My constituents have written to me and to the regional and national health authorities making that point clear.
When I wrote before Christmas to Sir William Staveley, the chair of the regional health authority, asking for an assurance that the accident and emergency service at Lister and services across Hertfordshire would not be interfered with or diminished, he replied that he would not prejudge the consultation. Since that time, meetings have been held in all the main towns.
Mr. Bendall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the same regional health authority controls my area in Ilford, North and Sir William Staveley is giving the same answers to our questions? I am as deeply concerned about my area as my hon. Friend is about his—and I know a lot about his area because I was a parliamentary candidate there twice in 1974.
Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend makes his point about his part of the world with his usual force.
In my constituency, the narrow country roads between the major trunk roads mean that transport between towns is difficult. Some of my constituents in the south-western villages might have to travel all the way to the Lister hospital instead of the QE2. The fear that long extra travel times would be needed if one of the accident and emergency services was closed has caused great anxiety.
It is wrong that such a document, which was not even a formal consultation document—it was described as a discussion document, among other things—should be produced. The purchasing authority should have made its intentions absolutely clear and been transparent in its actions.
I hope that the assurance for which my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield asked regarding the QE2 and all accident and emergency departments in Hertfordshire will be given today by my hon. Friend the Minister, as only that will set at rest the minds of my constituents and all those in the surrounding area who are concerned. I know that other Hertfordshire Members would share that view.
9.35 pm
Mr. James Clappison: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) on the debate and on the powerful speech that he made. It was followed by another powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald). My hon. Friends have amply demonstrated our commitment to the national health service in Hertfordshire
452
and I endorse unreservedly all that they said about the progress that has been made in the health service in Hertfordshire in the past 15 years.
Let me add one footnote to the long list o:1 achievements outlined by my hon. Friends. It is a great pleasure for me that, earlier this month, a brand new community hospital in Potters Bar replaced a building which had stood since the 1930s and which was clearly no longer in the best repair. The new community hospital is a brand new structure. It has excellent facilities offering many new services to my constituents, and the community of Potters Bar is justly proud of it.
Just a little way from Potters Bar, a major redevelopment of Barnet general hospital, long awaited and badly needed, is now being undertaken. I pay tribute to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), who is in his place, who long advocated the redevelopment of the hospital. We are pleased that that redevelopment is now taking place.
Let me make the following point about the wider context of the debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. There is no wider context. The debate is very clear. It is about the future of the QE2 hospital in Welwyn and I should be grateful if the hon. Member addressed that matter.
Mr. Clappison: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was a mistaken way of putting it. The future of Welwyn hospital is tied in with the future of local health services as patients move from one hospital to another.
Clearly, the future of Welwyn hospital has a material impact on my constituents who receive care in other hospitals. The concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield expressed about the discussion document to which he referred echoed much wider concerns in Hertfordshire. He also spoke for many other people when he referred to the research in that document.
Although I agree with planning health care, those who seek to plan health care must do so on the basis of the best possible research and the fullest consultation, taking into account all views from the public and planning on a long-term basis. I have serious concerns and reservations about whether the document meets those criteria.
In the longer-term context, it is not so long ago that I raised in an Adjournment debate the centralisation of hospital services from St. Albans to Hemel Hempstead. That has been followed by further proposals in the document, while modernisation and major redevelopment is taking place in Hemel Hempstead hospital. I mention that because it shows the importance of planning change in the long term, which is clearly relevant to Welwyn hospital.
I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to note widely felt concerns about the future of Welwyn hospital, the discussion document, planning, and the pace and acceptability of change.
9.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Torn Sackville): My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) is a hard act to follow, so I shall not detain the House. I appreciate the grave importance of the issue that he raised and the strong

453
feelings that it arouses. That is evidenced by the presence in the Chamber and speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who is well known for her expertise in health matters, for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), and for Stevenage (Mr. Wood).
There is no doubt that the QE2 is an excellent hospital. I would have enumerated all its virtues but cannot match the eloquence and ferocity with which they were described by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield. It can be taken as read that we all agree that the QE2 is an exceptional hospital and serves well the people of Welwyn Hatfield and of surrounding constituencies. It could not have a more powerful champion of its interests than my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield.
When we discuss the future, it must be said that hospital care is changing fast. I refer, for example, to greater use of day care. All kinds of services now provided in hospitals may in future be provided in doctors' surgeries, smaller units or even at home. That is making an enormous difference to the need for larger hospitals and the present number of acute beds. That fast-changing position means that at some time in future, the standard district hospital that we all know and love may not be the paradigm of acute care. Things are changing that fast.
Accident and emergency services are also developing fast. The role of paramedics in ambulance services is a powerful factor for change. Many lives are saved by the attendance of paramedics at serious accidents and emergencies and by the use of high-tech facilities in accident and emergency centres. We are starting to see the role played by what are known in America as trauma centres. The experimental centre at Stoke means that five or six district hospitals may be bypassed in the event of a
454
serious accident and a patient taken straight to the trauma centre at a hospital providing 24-hour accident and emergency consultant cover.
Apart from full-scale trauma centres, we are seeing the emergence of the need for larger, high-tech accident and emergency centres. They must be accompanied by a full range of acute facilities. We are already witnessing the better outcomes and results of larger accident and emergency centres.
Against that fast-changing background, Hertfordshire health agency produced its discussion document, "Towards a Healthier Hertfordshire", to which my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield and other hon. Friends referred.
I would dissociate myself from one or two details in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield, especially about some current and past servants of the health service. I agree that these are matters that excite powerful emotions and that it is wrong unnecessarily to alarm people about the future of their hospital services.
Having said that, I believe that there may well have to be change not only in Hertfordshire but throughout the country—we are seeing it already in London for reasons that my hon. Friend described so eloquently, and it is long overdue. I can give my hon. Friend the assurances that the Hertfordshire health agency recognises that much work continues to need to be done, that it needs to seek the co-operation and agreement of local trusts in changes that may take place, and that there are currently no plans for changes to accident and emergency provision in the east of Hertfordshire.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Ten o'clock.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the absenteeism rate for(a) his Department, (b) the Historic Royal Palaces agency and (c) the Royal Parks agency in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The absenteeism—sick absence—rate for the Department of National Heritage since it was created in April 1992, is shown below. The information for the two executive agencies, Historic Royal Palaces and Royal Parks, is not held centrally and is unavailable in the format requested. When the information is provided we will write to the hon. Member and arrange for copies of the letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Number of days absent

  Total number of staff

  1992

  280

  207

  1993

  516

  301

  1994

  459

  362

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many employees for which his Department is responsible were women(a) in 1991, (b) in 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994; and of these, how many were (i) at grade 7 level, (ii) at grade 3 level, (iii) at executive officer level, (iv) at administrative officer level and (v) at administrative assistant level.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is as follows. The Department of National Heritage was created on 13 April 1992 and the Royal Parks agency on 1 April 1993. While Historic Royal Palaces has been an executive agency since 2 October 1989, a breakdown of staffing figures in the format requested is not available for 1991.

  Grade

  1992(Percentage of Total)

  1993(Percentage of Total)

  1994(Percentage of Total)

  Grade 3

  1(33)

  1(25)

  1(25)

  Grade 7

  6(19)

  11(22)

  16(27)

  EO

  30(43)

  52(48)

  62(47)

  AO

  48(29)

  76(37)

  91(37)

  AA

  52(55)

  69(50)

  80(39)

  Sports Council
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how provision for disabled people will be 196
  included in the three new policy areas chosen for emphasis by the Sports Council GB.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Under the proposals announced by the Minister with responsibility for sport on 8 July 1994,Official Report, columns 584–92, I shall expect the Sports Council, and its successors, to give full weight to the needs of sport for able-bodied people and people with disabilities in spending its grant in aid from the Government. We have also asked the Sports Council to consider particularly the needs of those with physical or other disabilities in its distribution of national lottery funds.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Research and Development
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was Government expenditure on research and development, civil and defence, for each of the last 10 years as a percentage of gross domestic product; and what were the equivalent figures for France, Germany, America and Japan.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Government funding of research and development for civil and defence objectives (as percentage of GDP): 1983 to 1992

  Research and Development expenditure

  UK

  France

  Germany1

  USA

  Japan2

  1983

  Total

  1.32

  1.38

  1.14

  1.16

  0.52

  Civil

  0.66

  0.93

  1.03

  0.41

  n/a

  Defence

  0.65

  0.45

  0.11

  0.74

  n/a

  1984

  Total

  1.25

  1.43

  1.11

  1.19

  0.50

  Civil

  0.64

  0.95

  1.00

  0.40

  n/a

  Defence

  0.61

  0.48

  0.11

  0.79

  n/a

  1985

  Total

  1.19

  1.46

  1.15

  1.24

  0.48

  Civil

  0.63

  0.99

  1.02

  0.40

  0.46

  Defence

  0.57

  0.48

  0.14

  0.84

  0.02

  1986

  Total

  1.11

  1.42

  1.11

  1.26

  0.48

  Civil

  0.61

  0.94

  0.98

  0.39

  0.46

  Defence

  0.50

  0.48

  0.13

  0.87

  0.02

  1987

  Total

  1.02

  1.39

  1.11

  1.27

  0.48

  Civil

  0.57

  0.89

  0.97

  0.40

  0.46

  Defence

  0.45

  0.50

  0.14

  0.87

  0.02

  1988

  Total

  0.93

  1.36

  1.06

  1.22

  0.46

  Civil

  0.54

  0.86

  0.93

  0.39

  0.44

  Defence

  0.40

  0.51

  0.13

  0.83

  0.02

  1989

  Total

  0.90

  1.36

  1.06

  1.19

  0.46

  Civil

  0.51

  0.86

  0.93

  0.41

  0.43

  Defence

  0.39

  0.50

  0.14

  0.78

  0.02

  1990

  Total

  0.88

  1.42

  1.04

  1.17

  0.45

  197

  Government funding of research and development for civil and defence objectives (as percentage of GDP): 1983 to 1992

  Research and Development expenditure

  UK

  France

  Germany1

  USA

  Japan2

  Civil

  0.51

  0.85

  0.90

  0.44

  0.43

  Defence

  0.37

  0.57

  0.14

  0.73

  0.02

  1991

  Total

  0.88

  1.43

  1.05

  1.17

  30.45

  Civil

  0.49

  0.89

  0.94

  0.47

  30.42

  Defence

  0.40

  0.53

  0.12

  0.70

  30.03

  1992

  Total

  0.87

  1.39

  31.03

  1.16

  30.46

  Civil

  0.50

  0.92

  30.93

  0.48

  30.43

  Defence

  0.37

  0.47

  30.11

  0.68

  30.03

  Notes:1 For 1991 there is a break in series with previous year for which data is available.

  2 Data for Japan are adjusted by OECD.

  3 = provisional.

  Sources:

  Annual Review of Government Funded R&D, 1990 (Table 6.9)

  Annual Review of Government Funded R&D, 1991 (Table 1.6.5)

  Forward Look 1994 Statistical Supplement (Table 1.6.7)

  Commercial Lobbying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on how many occasions in the last four months of which he has knowledge any civil servants in his Department have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Officials receive representations about a wide variety of matters, but the information requested is not collected.

  Mr. Campbell Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on how many occasions in the last four months he or any of his Ministers have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Ministers receive numerous representations about a wide variety of matters, but the information is not collected.

TRANSPORT

  Coventry Airport
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of safety at Coventry airport.

  Mr. Norris
  The Civil Aviation Authority's aerodrome standards department is responsible for ensuring that United Kingdom civil aerodromes meet prescribed safety standards. I have therefore asked the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to write to the hon. Member.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rail passengers were killed or injured (i) by the opening or closing of carriage doors, falling through open 198
  doors or entering or alighting from trains and (ii) during train movement for each of the last five years (a) over the whole rail network, (b) in the Network SouthEast region, (c) in mark I electrical multiple unit slam door rolling stock in the Network SouthEast region and (d) in Networker 465 rolling stock in the Network SouthEast region.

  Mr. Watts
  The table gives the details requested of passenger injuries for all railways in Great Britain since 1989.

  The following table gives details for Network SouthEast and covers the period from its creation in 1992 to its reorganisation in March 1994, following the restructuring of the railway industry.

  Passenger Injuries All railways Great Britain Entering or alighting from trains

  Fatal

  Major injuries

  Minor injuries

  Total

  1989

  2

  51

  691

  744

  1990

  2

  55

  736

  793

  1991–92

  0

  39

  623

  662

  1992–93

  3

  34

  665

  702

  1993–94

  0

  9

  652

  661

  Total

  7

  188

  3,367

  3,562

  Opening or closing of carriage door

  Fatal

  Major injuries

  Minor injuries

  Total

  1989

  0

  5

  441

  446

  1990

  1

  13

  803

  817

  1991–92

  0

  5

  637

  642

  1992–93

  0

  8

  627

  635

  1993–94

  0

  2

  680

  682

  Total

  1

  33

  3,188

  3,222

  Falling out of carriages during running of trains

  Fatal

  Major injuries

  Minor injuries

  Total

  1989

  19

  16

  12

  47

  1990

  19

  9

  20

  48

  1991–92

  19

  4

  13

  36

  1992–93

  9

  6

  28

  43

  1993–94

  8

  2

  13

  23

  Total

  74

  37

  86

  197

  Passenger Injuries Network Southeast 1 April 1992–31 March 1994

  Fatal

  Major injuries

  Minor injuries

  Total

  Entering or alighting from trains

  0

  9

  551

  560

  Opening or closing of carriage doors

  0

  1

  414

  415

  Falling out of carriages during running of train

  2

  1

  14

  17

  Total

  2

  11

  979

  992

  199
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to press British Rail to implement the recommendation of the Cannon street rail accident inquiry that class 415 EMUs should be replaced by new Networker units as quickly as possible; when he estimates that this process will be completed; and what plans he has to press British Rail to replace other mark I EMUs and against what time scale.

  Mr. Watts
  I understand that the last class 415 EMU will be withdrawn from the Kent suburban fleet on 13 April 1995, along with classes 413 and 416.

  The replacement and deployment of rolling stock, and the appropriate timing of an order, is a decision for BR. However, I understand BR's view is that all remaining "mark I" rolling stock on south eastern is likely to need replacement during 1999.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much it costs to strengthen a single mark I slam door railway carriage to the standard required by HM railways inspectorate in relation to recommendation 55 of the Hidden investigation into the Clapham Junction railway accident.

  Mr. Watts
  British Rail's estimate of the cost of strengthening mark I rolling stock is around £300,000 per coach.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many successful prosecutions for contravention of the(a) showman's vehicle and (b) agricultural vehicle excise duty concessions have taken place in the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norris
  These figures are not collected separately by the Department.

  Transport and Pollution
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has made to the recommendations of the Royal Commission report on transport and pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government have welcomed the royal commission's report as a valuable contribution to the debate about transport and the environment. We are now studying the report's conclusions and recommendations and considering how we should respond.

  Integrated Regional Offices
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list those of his Department's

  Local transport capital—1993–94

  South East

  South West

  West Midland

  North West

  Mersey-side

  North East

  Yorks & Humber-side

  East Midland

  Eastern

  London

  Total

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  77.718

  32.278

  61.856

  49.858

  15.098

  24.347

  54.584

  21.509

  35.283

  58.310

  430.841

  Public Transport Facilities Grant

  0.0

  0.0

  0.013

  00

  0.0

  0.0

  18.156

  0.250

  0.0

  0.0

  18.419

  200
  responsibilities which are administered by the integrated regional offices and, for each integrated regional office, the estimated annual expenditure on each of these responsibilities;

  (2) if he will list those of his Department's responsibilities on which integrated regional offices are responsible for preparing, advising on or implementing regional policy;

  (3) if he will list those of his Department's responsibilities on which the integrated regional offices are required to advise him on the allocation of resources and, for each integrated regional office, the annual expenditure on each programme.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government offices for the regions play an important role in advising Ministers on the regional implementation of national transport policies, covering all modes of transport. They advise on local authority transport programmes and policies and on the allocation of resources for local transport capital expenditure, including transport supplementary grant, public transport facilities grant—under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968—Industrial Development Act grant and associated credit approvals.

  The Government offices liaise with the Highways Agency on the trunk road programme and contribute to advice to Ministers on the programme's content and progress. They also provide advice to Ministers on the transport aspects of programmes administered by other Departments.

  Local transport capital expenditure in 1993–94, the last complete financial year, is shown in the table.

  The total running cost to the Department of the Government Offices for the current financial year is forecast to be as follows:

  £ million

  Eastern

  0.247

  East Midlands

  0.218

  London

  2.462

  Mersey side

  0.079

  North East1

  0.443

  North West

  0.180

  South East

  0.430

  South West

  0.260

  West Midlands

  0.227

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0.230

  Total

  4.784

  1 The figure for the Government office for the north east includes running costs incurred in carrying out the Secretary of State's role in confirming orders promoted by local authorities under the Highways Act 1980 and for highways under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, a national activity carried out for all regions.

  201

  Local transport capital—1993–94

  South East

  South West

  West Midland

  North West

  Mersey-side

  North East

  Yorks & Humber-side

  East Midland

  Eastern

  London

  Total

  Industrial Development Act Grant

  0.0

  0.124

  0.428

  0.276

  0.0

  0.494

  0.446

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  1.768

  Total Credit Approvals

  112.096

  50.632

  85.930

  76.810

  40.541

  38.456

  146.195

  34.690

  48.793

  83.770

  717.913

  Total

  189.814

  83.034

  148.227

  126.944

  55.639

  63.297

  219.381

  56.449

  84.076

  142.080

  1,168.941

  Note: All Figures in £ Million

  Bids for support are considered competitively on merit. There are no set allocations for regions, and funding will fluctuate from year to year according to need and progress on major schemes

  Commercial Lobbying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) on how many occasions in the last four months of which he has knowledge any civil servants in his Department have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements;

  (2) on how many occasions in the last four months he or any of his Ministers have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Fishing Industry (Accidents)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were disabled as a result of accidents at work in the sea fishing industry in the years 1992, 1993 and 1994.

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not available.

  Motorways (Coaches)
  Mrs. Gillian
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce a decision on the proposal to ban coaches from the outside lanes of motorways with three or more lanes.

  Mr. Norris
  I have today laid regulations implementing such a ban with effect from 1 January 1996. The ban will be for a trial period and will be reviewed when two years' accident data are available.

EDUCATION

  Liverpool Education Authority
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if Liverpool education authority spent all its standard spending assessment for education in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The latest data on provisional outtum expenditure indicate that Liverpool city council's education expenditure was some 3.6 per cent. less than its education standard spending assessment for 1993–94. But education SSAs are not prescriptive and each council is 202
  free to determine its spending priorities between and within services.

  Schools, Wolverhampton
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of a secondary school place in a grant-maintained school in Wolverhampton in 1993–94; and what is the estimated cost in 1994–95.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information relating to the cost of secondary school places in grant-maintained schools in Wolverhampton for the years in question is held by the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman of the agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was(a) the total cost of the assisted-places scheme at Wolverhampton grammar school and (b) the average cost per pupil in 1993–94; and what is the estimated cost in 1994–95.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total cost of the scheme at Wolverhampton grammar school for the academic year 1993–94 was £792,715 and the average cost per pupil was £3,109. The estimated cost of the scheme for the academic year 1994–95 is £863,125 and the average cost per pupil is expected to be in the region of £3,230.

  Computers
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures she is taking to ensure that all pupils gain skills in using computer keyboards, word processing and spreadsheet software and information networks such as the Internet.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government are supporting the development of pupils' information technology skills through the inclusion of IT capability in the national curriculum; through a £187 million programme of grants for education support and training; and through the work of the National Council for Educational Technology. My right hon. Friend announced on 11 January an initiative on information super-highways for education, which will begin with a major consultation exercise in the spring.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will publish for(a) England and (b) the United Kingdom, for the last three available years, the number of full-time students in (i) further education, (ii) higher education and (iii) further and higher education in total, indicating the percentage of women in each case.
  203
  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is shown:

  Numbers of students in further and higher education in England and the UK—1990 to 1992 Full-time and sandwich only Home and overseas

  England Total 000s

  United Kingdom Women 000s

  Women Percentage

  Total 000s

  Women 000s

  Women Percentage

  1990–91

  Further Education

  402.9

  219.2

  54.4

  480.4

  260.9

  54.3

  Higher Education

  592.8

  277.3

  46.8

  747.0

  352.0

  47.1

  Total

  995.7

  496.5

  49.9

  1,227.4

  612.9

  49.9

  1991–92

  Further Education

  465.2

  248.0

  53.3

  542.6

  289.6

  53.4

  Higher Education

  670.7

  317.7

  47.4

  844.0

  400.0

  47.4

  Total

  1,135.8

  564.9

  49.7

  1,386.6

  689.6

  49.7

  1992–93

  Further Education

  498.0

  260.5

  52.3

  586.0

  305.9

  52.2

  Higher Education

  762.3

  365.0

  47.9

  958.0

  461.0

  48.1

  Total

  1,260.3

  625.5

  49.6

  1,544.0

  766.9

  49.7

  Sources USR, DFE (FESR), Welsh Office, Scottish Office and DENI.

  Education Authorities (Expenditure)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has had from the North West Regional Association for Education Authorities in regard to the standing spending assessments and capping limits for its constituent authorities; what reply she has sent; what action she is taking; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from the North West Regional Association of Education Authorities. I have arranged for copies of the correspondence and my reply to be placed in the Library.

  National Youth Agency
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the amount of grant given to the National Youth Agency for each year since 1991 and the estimated grant for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98.

  Mr. Boswell
  The grant paid or allocated to the National Youth Agency in the period 1991–92 to 1995–96 is as follows:

  £million

  1991–92

  1.840

  1992–93

  1.495

  1993–94

  1.687

  1994–95

  1.716

  1995–96

  1.655

  Funding for 1996–97 and future years will be reviewed as part of the annual public expenditure survey and in the light of the outcome of the policy review of the agency.

  Proposed School Closures
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals she is considering from 204
  Nottinghamshire county council for the closure or merger of schools; what schools are involved; and when she received these proposals.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows the proposals, published by Nottinghamshire county council, under section 12 of the Education Act 1980, to cease to maintain schools. These are currently under consideration by the Departme

  Proposals

  Date received by the Department

  Padstow comprehensive

  1 July 1994

  Releigh Infant's School

  10 November 1994

  Windley Junior School

  10 November 1994

  Thomas Magnus VC Upper School

  5 December 1994

  Magdalene CE VC High School

  5 December 1994

  Lilley and Stone VC Upper School

  5 December 1994

  Sconce Hill High School

  5 December 1994

  The Department is also considering associated proposals from Nottinghamshire county council to establish a new primary school on the site of Windley junior school.

  The governing bodies of Thomas Magnus school and Lilley and Stone school have published proposals, under section 13 of the Education Act 1980, to establish new 1 I to 18 schools on the sites of Thomas Magnus school and Lilley and Stone school. These proposals relate to the county council's closure proposals. Padstow comprehensive school has submitted an application for grant-maintained status which will be determined with the closure proposal.

  Commercial Lobbying
  Mr. Campbell Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) on how many occasions in the last four months of which she has knowledge any civil servants in her Department have been approached by commercial
  205
  lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements;

  (2) on how many occasions in the last four months she or any of her Ministers have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many parents voted(a) in favour and (b) against in all ballots for grant-maintained status in those schools currently operating as grant maintained.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In ballots at schools in England which are currently grant maintained, 450,819 parents voted in favour and 145,005 voted against.

ENVIRONMENT

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made across Government Departments towards meeting the energy saving targets given in "Climate Change: the UK Programme".

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to tables one to three following chapter five of "This Common Inheritance: The Third Year Report," column 2549. Further data will be published shortly.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what attempt will be made by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to recover the costs of cleaning up the uranium dumped at the Chelveston farm in Northamptonshire from those responsible for the radioactive pollution of the area;

  (2) if he will ask Her Majesty's chief inspector of pollution to establish an investigation into the fly tipping of uranium at a farm in Chelveston, Northamptonshire; and if he will make it his policy to publish the report of such an investigation.

  Mr. Atkins
  The scrap metal containing uranium found on land at Poplar farm, Caldecott, Northamptonshire is of unknown origin. Investigations are continuing to try and trace the source of the material and those involved in its movement. As the results of this investigation may form the basis of a prosecution under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, detailed information will not be published until any such enforcement action is completed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. The possibility of recovering costs of waste removal and clean up of the site will also be fully investigated.
  206
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the process and timetable for the investigation of the Drigg low-level radioactive waste disposal site by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer given Thursday 19 January 1995]: Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has already thoroughly investigated allegations made by Greenpeace about Drigg, following its illegal entry to the site and has confirmed that there has been no breach of the site's certificate of authorisation. The certificate of authorisation contains conditions and limits which impose specific requirements on the company, relating to the type of waste disposed of, the method of disposal and the radioactive content of disposals made. HMIP is satisfied that operations at the site properly protect the public.

  With regard to the more general question of the disposal of radioactive waste at landfill sites, the Government's consultation document "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Preliminary Conclusions", published on 5 August, proposed that there may be advantage in encouraging waste producers to make greater use of such controlled burial. This form of disposal is already used by major hospitals and universities and some sections of the nuclear industry for their low-level waste, and the proposals do not involve any deregulation. Encouraging greater use of controlled burial would help to relieve pressure on capacity at Drigg.

  However, this remains only a proposal, and there are no plans in relation to specific sites. The consultation document invited views on the subject, and these are currently receiving careful consideration. A statement of future policy will be made in due course.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of the effect of low-level radioactive waste dumping in landfill sites on house prices in the vicinity of authorised sites.

  Mr. Atkins
  None.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authorities submitting unsuccessful bids for single regeneration budget moneys alleging that they were encouraged to believe that their bids would succeed in discussions with the relevant regional office.

  Mr. Curry
  There have been five such representations from local authorities.

  Waste Management Licensing
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to conclude his consideration of the consultation on exemptions from waste management licensing for the recovery of scrap metal and the dismantling of waste motor vehicles; when he proposes to publish the new guidance and the new regulations; how many responses he received to the consultation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have received 115 direct responses to the consultation paper published on 8 November 1994 proposing exemptions from waste management licensing for the recovery of scrap metal and the dismantling of waste motor vehicles. Some respondents also requested Members of Parliament to make representations on their
  207
  behalf. Our aim is to conclude our consideration of all these responses and to lay the regulations providing any exemptions from licensing within the next three weeks. Our guidance is dependent on the terms of any exemptions provided and will be published as soon as possible after the regulations have been laid.

  Right-to-buy Scheme
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenants have bought their homes under the right-to-buy scheme; and how many subsequently sold their homes(a) in total and (b) in Stockport.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Between October 1980 and September 1994 over 1.2 million tenants of local authorities and new towns in England purchased their homes under the right-to-buy legislation. Of these, some 3,500 sales were to local authority tenants in Stockport metropolitan borough council.

  Information on housing association sales at local authority level is not available; sales for the country as a whole are estimated to be almost 27,000.

  Data on subsequent sales by former tenants are not collected by the Department.

  Departmental Employees
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many employees for which his Department is responsible were women(a) in 1991, (b) in 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994; and, of these, how many were (i) at grade 7 level, (ii) at grade 3 level, (iii) at executive officer level, (iv) at administrative officer level and (v) at administrative assistant level.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The following information covers non-industrial staff in my Department, excluding PSA Services:

  Grade

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Grade 3

  4

  5

  5

  4

  Grade 7

  104

  118

  128

  138

  EO and equivalent

  544

  516

  553

  533

  AO and equivalent

  976

  962

  1,021

  972

  AA and equivalent

  574

  563

  558

  489

  Total female staff

  2,672

  2,628

  2,763

  2,630

  Home Renovation Grants
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his oral answer of 18 January,Official Report columns 696–97 to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), if he will list the number of home renovation grants not including disabled facilities or minor works grants approved in 1993.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Some 40,221 renovation grants were approved in 1993.

  Local Authority Mortgages
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide additional resources to local authorities that wish to offer mortgages to tenants who wish to buy homes which have been designated as defective.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  There are no plans to make additional resources available to local authorities for this purpose. Local housing authorities receive a housing investment programme allocation each year. It is for each authority to decide how best to use this allocation to meet local housing needs.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has relating to the number of applications made by boarding houses and hotels for change of use to houses of multiple occupation or hostels since the relevant changes in the planning law.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  As planning applications are made to local planning authorities detailed information of this kind is not held centrally.

  Energy Saving Trust
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has considered for funding the Energy Saving Trust after the gas market has been deregulated.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The finances of the Energy Saving Trust are properly a matter for the trust, which is an independent company. However, the Government are currently considering a range of options for funding the trust and the schemes it promotes, including the involvement of private sector finance and input from the energy consumer.

  National Parks (Quarries)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) working and (b) disused quarries there are in each of the national parks.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Separate figures are not available for working and disused quarries. The table shows numbers of sites for surface mineral workings—"quarries"—in each of the national parks in England and Wales as of 1988, taken from surveys carried out for the Department of the Environment and for the Welsh Office. Similar statistics for national parks in England for 1994 will be available later this year in the results of an updated survey.

  National park

  Number of surface mineral workings

  Brecon Beacons

  27

  Dartmoor

  9

  Exmoor

  Nil

  Lake District

  20

  North York Moors

  21

  Northumberland

  5

  Peak District

  121

  Pembroke Coast

  10

  Snowdonia

  92

  Yorkshire Dales

  13

  Air Quality Report
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria underlay the decision to exclude the contribution of radioactive particulate material and radioactive gases, including krypton, from the report "Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge".

  Mr. Atkins
  "Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge" details the Government's strategic policies for improving air quality. It sets out a new framework for setting and achieving air quality targets and standards for the nine toxic pollutants of most concern. Radiotoxides are adequately addressed elsewhere.

  Urban Waste Water Directive
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) on what date he supplied the European Commission with a list of less-sensitive areas and copies of studies of them carried out in respect of such areas under article six of the urban waste directive;

  (2) what plans he has to request an extension of time from the European Commission in respect of listing and forwarding copies of studies of less-sensitive areas under article six of the urban waste water directive;

  (3) when he submitted to the European Commission proposals under article 8(5) of the urban waste water directive listing the areas subject to the proposals and the basis of those proposals;

  (4) what information he has provided to the European Commission on its implementation programme as required by article 17(2) of the urban waste water directive indicating the outline and nature of the information provided; and what extension of time for providing the information was requested.

  Mr. Atkins
  A list of the less-sensitive areas—known as high natural dispersion areas in the United Kingdom—identified under the directive was sent to the European Commission on 24 May 1994. Under the terms of the directive, comprehensive studies must be carried out following identification of the areas, before a discharge consent can be given for a minimum of primary treatment. The studies will be carried out in time for relevant discharge consents to be given for the discharges concerned before the end of the years 2000 or 2005, whichever of the directive's implementation dates applies to each affected discharge. The question of applying for an extension of time does not arise.

  Where relevant, proposals for applying article 8(5) of the directive will be made to the Commission after comprehensive studies have been completed and before the relevant implementation deadline. Such proposals will be made only where it can be demonstrated that no environmental benefit will accrue from the provision of a higher level of treatment than the requirements of article 6(2).

  Information required by article 17(2) of the directive was provided to the Commission on 25 November 1994 without application for an extension of time for its provision. The information given was that required by the Commission decision of 28 July 1993–93/481/EEC; OJ No L 226, 28.7.1993, p.23. A copy of the "Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive—UK Article 17 Report" has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Housing Stock Transfers
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a list of those local authorities which have completed voluntary transfer of their housing stock, and the date on which the transfer was completed.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Since 1988, 35 local authorities have transferred a total of 156,739 homes through large scale voluntary transfer. These authorities are listed, together with the dates on which they completed transfer.

  Authority

  Date of Transfer

  Chiltern

  15 December 1988

  Sevenoaks

  29 March 1989

  Newbury

  30 November 1989

  Swale

  28 March 1990

  Broadland

  4 April 1990

  North Bedfordshire

  13 June 1990

  Medina

  27 July 1990

  Rochester

  27 July 1990

  South Wight

  30 July 1990

  Mid Sussex

  9 November 1990

  East Dorset

  3 December 1990

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  15 January 1991

  Ryedale

  28 February 1991

  South Bucks

  26 March 1991

  Christchurch

  28 March 1991

  Suffolk Coastal

  22 May 1991

  Tunbridge Wells

  29 January 1992

  Bromley

  6 April 1992

  Surrey Heath

  15 January 1993

  Breckland

  30 March 1993

  East Cambridgeshire

  31 March 1993

  Hambieton

  29 April 1993

  West Dorset

  27 May 1993

  Havant

  31 January 1994

  Epsom and Ewell

  14 February 1994

  Hart

  9 March 1994

  South Shropshire

  23 March 1994

  Leominster

  25 March 1994

  South Ribble

  30 March 1994

  Hertsmere

  31 March 1994

  Penwith

  16 May 1994

  North Dorset

  6 September 1994

  Wychavon

  3 October 1994

  Mid Bedfordshire

  4 October 1994

  Thanet

  19 December 1994

  Integrated Regional Offices
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those of his Department's responsibilities on which the integrated regional offices are required to advise him on the allocation of resources and, for each integrated regional office, the annual expenditure on each programme.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In 1993–94 the Department of the Environment's regional offices advised Ministers on the programmes shown in the table. The Department of the Environment's regional offices became part of the Government offices for the regions in April 1994.
  211

  Department of the environment programme expenditure through the Government offices for the regions, 1993–94 ouuturn (£ million)

  North East

  North West

  Merseyside

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  West Midlands

  East Midlands

  Eastern

  South West

  South East

  London

  Total

  Housing Investment

  Programme

  83.0

  162.0

  53.8

  154.6

  194.7

  116.2

  142.4

  140.6

  187.5

  530.4

  1,765.2

  Estate Action1 4

  28.7

  60.3

  39.6

  41.8

  46.1

  27.0

  5.9

  12.2

  3.8

  85.3

  350.7

  Housing Partnership

  Fund

  3.6

  2.6

  0.7

  2.8

  3.4

  4.0

  3.9

  4.8

  3.1

  1.1

  30.0

  Housing Actions

  Trusts1

  —

  —

  16.0

  26.5

  2.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30.6

  75.1

  Flats over shops

  1.0

  0.8

  0.3

  1.0

  0.9

  0.9

  0.7

  1.0

  0.8

  1.9

  9.3

  Energy Efficiency

  Programme

  0.4

  0.6

  0.7

  0.8

  0.5

  0.7

  0.4

  0.5

  0.3

  0.3

  5.2

  Derelict Land Grant2

  7.8

  27.5

  8.0

  23.9

  19.9

  8.7

  0.8

  3.3

  0.8

  3.6

  104.3

  Urban Programme1

  UPF5

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  166.5

  City Action Team1

  0.8

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  —

  —

  —

  0.5

  3.4

  Task Forces1

  1.8

  1.0

  2.2

  2.3

  2.6

  2.3

  —

  0.6

  —

  5.0

  17.8

  Urban Development

  Corporations1

  78.5

  37.1

  22.5

  16.7

  62.4

  —

  —

  20.7

  —

  105.4

  343.2

  City Challenge1 6

  45.8

  31.8

  22.3

  27.8

  29.0

  21.2

  —

  —

  —

  52.3

  230.2

  Coalfield Areas Fund5

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2.3

  Manchester

  Regeneration

  —

  23.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23.3

  Docklands Light

  Railway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28.1

  28.1

  Merseyside Special

  Grant

  —

  —

  0.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.6

  ERDF3

  41.2

  28.2

  23.0

  32.6

  34.3

  10.4

  —

  2.4

  11.5

  —

  142.4

  Notes:

  1 Subsumed within single regeneration budget from April 199S.

  2 Transferred to English Partnerships from April 1994.

  3 ERDF payments, made on behalf of the European Community, include payments on projects which are the responsibility of other
  Government Departments.

  4 Figures for the urban programme, urban partnership fund (UPF) and Coalfield areas fund are not held centrally on a region by region basis. The Urban programme will be subsumed within the SRB from April 1995.

  5 Estate Action figures exclude resources for design improvement controlled experiment (DICE).

  6 City challenge figures include city challenge Housing Corporation expenditure in 1993–94 and exclude payments made 1993–94 for expenditure actually incurred in 1992–93.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those of his Department's responsibilities which are administered by the integrated regional offices and, for each integrated regional office, the estimated annual expenditure on each of these responsibilities.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  On my right hon. Friend's behalf, the Government offices for the regions administer the single regeneration budget, housing and regeneration programmes, undertake certain planning and environment functions and provide the main local points of contact between the Department and local authorities. In 1994–95, the Government offices expect to spend the following sums in pursuit of these functions:

  £000s

  Government Office for the North East

  3,174

  Government Office for the North West

  4,682

  Government Office for Yorkshire and Humberside

  3,532

  Government Office for Merseyside

  2,086

  Government Office for the West Midlands

  3,547

  Government Office for the East Midlands

  2,579

  Government Office for the Eastern Region

  2,063

  Government Office for the South West

  2,143

  212

  £000s

  Government Office for the South East

  3,177

  Government Office for London

  4,785

  The Department does not allocate running cost resources at the level of individual programmes or functions.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of staff working in each integrated regional office; and in each integrated regional office, what is the total annual cost of their employment.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Government office

  Total number of staff (as at December 1994)

  Total annual cost of staff employed – million

  North East

  289

  6.2

  North West

  383

  8.4

  Mcrseyside

  157

  3.5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  340

  6.9

  West Midlands

  360

  7.5

  East Midlands

  264

  5.5

  Eastern

  191

  4.5

  South West

  234

  5.2

  South East

  241

  6.0

  London

  340

  8.8

  213
  The total annual cost of staff employed is based on the forecast pay costs of each office in 1994–95.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those of his Department's responsibilities on which integrated regional offices are responsible for preparing, advising on or implementing regional policy.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government offices in the regions assist my Department in work on preparing and disseminating regional planning guidance, and on European regional development fund matters. They also advise bidders under the single regeneration budget on those bids of regional scale.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times the Green Ministers met as a group during 1994.

  Mr. Gummer
  Green Ministers met twice as a group in 1994, in addition to fulfilling their continuing responsibilities to integrate environmental considerations into their own Department's strategies and policies.

  Commercial Lobbying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) on how many occasions in the last four months of which he has knowledge any civil servants in his Department have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements;

  (2) on how many occasions in the last four months he or any of his Ministers have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster earlier today.

  Dioxins
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, if his Department has responded to the public review draft of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's report on dioxins.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Yes. The Government have completed their initial study of the EPA's draft report on dioxins. My Department has summarised the results of the study in a factual and technical commentary that it has sent to the EPA.

  The commentary concentrates on the problems of assessing exposure to dioxins. It deals particularly with those aspects of exposure assessment that have been the subject of considerable recent research and analysis in this country and the rest of Europe. We hope this additional perspective may contribute further depth to what is already a very substantial and important draft.

  An expert review of recent scientific work on the health effects of dioxins—including work reported in the EPA draft—is being carried out for the Department of Health by the committee on toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment. This review will not be completed for some months: it would, therefore, have been premature to comment in depth on those volumes of the EPA's draft that deal with the health
  214
  effects of dioxins. Meanwhile, established research findings indicate that the dioxin levels to which the UK population is exposed do not, on the basis of the COT's current advice, present a threat to health.

  A copy of the material my Department has sent to the EPA has today been placed in the Library of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Dourine
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of dourine were reported in each year since 1985.

  Mrs. Browning
  No cases of dourine have ever been reported in this country.

  Grubbing Out Grants
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial assistance is available from Her Majesty's Government or the European Commission for the grubbing out of(a) orchards and (b) vineyards.

  Mr. Jack
  Financial assistance is available for applicants who grub at least one hectare of culinary or dessert orchards. To qualify apple trees must be less than 20 years old, healthy, capable of bearing a full crop of fruit and planted at a density of more than 400 to the hectare. Grant rates are 5000 ecu—approximately £4,600—per hectare for total grubbing and 3500 ecu—approximately £3,200—per hectare for partial grubbing. The scheme closes on 31 January 1995.

  There is no scheme of financial assistance for the grubbing out of United Kingdoms vineyards.

  Fishing (Spanish Vessels)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about the numbers of Spanish—owned vessels on the fishing register of each of the other EEC fishing nations.

  Mr. Jack
  The Ministry does not keep information on the composition of fishing vessel registers maintained by other member states.

  Departmental Employees
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many employees for which his Department is responsible were women(a) in 1991, (b) in 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994; and of these, how many were (i) at grade 7 level, (ii) at grade 3 level, (iii) at executive officer level, (iv) at administrative officer level and (v) at administrative assistant level.

  Mr. Jack
  The information for MAFF, including its executive agencies, is as follows:
  215

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Grade

  Women

  Total staff

  Per cent. of total

  Women

  Total staff

  Per cent. of total

  Women

  Total staff

  Per cent. of total

  Women

  Total staff

  Per cent. of total

  3

  1

  25

  4.0

  1

  24

  4.2

  1

  25

  4.0

  0

  23

  0.0

  7

  130

  957

  13.6

  134

  924

  14.5

  150

  920

  16.3

  161

  885

  18.2

  EO

  773

  1,721

  44.9

  786

  1,731

  45.4

  965

  1,946

  49.6

  928

  1,905

  48.7

  AO

  1,365

  2,064

  66.1

  1,377

  2,057

  66.9

  1,541

  2,274

  67.8

  1,656

  2,297

  72.1

  AA

  1,499

  2,056

  72.9

  1,576

  2,086

  75.6

  1,541

  2,065

  74.6

  1,564

  1,991

  78.6

  Notes:

  1. All figures are based on 1 April and are for permanent non-industrials and exclude staff on loan or secondment to other Government Departments.

  2. Figures for part-time staff in 1991 are counted as 1/2 units. Part-time staff from 1992 are counted by head count.

  Equine Infectious Anaemia
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of equine infectious anaemia there have been in each year since 1985.

  Mrs. Browning
  There have been no recorded cases of equine infectious anaemia in this country since 1976.

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of sheep scab there were in each year since 1990 and in each month for 1994.

  Mrs. Browning
  The total number of confirmed cases of sheep scab in England for the years 1990 to 1992 was as follows:

  Number

  1990

  82

  1991

  96

  1992 (to 30 June)

  63

  The collation of official records on the number of outbreaks of sheep scab was discontinued after deregulation of compulsory controls in 1992.

  Industry reports have indicated that sheep scab has been discovered in every county in Britain. A surveillance exercise during spring 1994 identified 177 batches of sheep suspected of having sheep scab from 869 visits to sheep sales and markets. These and other reports confirm that the disease is probably present in all parts of the country.

  The Government announced on 17 May 1994 that they would conduct a publicity campaign and increase the official veterinary presence at sheep markets. To date, in Great Britain suspected sheep scab has been detected at only 14 of 1,982 market visits conducted since 1 September 1994. In total 189 animals have been withdrawn from sale and treated under the Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990, and a further 103 animals with suspected sheep scab were sent direct to slaughter.

  A further surveillance exercise will be carried out this spring.

  Generic Milk Production
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons generic milk production is excluded from the Milk Development Council.

  Mr. Jack
  With a levy-funded budget limited to £6.5 million a year, the Milk Development Council would not 216
  have sufficient resources to run expensive generic promotion campaigns while at the same time undertaking its principal function of sponsoring R and D on dairying. Generic promotion was not therefore among the tasks listed in the polling papers sent to all producers in Great Britain last year and on the basis of which they voted in favour of the establishment of a Milk Development Council.

  Fishing (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to establish the origins of the 1,000 tonnes of fish reported as an extension of the Northern Irish fish entitlement as a result of the debate in the House of 18 January,Official Report, columns 771–822; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  As part of the swaps traditionally negotiated each year with other member states following the December Fisheries Council, the United Kingdom this year acquired 750 tonnes of Irish sea cod and 250 tonnes of Irish sea whiting from the Republic of Ireland.

  Live Animal Imports
  Sir Jerry Wiggin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his response to the recommendations in the recent Agriculture Select Committee report on health controls on live animal imports.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government have today laid before Parliament a Command Paper which details its response to the various recommendations in the Agriculture Select Committee report on health controls on live animal imports. This welcomes the Agriculture Select Committee's thorough examination of the health controls which operate for agricultural animals, birds and fish and details our intentions for implementing them. We are also pleased to note the Committee's general endorsement of our current health controls on imported livestock and their recognition that these controls enabled the lifting of routine internal border controls to take place on 1 January 1993 without appreciable increase in the risk of livestock disease entering the United Kingdom.
  217
  The Government also welcome the important contribution which the Committee's report has made to the discussion about future policy on rabies. We believe the changes which the Select Committee recommended would be premature before the eradication programme for rabies in the European Union is complete, and while the new import arrangements for traded cats and dogs in the UK, as well as the rules operating in Norway and Sweden which the Select Committee has taken as a model, are novel and unproven. The Government will, however, continue to monitor closely the performance of these new arrangements and the progress being made within the European Union towards the eradication of rabies.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what time his Ministry's vets reported the first animals loaded on the livestock trucks in respect of the first sailing carrying live farm animals from Shoreham to Dieppe; and at what time the last animals were unloaded and placed in a lairage in France.

  Mrs. Browning
  This first consignment on the Shoreham-Dieppe route was accompanied by Ministry staff from Shoreham port to the lairage at Dieppe. They reported that the convoy of livestock vehicles was at the dockside at 00.10 hours on 5 January. Loading was completed by 02.10 hours and the vessel left Shoreham at 02.30 hours, arriving at Dieppe at 12.50 hours. Unloading of animals at the lairage was completed at 13.25 hours—all timings are given in British time.

  Fishing (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many British fishing vessels he estimates will take up the additional £28 million decommissioning programme.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: The decommissioning scheme operates through a tendering system in order to obtain best value for money for the available funds. It is not therefore possible to say in advance how many bids will be approved. Details of the uptake of decommissioning in 1993 and 1994 were given in the reply to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on 20 January 1995, Official Report, columns 736–37.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Commercial Lobbying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) on how many occasions in the last four months of which he has knowledge any civil servants in his Department have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements;

  (2) on how many occasions in the last four months he has been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.
  218
  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Commercial Lobbying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) on how many occasions in the last four months of which he has knowledge any civil servants in his Department have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements;

  (2) on how many occasions in the last four months he or any of his Ministers have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

  Combat 18
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what reports he has received from the Metropolitan police for proceedings to be considered under the Public Order Act 1986 against two men associated with Combat 18; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will consult his counterpart in the United States of America to discuss whether invitations to readers of publications produced by Combat 18 in the United Kingdom to send information to Combat 18 via a PO box number for the Dixie Press in America about individuals to be harassed, intimidated or attacked, contravenes American law.

  The Attorney-General
  Neither I nor the Crown Prosecution Service has yet received a report from the Metropolitan police, whose investigation into Combat 18 continues. It is not possible to assess in advance of receipt of the police report what action or further inquiries may be appropriate.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the size of the shipbuilding industry in Tyne and Wear in 1979; and what its size is now.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Comparable data for the years in question are not available. Employment in shipbuilding and ship repairing in Tyne and Wear in September 1981 was 18,257 and in September 1989 was 5,229. Since then employment has declined further with the contraction of the industry in Tyne and Wear.

  Security Equipment
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government's policy on the export,
  219
  or arrangement of sale, by British companies of electronic riot shields and electronic batons.

  Mr. Needham
  The export of certain security and paramilitary police goods is controlled. This includes portable anti-riot devices for administering an electric shock or an incapacitating substance. In considering applications for licences for the export of such equipment the DTI, together with advisers in other Government Departments, takes special care and considers very carefully the political and military implications of allowing consignments to go overseas. Particular attention is paid to proposed exports to countries with poor human rights records, where the equipment might be used for internal repression.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with BAe's Royal Ordnance division about the supply of electric shock batons to Saudi Arabia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  None. The company has denied both publicly and to my officials that any such supply has taken place.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the occasions and the dates on which his Department(a) received information in respect of and (b) supported the export of electro-shock weapons to (i) China and (ii) Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 18 January 1995]: A number of allegations have been made: they have been followed-up by my officials. The companies involved have made public denials. I am not aware of any support given for the export of electro-shock weapons to these destinations.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what electro-shock equipment has been exported by(a) the Royal Ordnance, (b) British Aerospace or (c) any other British companies in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 18 January 1995]: Controls exist on the export of portable anti-riot devices for administering an electric shock. Other equipment of this sort is not licensable under the Export of Goods (Control) Order. This question could be answered in respect of controlled equipment only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures his Department is taking to pursue the Government's policy of preventing the export of equipment and weapons which can be used for torture.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 18 January 1995]: My Department gives careful consideration to applications for the export of weapons. In considering such proposals, special care is taken over the political and military implications of allowing consignments to go overseas. Particular attention is paid to countries with poor human rights records, where equipment might be used for internal repression. However, the list of seemingly innocuous equipment that can be used for the purposes of torture is endless and there is a real problem in controlling trade in legitimate goods which could be misused. The Government are willing to look at any tangible evidence of British companies knowingly involved in supplying materials and expertise for the purposes of repression.

  Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of reprocessed uranium have been exported under licence to the Russian Federation since 1991 for re-enrichment before return to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Since 1991 there have been no exports of reprocessed uranium from the United Kingdom to the Russian Federation.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what applications have been made by British Nuclear Fuels or Nuclear Electric for import licences for enriched uranium purchased from companies in the Russian Federation or other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

  Mr. Needham
  As a general matter, applications for import licences are treated as commercially confidential.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what memoranda of understanding exist between the United Kingdom and the former Soviet Union which have been inherited by the Russian Federation providing for a framework agreement for the import of uranium hexafluoride from Russia for commercial use.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Before the former Soviet Union came to an end in December 1991, imports of uranium hexafluoride were made on a purely commercial basis. None of the Government's obligations in the field of nuclear non-proliferation required an inter-governmental memorandum of understanding.

  Nuclear Industry (Accident Liability)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria were used in setting the level of nuclear industry's liability in the event of a nuclear accident at £140 million; and when he next intends to review this level of liability.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The figure of £140 million is in line with the recommendation of the steering committee for nuclear energy of the OECD for countries which are parties to the Paris convention. It also takes account of the level of commercial insurance cover available. The figure is kept under review.

  Nuclear Reactors (Cracking)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will instruct Her Majesty's nuclear installations inspectorate to investigate the safety of the similar AGR plant of Hartlepool in respect of cracking problems as discovered at the Heysham and Dungeness AGR reactors.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand that a programme of periodic inspections is already undertaken at Hartlepool, where the superheater headers are similar to those at Heysham 1, where cracks have been found. The headers are included in the routine inspection programme. At the last such inspection at Hartlepool in June 1994, no cracks were identified in the equivalent header welds. As a precautionary measure, the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate has agreed with the operator, Nuclear Electric, a programme of additional inspections.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what reports have been brought to his attention by
  221
  the nuclear installations inspectorate over the past two years in regard to the discovery of cracks found in the steam generator of the boilers at the Heysham A and Dungeness B nuclear plants; and what decisions he has taken in response to the nuclear installations inspectorate reports.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate does not report to this Department on its day-to-day inspection activities at nuclear power plants. The answer I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 19 January,Official Report, column 589, referred to the action being taken by Nuclear Electric on cracks discovered at Dungeness B and Heysham 1 and explained that both plants would be brought back into operation only once the NII is satisfied that it is safe for them to do so.

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his Department received from German nuclear companies on their intentions regarding cancellation of reprocessing contracts into British Nuclear Fuels prior to the thermal oxide reprocessing plant being licensed; and what assessment he has made of them.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No such representations were received.

  Aerosols
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that the risks of injury resulting from accidental ignition of aerosols and aerosol contents are minimised;

  (2) how many injuries are sustained annually from the accidental ignition of aerosols and aerosol contents;

  (3) what plans he has to encourage aerosol manufacturers to improve the safety of their products.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Department's home accident surveillance system estimate, from a sample of accident and emergency hospital accident data, is that the number of injuries due to the accidental ignition of aerosols in United Kingdom is no more than 200 injuries in any year. There were 750 million aerosols sold in the UK in 1993. Aerosols are subject to the Aerosol Dispensers (EEC Requirements) Regulations 1977, as amended, the General Product Safety Regulations 1994 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Subject to the need to implement the recent Commission directive 94/1/EEC adapting to technical progress directive 75/324/EEC on aerosol dispensers and the thirteenth amendment to directive 76/769/EEC on the marketing and use of dangerous substances and preparations, I have no plans for any additional legislation.

  World Trade
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was(a) the total volume of world trade in dollars and (b) the percentage increase year-on-year in each year from 1990–91 to 1993–94.

  Mr. Needham
  The information, where available, is given in the following table:
  222

  World Trade1 in Goods

  1991 US Dollars (billions)

  Per cent. change on previous year

  1990

  821.6

  n/a

  1991

  856.3

  4.2

  1992

  901.0

  5.2

  1993

  927.3

  2.9

  Note:

  1 Trade is calculated as the arithmetic mean of exports and imports.

  Source:

  OECD Main Economic Indicators, December 1994.

  Trade Balance (Vehicles)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 11 January to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell),Official Report, column 156, if he will make a statement as to his Department's analysis of the reasons for the worsening of the trade balance in cars and commercial vehicles.

  Mr. Needham
  Despite an upturn in the United Kingdom car market during the last two years, continued recession in continental Europe has drastically affected car exports from the UK to those markets. Similarly, the strong growth in the UK commercial vehicle market last year led European manufacturers aggressively to target the UK at a time when their domestic markets have remained in recession. UK car and commercial vehicle manufacturers are well placed to reverse this position as the economy of mainland Europe recovers.

  Merchant Banks
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when merchant banks became exempt from legislation requiring disclosure of share purchases; and if he will review the procedure.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Merchants banks as such are not exempt from the law on disclosure of interests in shares. Certain categories of interests in shares have been exempt from disclosure since a law on disclosure of interests in shares was first introduced in 1967. These categories have been updated subsequently and now include interests in shares held by banks and others by way of security; interests in shares held by market makers for the purposes of their market making business; and interests held by custodians in their capacity as such.

  The law on disclosure of interests in shares is now being examined as part of the Department's company law reform programme.

  Business Start-up
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade by what percentage the single regeneration budget will be reduced in 1995–96; and what will be the impact in cash terms on the Devon and Cornwall training and enterprise council's funding for business start-up.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  Total national expenditure on the single regeneration budget in 1995–96 is expected, on current plans, to be 8 per cent. lower in cash terms than that in 1994–95. Expenditure on business start-up schemes by Devon and Cornwall training and enterprise council in 1995–96 cannot yet be estimated. Existing commitments will continue to be honoured, but contracts for 1995–96 have not yet been signed. In addition, Devon and Cornwall

  223
  TEC is a partner in three successful SRB bids which include business start-up and business training and advice project. The partnerships are currently preparing their delivery plans for these schemes.

  Coal Imports
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many million tonnes of coal were imported into the United Kingdom in 1994; and what was the impact of coal imports on the United Kingdom balance of payments.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Figures for the whole of 1994 are not yet available. Coal imports for the first three quarters of the year amounted to 11.9 million tonnes and were 13 per cent. below the level in the same period of 1993. The negative impact of these imports on the balance of payments figures will be about £400 million.

  Manufacturing Supplies
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what capacity his Department has to supply comprehensive lists of manufacturing supplies in specific sectors to prospective purchasers of United Kingdom goods;

  (2) what progress his Department has made in producing an acceptable comprehensive system for priority information on United Kingdom suppliers in each section of the manufacturing process.

  Mr. Eggar
  The network of regional supply offices currently being set up in England by my Department will provide major purchasers with information on competitive suppliers in their region and more widely. Each of the 10 offices will focus on particular business sectors taking into account local strengths and weaknesses. The network will complement similar initiatives run by the Welsh and Scottish development agencies.

  In addition, the overseas trade services, jointly provided by my Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, supply information on United Kingdom suppliers to potential overseas purchasers through commercial staff overseas, either from the extensive information sources held overseas or by referral back to the United Kingdom to the source of supply service run on our behalf by Prelink Ltd.

  Retail Price Maintenance
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the policy justification for the continuation of retail price maintenance for(a) pharmaceuticals, (b) newspapers and (c) periodicals; and what other products or services for which retail price maintenance is still in force there are.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Resale price maintenance is unlawful under the Resale Prices Act 1976, subject to the possibility of exemption by the restrictive practices court on public interest grounds. Two exemptions are in force, for books and for certain pharmaceuticals, which were exempted on the grounds that price competition between retailers would be likely to lead to a reduction in the number of outlets offering prescription services. No exemption exists in relation to newspapers or periodicals.

  Leeds Training and Enterprise Council
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the President of the President of the Board of Trade how much funding his Department will be providing to Leeds TEC in 1995–96 for small and medium businesses; and how much was provided in 1994–95.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The DTI grant offer to Leeds TEC for small and medium businesses in 1994–95 was £410,000. The budget for 1995–96 has yet to be settled.

  Integrated Regional Offices
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those of his Department's responsibilities on which the integrated regional offices are required to advise him on the allocation of resources and, for each integrated regional office, the annual expenditure on each programme.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Regional directors advise on a range of programmes but do not hold programme budgets and are not therefore responsible for allocating resources to programmes. The 1993–94 expenditure proposed on each programme was detailed in the DTI's published MINIS 1994, available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those of his Department's responsibilities which are administered by the integrated regional offices and, for each integrated regional office, the estimated annual expenditure on each of these responsibilities.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The range of activities undertaken by DTI in the regions has not changed with the introduction of the Government offices. The activities and the running costs associated with them for 1993–94 were published in MINIS 1994, available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those of his Department's responsibilities on which integrated regional offices are responsible for preparing, advising on or implementing regional policy.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Government offices in the regions assist my Department in work on a range of regional policy issues including regional selective assistance applications, the preparation of single programming documents for the structural funds and administering the regional innovation grants.

  Inward Investing Companies
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what the total value of the output of inward investing companies in the United Kingdom was in 1993;

  (2) what was the total value of the exports of inward investing companies in the United Kingdom in 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is not available at present. However, in view of the importance of the contribution of these companies to the economic performance of the United Kingdom, the Department approached the Central Statistical Office last month to ask it to produce the information.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the responsibilities of the Green Minister in his Department regarding oil and gas exploration and extraction.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has designated me as the Green Minister for the Department. I take decisions on oil and gas exploration and extraction on the basis of a number of criteria, including the possible effect such activities may have on the environment. In reaching these decisions, I take account of advice from a wide range of environmental organisations, including the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what additional funds have been made available to the national engineering laboratory; and for what reason.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The National Engineering Laboratory is subject to net expenditure control. Therefore it is required to recover its full economic costs from work carried out for my Department and third parties. Any additional cash provisions are dealt with as part of the annual public expenditure settlement and presented to Parliament in my Department's main estimates.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which organisations have expressed an interest in purchasing the national engineering laboratory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  A number of organisations have expressed such an interest. Their identities are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what parts of the national engineering laboratory, including building and land, have been included in the prospectus for the sale of the national engineering laboratory.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My Department has offered for sale the business and assets of the national engineering laboratory. The buildings and lands are not owned by the Department.

  Glass Oven Doors
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cases have been reported of exploding glass oven doors; what safety monitoring of ovens with such doors has taken place; and what action is being taken by his Department.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: The number of incidents involving exploding glass oven doors which have been reported to my Department's consumer safety unit is:

  Year

  Number

  1984

  12

  1985

  25

  1986

  32

  1987

  28

  1988

  34

  1989

  9

  226

  Year

  Number

  1990

  10

  1991

  8

  1992

  2

  1993

  2

  1994

  3

  Although very few injuries occurred, the increase in the number of reported incidents between 1984 and 1988 prompted my Department to discuss the problem with industry. This led to a significant improvement to British standard 3193—specification for thermally toughened glass panels for use in domestic appliances. Improvements were also made in the way in which glass doors are attached to cookers, and both aspects are reflected in the reduced number of incidents since that time.

  Although there has been a significant reduction in the number of incidents reported since 1989, my Department continue to monitor the situation and to contribute to the relevant European standards—CEN and CENELEC—safety committees on cookers and glass which now fully reflect the British standard.

  Internet
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will encourage the establishment of a British-based equivalent of the Internet system in order for Britain to promote its interests worldwide.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 23 January 1995]: The Internet is now so international and amorphous that its operation would be very difficult to influence in order to provide a national benefit. However, the DTI is monitoring its development and the prospect of other networks closely.

  The United Kingdom's interests are best served by the fullest development of new telecommunication networks and services, led by the private sector and reflecting the economic interests of businesses, public institutions and households. The UK is in a very strong position to use these capabilities because of the state of development of our communications infrastructure. The Government's policy of telecommunications liberalization has encouraged substantial investment in modern communications networks with the capacity to support the multimedia applications that the new communications networks require. There are many companies in Britain working on such applications.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Appeals Authority
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many special adjudicators are employed by the Immigration Appeals Authority; and what plans he has to increase that number.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has designated 62 immigration adjudicators to be special adjudicators for the purposes of section 8(5) of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, 18 of whom are full-time adjudicators. Ten new part-time special
  227
  adjudicators were designated in December 1994 and further increases in the numbers are likely during the course of the year, the precise numbers depending on the work load of the immigration appellate authorities.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the total

  1. Adjudicators

  Adjudicators

  Centre

  Staff in post

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Courtrooms

  London

  52

  7

  17

  8

  West London

  43

  7

  26

  15

  Birmingham

  8

  2

  13

  4

  Leeds

  8

  1

  14

  3

  Manchester

  7

  —

  15

  4

  Glasgow

  7

  1

  8

  2

  125

  18

  93

  36

  2. Immigration Appeal Tribunal

  No.

  Staff in post

  12

  Chairmen

  Full-time

  3

  Part-time

  7

  Lay members

  26

  Courtrooms

  2

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance is given to special adjudicators of the Immigration Appeals Authority on the level of recognisance to be required when granting bail to persons detained under Immigration Act powers.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No such guidance is given by the Lord Chancellor's Department. The level of recognisance in these cases is a matter for the special adjudicator's discretion.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applications for bail were made to the Immigration Appeals Authority by persons detained under Immigration Act powers in(a) 1993 and (b) 1994 to date; and how many of these applications were successful.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There were 531 such applications in 1993; 898 in 1994; and to date there have been 56 in 1995. The outcome of a bail application is recorded on the individual file but results are not collated centrally. The information requested could therefore be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total cost in the financial year 1993–94 to his Department of hearing applications for bail by persons detained under Immigration Act powers.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 15 December 1994,Official Report, column 729.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total budget of the Immigration Appeals Authority in the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The total budget of the immigration appellate authorities in the financial year 1993–94 was £6,397,850.
  228
  establishment of the Immigration Appeals Authority; and if he will provide a breakdown of that establishment by function and location.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information is set out in the tables:

  Magistrates Courts (Appointment System)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate there is of savings likely to the legal aid fund by the adoption of an appointment system in magistrates courts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No estimate has been made of potential savings to the legal aid fund.

  Solicitors Complaints Bureau
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to ensure that practice rule 15 does not prevent the Solicitors Complaints Bureau from investigating a serious complaint.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Law Society's statutory powers to deal with complaints about solicitors have been delegated to the Solicitors Complaints Bureau. The legal services ombudsman has paid particular attention to the application of practice rule 15 by the SCB and in his third annual report he warned that many complaints could only be dealt with effectively if investigated by the SCB. The SCB has a statutory duty to have regard to the recommendations of the ombudsman.

  Commercial Lobbying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) on how many occasions in the last four months he or his ministerial colleagues have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements;

  (2) on how many occasions in the last four months of which he has knowledge any civil servants in his Department have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

PRIME MINISTER

  World Summit for Social Development
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will be attending the world summit for social development.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) on 23 January,Official Report, column 23.

  Commercial Lobbying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions in the last four months of which he has knowledge any civil servants in his Department have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Parliamentary Questions
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parliamentary questions he has referred to chief executives of next steps agencies.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Since 1992, 16 parliamentary questions have been referred to the chief executives of the United Kingdom Passport Agency, of the Forensic Science Service and of the Fire Service College. The Prison Service Agency does not maintain a central record of parliamentary questions answered by the director general and the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by prison(a) the target prison population, (b) the actual prison population, (c) the staff establishment in full-time equivalents and (d) staff in post in full-time equivalents for each year since 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Services, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 25 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about a list by prison of (a) the target prison population, (b) the actual prison population, (c) the staff establishment in full-time equivalents and (d) staff in post in full-time equivalents for each year since 1971.
  Individual Prison Service establishments do not have target populations. Information on the accommodation (at 31 March) and average population of prison establishments is published in the
  230
  Prison Service annual reports, copies of which are in the Library of the House.
  The annual report for 1993–94 has yet to be published but the information on total accommodations and average number of prisoners is as in the attached table (annex 1).
  Information on the average population of establishments for April to November 1994 is set out in the attached table at annex 2, together with the average certified normal accommodation (CNA).
  Copies of both annexes have been placed in the House of Commons libraries.
  I will write to you separately with the figures on staffing levels at establishments.

  Director General of the Prison Service
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures were undertaken when the Director General of the Prison Service was selected; how many candidates were considered for this post; and what criteria were used in assessing the candidates.

  Mr. Howard
  The Civil Service Commissioners are required to approve all agency chief executive appointments and the appointment of the Director General of the Prison Service was approved by them in the normal way. The appointment was advertised and an executive search conducted. The First Civil Service Commissioner chaired the selection procedure. The board considered nearly 40 candidates and interviewed five. Three were assessed as of an acceptable standard and, in view of the importance of the appointment, the procedure adopted was that the board adjourned in order to allow the then Home Secretary to meet those candidates. The board then reconvened. The appointment was a matter for my predecessor but the candidate he appointed was approved by the board under the First Civil Service Commissioner's chairmanship. The main criteria for selection were set out in the advertisement for the post: experience, most probably at chief executive level, of leading a substantial organisation in the public or private sector; a track record of successful management of large-scale change, delivering improved quality and efficiency; first-class communication skills and good judgment.

  Prison Damage
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of refurbishing prisons following damage by prisoners acting unlawfully for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  231
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 25 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the cost of refurbishing prisons as a result of damage caused by prisoners acting unlawfully for each year since 1990.
  The total costs for refurbishing establishments damaged by prisoners in each financial year since 1990/1, for which figures are available, are as follows:

  1990–91: £27.9 million

  1991–92: £512,000

  1992–93: £464,000

  1993–94: £5,072,000

  1994–95: £135,000*

  *Costs for the current financial year to date.

  High Security Prisons (Costs)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the annual cost at current prices of keeping a man in a high security prison.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  232
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. David Nicholson, dated 25 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the annual cost of keeping a prisoner in a high security prison.
  The annual average net operating cost per prisoner place in dispersal prisons in 1993–4 was £26,671.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish Her Majesty's chief inspector's report into Her Majesty's prison, Blakenhurst; and what are the reasons for the delay in its publication.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 25 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the publication of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector's report into Blakenhurst.
  It is expected that the report will be published on 1 February. Publication has not been unduly delayed. The report was received from the Inspector on 10 October 1994. Careful consideration is given to all such reports before publication and this has been so for the Blakenhurst report.

  Pucklechurch Remand Centre
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers have been on detached duty to Pucklechurch remand centre to cover 24-hour surveillance duty since 2 January; and from which prisons.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 25 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question abut the number of prison officers on detached duty at Pucklechurch Remand Centre to cover 24 hour surveillance duty since 2 January and from which prisons they have been sent.
  A total of seventeen offices have been used on detached duty from Swansea, Leyhill, Winchester, Stoke Heath, Portland, Usk, Guy's Marsh, Wandsworth and Bristol prisons.

  Electro-shock Equipment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the commissioning of medical studies regarding the safety and effectiveness of vehicle mounted or fence or perimeter mounted electro-shock devices.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office has no plans to commission such studies.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what arrangements are made between his Department and private companies or individuals to lease or rent electro-shock equipment;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the holding of stocks of electro-shock devices by his Department;

  (3) how many United Kingdom police forces hold supplies of electro-shock shields of electro-shock batons;

  (4) what information he has of fatalities attributable to the use of electro-shock devices;

  (5) how many United Kingdom, military, security or police personnel have attended training or instruction courses in the use of electro-shock devices with overseas manufacturers or suppliers.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office does not hold stocks of this equipment nor is it party to any leasing or rental agreements with third parties. Information concerning the number of police forces holding supplies of electro-shock shields or batons is not held centrally. As I made clear in my written answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 383, some forces have obtained electro-shock equipment only to protect officers against ferocious dogs in pre-planned operations. The Home Office has no details of fatalities from the use of electro-shock devices. I have no knowledge of any staff in Home Office areas of responsibility attending manufacturers' or suppliers' training courses in the use of such equipment.

  Noise Pollution
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions have now been issued to officers of the Metropolitan police to reduce unnecessary noise pollution by the use of police car sirens following the review mentioned in his answer of 23 June 1994,Official Report, column 258.
  234
  Mr. Maclean
  A copy of the Metropolitan police notice announcing an amendment to the Metropolitan police instruction manual has now been approved and a copy of the notice will be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  Motorists (Retesting)
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many motorists have been obliged to undergo compulsory retesting in the last two years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information available to me suggests that some 1,000 disqualifications were imposed in 1992 in England and Wales which also included a driving test requirement. The figure for 1993 was 2,700.

  Electoral Fraud
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new proposals he intends to make to eliminate electoral fraud caused by the depositing of fraudulent votes in ballot boxes.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  None. The Representation of the People Act 1983 contains provisions for the prevention and detection of fraudulent votes. The Act also provides for sanction in respect of illegal practices, corrupt practices and other offences. We have no proposals for any change.

  Commercial Lobbying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions in the last four months of which he has knowledge any civil servants in his Department have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements;

  (2) on how many occasions in the last four months he or any of his Ministers have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

  Visa Refusals
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the rate of refusals of visas for entry into the United Kingdom from(a) Thailand, (b) New Zealand, (c) Australia, (d) Canada and (e) India for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The available information is given in the table.

  Table 1: Refusal Rates(1) for entry clearance applications made in Thailand, New Zealand. Australia, Canada and India, 1990–1993

  Percentages

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Entry clearance made for temporary purposes2

  Thailand

  2

  4

  3

  3

  New Zealand

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Australia

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Canada

  1

  1

  1

  —

  India3

  12

  10

  8

  7

  235

  Table 1: Refusal Rates(1) for entry clearance applications made in Thailand, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and India, 1990–1993

  Percentages

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Entry clearance applications made for settlement4

  Thailand

  5

  16

  19

  21

  New Zealand

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Australia

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Canada

  —

  —

  —

  —

  India3

  19

  22

  20

  21

  Source:

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (for Thailand, New Zealand, Australia and Canada) and Home Office (for India).

  Notes:

  1 Calculated as applications refused initially, as a percentage of applications granted (in total) and refused.

  2 Some applications will have been made by nationals of other countries.

  3 Ultimate refusal rate calculated as applications initially refused, minus applications subsequently granted on appeal, as a percentage of applications decided.

  4 Includes applications for a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode.

  —= less than 0.5 per cent.

  Football Pools
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are to change the Government's policy in relation to broadcast advertising of the football pools.

  Mr. Howard
  The Government have been reviewing the restrictions on the ban on broadcast advertising by the football pools as part of the deregulation initiative and have decided that it is not necessary in the public interest for the ban to be maintained.

  The Government have today invited the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority to consider amending their advertising codes. The ITC and the Radio Authority are required to consult with all interested parties.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were detained under Immigration Act powers in each month in 1993 and 1994.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 18 January 1995):The information requested is given in the table.

  Persons1 detained under Immigration Act powers

  Month2

  1993

  19943

  January

  852

  1,090

  February

  927

  1,000

  March

  878

  1,050

  April

  871

  850

  May

  881

  830

  June

  721

  820

  July

  927

  950

  August

  772

  1,080

  September

  799

  1,100

  October

  756

  1,100

  236

  Persons1 detained under Immigration Act powers

  Month2

  1993

  19943

  November

  771

  4360

  December

  966

  4250

  Year

  10,121

  410,470

  Notes:

  1 Passengers at ports detained overnight or longer, and persons detained as illegal entrants or under deportation powers (excluding persons detained pending deportation following completion of a custodial sentence).

  2 For persons detained as illegal entrants or under deportation powers, the month relates to when the illegal entrant was detected or when the notice of intention to deport was served, not when the person was detained.

  3 Data for 1994 are provisional and have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  4 Excluding passengers at ports detained in November and December 1994, the data on whom are not yet available.

  Drownings
  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons died as a result of drowning on bathing beaches, in each year since 1980 and(a) in England and (b) in each English coastal resort; and how many of these were under the age of 18 years.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Statistics that would identify drownings off beaches in Britain are not collected centrally, but since 1983 the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has produced and published annual statistics on drownings in the United Kingdom based on collation of press reports. I understand that they may hold information which could assist in answering the hon. Member's question.

  Scanners
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the use of scanners to detect offensive weapons in places of public entertainment.

  Mr. Maclean
  A number of products are available commercially which are capable of detecting concealed metal objects, including offensive weapons. These are evaluated regularly by the Home Office police scientific development branch. Its evaluations are made available to the police and persons wishing to acquire such equipment may obtain appropriate advice from their local crime prevention officer.

  It is open to he owners of private premises used for public entertainment to make it a condition of entry that persons wishing to enter their premises submit themselves to a search. Such searches may be conducted by means of hand-held scanners.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Dairy Farmers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the approximate average net profits for dairy farmers in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Ancram
  The net profits of dairy farmers is not determined each year as net profits is not one of the measures used to assess farm profitability in the United
  237
  Kingdom. Information on incomes of full-time dairy farms and other farm types is collected in the farm business survey and published each year in "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom". The latest edition, "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom 1992/93", shows estimates of several different measures of income for dairy farms in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  To illustrate longer-term trends in incomes, index series are also given for net farm income, occupier's net income and cash income back to 1986–87—table 1.1 and appendix 1, tables 1 and 2—the earliest year for which data are available on a consistent basis.

  "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom 1993–94" will be published in March 1995.

  Dourine
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of Dourine were reported in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Ancram
  Dourine has never been recorded in Northern Ireland.

  Repossessions
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the figures for house repossessions have been in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Moss
  Repossessions statistics are not provided by the mortgage-lending institutions on a regional basis and therefore are not available for Northern Ireland.

  However, I understand that the enforcement of judgments office issued 683 orders for repossessions in 1992, 492 in 1993 and 468 in 1994.

  Commercial Lobbying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) on how many occasions in the last four months of which he has knowledge any civil servants in his Department have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements;

  (2) on how many occasions in the last four months he or any of his Ministers have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster earlier today.

TREASURY

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 January 1995,Official Report, column 289, if he will outline the common procedure mentioned in paragraph 1 of the communiqué and the steps therein.

  Mr. Nelson
  Article 3 of the resolution of the European Council of Brussels of 5 December 1978 provides that"adjustments of central rates will be subject to mutual agreement by a common procedure which will comprise all countries participating in the exchange rate mechanism and the Commission. There will be
  238
  reciprocal consultation in the Community framework about important decisions concerning exchange rate policy between countries participating and any country not participating in the system"

  Any member state intending to change, establish or reestablish the parity, central rate or intervention points of its currency within the ERM is required to initiate a prior consultation procedure by informing the relevant authorities of member states.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the most recent meeting of the Economic and Finance Council.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Economic and Finance Council of the European Union in Brussels on 16 January.

  The French presidency outlined its work programme for the coming Economic and Finance Councils, based on the three priorities: sustainable growth and the creation of employment; the enhancement of the credibility of European policies; and the completion of the single market.

  In reply, I welcomed the presidency's work programme, particularly its stress on improvements in the fight against fraud. I stressed that economic conditions in member states were now the best for several years and that it was vital to use this opportunity to tackle long-term unemployment and other structural problems through more flexible labour markets. I underlined the need to respect the convergence criteria on low inflation and reduced public deficits set out in the Maastricht treaty and stressed the need for a systematic review of the Community's balance of payments support outside the EU.

  The Council agreed to the presidency's procedural proposals for dealing with the follow-up to the Essen European Council on: the financing of trans-European networks; the parameters within which member states wishing to do so could introduce a CO2-energy tax; fraud and financial management; and the employment situation.

  No formal votes were taken at the Council meeting.

  Insider-Dealing
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will be meeting the chairman of the stock exchange to discuss the rules on insider dealing and disclosure of marketing stakes.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets the chairman of the stock exchange from time to time to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out for each of the next steps agencies in his Department, whether they have acquired their own headquarters buildings and, if so, at what purchase cost or annual rental; how many support staff they have required which were not required when their operations were within his Department; how many of them publish periodical journals and at what annual cost; how many have fleets of executive cars or single executive cars and at what annual cost; how many have specially designed logos and at what cost; how many have corporate clothing
  239
  and at what cost; and what is the cost of specially designed and printed corporate stationery.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information sought falls within the operational responsibilities of the chief executives of the Royal Mint, Central Statistical Office, Paymaster and Valuation Office executive agencies and I have asked each of them to arrange for a reply to be given. The four agencies did not form part of the Treasury prior to becoming agencies.

  Letter from Mr. R. Holmes to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 24 January 1995:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to provide, in relation to the Royal Mint, the information sought in your Question concerning Agency expenditure on a number of specific matters.
  I will respond to each of these as they appear in your Question:

  1. The Royal Mint is a Government Department which has been a Trading Fund since 1975 and an Agency since 1990. The change to Agency status did not result in any additional expenditure on buildings or staff.

  2. The Royal Mint issues a monthly staff newsletter at an annual cost of £4,000.

  3. The Royal Mint has no personally allocated executive cars.

  4. Coincidental with our new Agency status in 1990, the Royal Mint commissioned a new Corporate identity—for commercial reasons and totally unrelated to our new status. The total cost of this was £32,000.

  5. The Royal Mint provides clothing where there is an occupational or safety requirement eg protective clothing in the factory. The annual cost is approximately £95,000.

  6. The Royal Mint has incurred no costs in specially designed and printed corporate stationery since our logo was changed in 1990.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Letter from W. McLennan to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 25 January 1995:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your Question of 20 January about Next Steps agencies.
  2. The Central Statistical Office (CSO) became an Executive Agency on 19 November 1991. The following are the answers to the specific points raised in your Question:
  The CSO has not acquired its own headquarters buildings.
  No additional support staff were required when the CSO became an agency, because it was a separate department then and has remained one since.
  CSO has continued to publish statistics on a regular basis and the full costs of the agency are set out in its Annual Report and Accounts (copy attached).
  The CSO has no executive cars.
  The CSO introduced a new logo in 1993, which was designed in-house.
  No extra cost was incurred in printing corporate stationery for the agency compared with previous stationery costs.

  Letter from Keith Sullens to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 24 January 1995:
  I am writing as Chief Executive of PAYMASTER in response to your written question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about costs of the Next Steps Agencies in his Department.
  PAYMASTER continues to occupy the premises it was in prior to becoming an Executive Agency. Sutherland House, Crawley is a Crown building for which Property Holdings is paid a current rent of £1,327,000 pa. Due to restructuring of the Agency the space occupied will be reduced considerably by 31 March 1996, the rental will be £862,000—a saving of 36%.
  Historically the Office of the Paymaster General had been an autonomous unit within HM Treasury and therefore no significant additional numbers of support staff were required.
  PAYMASTER does not issue periodic journals, other than the Annual Report and Statement of Accounts as required by statute.
  There are no personally allocated executive cars in PAYMASTER. Two cars are hired for official business on a first
  240
  come first served basis and they are available for all staff. The annual cost of hire is £5,856 pa, excluding petrol and oil.
  PAYMASTER commissioned a design for a new corporate identity with new logo for the Agency launch, the cost of which was £12,500 excluding VAT.
  A very small sum, (less than £200) has been spent on corporate clothing for messengerial staff.
  A limited amount of new corporate stationery was produced at a cost of £15,000, excluding VAT. Design costs were included in the overall figure quoted.
  I hope that this answers your queries satisfactorily but if you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Letter from A. J. Langford to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 25 January 1995:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your Question about the cost of certain operational functions since becoming an Executive Agency under the Next Steps programme.

  Headquarters buildings
  The Valuation Office's head office continues to be based in the same building as before. No additional accommodation has been taken for headquarters buildings.

  Support staff
  No additional support staff have been taken on by the Valuation Office in consequence of its move to Executive Agency status.

  Periodical journals
  The Valuation Office continues to produce a Property Market Report on a twice yearly basis. This is on sale to the public and is priced on a cost recovery basis.

  Executive cars
  The Valuation Office does not have any executive cars.

  Agency logo
  The Valuation Office's logo was designed in-house at no additional cost.

  Corporate clothing
  The Valuation Office provides uniforms incorporating the Agency logo for its messengerial and security staff in its head office. Uniforms were provided to this group of staff pre Agency status and the additional cost of incorporating the Agency logo was minimal. The annual running cost of uniforms is in the order of £1,950. There is no other form of corporate clothing.

  Corporate stationery
  As the move to Agency status developed, opportunities were taken to run down existing stocks of stationery and reprinting with the Agency title gradually introduced and no additional costs arose.
  Please let me know if I can assist further.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees for which his departments are responsible were women(a) in 1991, (b) in 1992, (c) in grade 7 level, (ii) at grade 3 level, (iii) at executive officer level, (iv) at administrative officer level and (v) at administrative assistant level.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The combined totals for the Chancellor's departments are:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  All women

  62,561

  62,379

  61,736

  59,205

  Grade 3

  4

  4

  5

  4

  Grade 7

  354

  420

  548

  563

  EO

  12,236

  13,147

  12,995

  12,703

  AO

  19,792

  23,006

  22,799

  22,860

  AA

  18,879

  20,207

  18,714

  17,311

  The figures mostly relate to 1 April for each year in question, however three of he Chancellor's departments do not have the data requested for 1991, and one has

  241
  shown its total female staff at the end of each year requested. Part-time staff are included by head count—not by full-time equivalent.

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future role of the National Audit Office in vetting United Kingdom contributions to the European Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: United Kingdom contributions to the European Community budget are paid from the Consolidated Fund. As with all payments from the Consolidated Fund, the National Audit Office already approves all these contributions before they are paid. In addition, the NAO conducts a full annual audit of the Consolidated Fund.

  Yorkshire Electricity Group plc
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up an inquiry into the Swiss Bank Corporation's acquisition of Yorkshire Electricity Group plc shares; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  Inquiries into transactions involving securities are matters for the appropriate regulatory authorities.

  Economic Prospects
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current estimate of the prospects for the economy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The latest forecasts available, published in last November's "Financial Statement and Budget Report", show continuing steady growth and low inflation. The economy is projected to grow by 3¼ per cent. in 1995.

  Group of taxpayers1

  Shares of total income tax liability

  Shares of gross incomes before tax

  Top 1 per cent.

  Top 5 per cent.

  Top 10 per cent.

  Top 1 per cent.

  Top 5 per cent.

  Top 10 per cent.

  1978–79

  11

  24

  35

  5

  15

  24

  1979–80

  10

  23

  34

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  11

  24

  35

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  11

  25

  35

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  12

  25

  36

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1983–84

  11

  25

  36

  6

  16

  26

  1984–85

  12

  26

  38

  6

  17

  26

  1985–86

  13

  27

  38

  6

  17

  26

  1986–87

  14

  29

  39

  6

  17

  27

  1987–88

  15

  30

  41

  6

  18

  28

  1988–89

  15

  31

  42

  7

  18

  28

  1989–90

  15

  31

  42

  7

  19

  29

  1990–91

  15

  32

  42

  8

  19

  29

  1991–92

  16

  33

  43

  8

  20

  29

  1992–93

  16

  33

  44

  8

  19

  29

  1993–942

  16

  33

  44

  8

  19

  29

  1994–952

  16

  33

  44

  8

  20

  29

  1995–962

  15

  32

  44

  8

  20

  30

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

  2 Provisional.

  Inward Investing Companies
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much inward investing companies paid in tax in 1993.

  Sir George Young
  Corporation tax paid by United Kingdom companies with foreign parents accounted for about one tenth of the total yield of £15 billion in 1993–94.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will outline the main activities of the Green Minister in the Treasury, in his role as Green Minister, during 1994.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  During 1994, my predecessor and I have continued to ensure that environmental considerations are taken into account in the strategies and policies of the Department.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 10 January to the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East, (Mr. Thurnham),Official Report, column 7, if he will reproduce the answer together with columns showing the share of income coming to the top 1, 5 and 10 per cent.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: The latest estimates for 1978–79 and 1983–84 to 1995–96 are given in the tables. Information for other years could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Estimates of income are based on information reported to tax offices and collected through annual surveys of personal incomes. For years before 1985–86, estimates exclude employees' contributions to occupational pension schemes and some investment income on which tax is deducted at source. For years up to and including 1989–90, married couples are counted as one taxpayer and their incomes are combined. Following the introduction of independent taxation, for 1990–91 onwards, husbands and wives are counted separately. Estimates are based on the surveys of personal incomes for years up to 1992–93 and projections of the 1992–93 survey for subsequent years; the latter are therefore provisional.

  Denatured Alcohol
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the products included in the list of denatured alcohol.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: Alcohol is exempt from excise duty when denatured to the standards set out in Commission regulation (EC) No. 3199/93 and the Methylated Spirits Regulations 1987. This allows United Kingdom business access to duty relieved alcohol for the manufacture of a wide range of industrial and scientific products.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out for each of the next steps agencies in his Department, whether they have acquired their own headquarters buildings and, if so, at what purchase cost or annual rental; how many support staff they have required which were not required when their operations were within his Department; how many of them publish periodical journals and at what annual cost; how many have fleets of executive cars or single executive cars and at what annual cost; how many have specially designed logos and at what cost; how many have corporate clothing and at what cost; and what is the cost of specially designed and printed corporate stationery.

  Mr. Baldry
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to Wilton Park under its chief executive, Richard Langhorne, and to the Natural Resources Institute under its chief executive, Anthony Beattie. I have asked them to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Professor R. T. B. Langhorne to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 24 January 1995:
  I have been asked to respond to your question of 18 January, 1995, concerning Next Steps Agencies.
  In the case of Wilton Park the answers are as follows:

  (i) We have been in the same leased headquarters here at Wiston house since 1951:

  (ii) We have engaged three support staff since we became an Agency. Two of these followed upon a 60% increase in our programme of work and were not the consequence of being turned into an Agency. One, an additional book keeper, was needed in order to fulfil the accounting needs of Agency status:

  (iii) We do not publish a periodical journal;

  (iv) We do not have any executive cars;

  (v) We do not have corporate clothing, though we are under pressure at present from the Trade Union Side to introduce it;

  (vi) We have always had Wilton Park stationery, and no extra cost was incurred by reason of being turned into an Agency.

  Letter from Anthony Beattie, to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 25 January 1995:

  1. Mr. Baldry has asked me to reply to your question about Next Steps Agencies as this relates to the Natural Resources Institute, which is an agency of the Overseas Development Administration.

  2. The answers to the questions you have posed are as follows:

  (a) The Institute moved to a single site at Chatham between 1988 and 1990 from nine sites previously occupied by the separate scientific units which it replaced. The majority of the staff were on three sites in central London. The
  244
  consolidation was planned in advance of the decision to move to agency status. The rental cost of the Chatham site (net of the cost of that part of it now occupied by the University of Greenwich) is £3,387,000 in 1994–95.

  (b) Prior to NRI becoming an agency it already operated as a specialised unit outside ODA HQ. Following its change to an agency NRI increased its support staff by 12 posts, mostly in finance and accounting, to meet new financial requirements and to help achieve increases in business from non-ODA customers. Subsequent staff reductions have brought the number of NRI support staff down to 132 as against 131 prior to the change of status.

  (c) The annual production and distribution cost of NRI's newsletter (which was in existence prior to agency status and which is sent to selected recipients in the developing world and the donor community) is £11,000.

  (d) NRI has no executive cars.

  (e) The cost of design and art work for the Institute's stationery and signage was £23,500.

  (f) NRI does not provide corporate clothing.

  (g) Annual stationery costs are of the order of £11,000 (the original design cost is given at (e) above).

  MI6 Headquarters
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current annual cost per member of staff accommodated at the MI6 headquarters building at Vauxhall Bridge road-Albert embankment, London.

  Mr. Hurd
  It is long-standing Government policy not to provide detailed information about the expenditure of the security and intelligence agencies.

  Sri Lanka (Anti-paedophile Policy)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in co-ordinating an anti-paedophile policy with the Sri Lankan Government.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have kept in close touch with the Sri Lankan authorities about child prostitution. I discussed the matter with them most recently during my visit in November. At our invitation, their deputy inspector general of police responsible for crimes, in whose department there is a special section for dealing with paedophilia, visited last summer to study United Kingdom police techniques.

  Commercial Lobbying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) on how many occasions in the last four months he or any of his Ministers have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements;

  (2) on how many occasions in the last four months of which he has knowledge any civil servants in his Department have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

  Mrs. Andleeb H. Khan
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is expected to be taken on the application—REF/C/7426—made to the United Kingdom post in Islamabad by Mrs. Andleeb H. Khan to join her husband in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the letter of 19 January 1995 to him from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  I have asked the high commission at Islamabad for details of any further progress in her application and shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from MVCU as soon as possible.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline the Government's response to the interim report, prepared by Mr. Max van der Stoel, special rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights, on the situation in Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcome Mr. van der Stoel's report and share his condemnation of the Iraqi regime for the continuing deterioration in human rights in that country. We will continue to insist that Iraq complies in full with the terms of United Nations Security Council resolution 688, which calls for an end to the repression of the Iraqi people, and to demand that Iraq give access to UN human rights monitors.

  Kobe Earthquake
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the British Government have provided to victims of the Kobe earthquake.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Immediately after the earthquake, we told the Japanese Government that we stood ready to send any assistance they required and gave examples of what we could offer.

  They made a specific request on 21 January, and the Overseas Development Administration at once chartered an aircraft to deliver a first consignment of relief supplies. The cargo consisted of over 18,000 blankets, 35 rolls of black plastic sheeting, 500 collapsible 20 litre water containers and 500 plastic bowls, totally filling the aircraft by volume. The aircraft arrived on Monday 23 January at Kansai international airport near Kobe.

  The Japanese authorities have requested some other items including bandages, dressings and sanitary napkins. The Overseas Development Administration sent a consignment of three tonnes on 24 January, British Airways donating the freight space.

  In addition, the International Rescue Corps, a British charity which supplies fully trained, self-sufficient rescue teams, has sent a 15-member group to assist in the rescue operations.

HEALTH

  Midwives (Northumberland)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many midwives there were in(a)
  246
  Northumberland health authority and (b) Cheviot and Wansbeck hospital in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available centrally is shown in the tables.

  Midwives in Northumberland District Health Authority 1990–92 at 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalents

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Midwives

  110

  110

  110

  Midwives in Cheviot and Wansbeck hospital 1991–92 at 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalents

  1991

  1992

  Midwives

  80

  80

  Source:

  Non-medical work force census.

  Notes:

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.

  2. All nursing and midwifery figures exclude agency staff.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many medical students worked for the Northumberland health authority in each year since 1990;

  (2) how many medical students are working in maternity units in (a) the Northumberland health authority and (b) the Wansbeck and Cheviot hospital trust.

  Mr. Malone
  These are matters for the Cheviot and Wansbeck national health service trust and Northumberland health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the trust and the vice-chairman of the authority, Mr. Roger Baker and Mr. David Wright, for details.

  Research and Development Forum
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how she will ensure the widest possible input from the health profession into the work of the new NHS research and development forum;

  (2) what plans she has to invite representatives of user groups and NHS professional organisations to become members of the new NHS research and development forum;

  (3) if she will consult health organisations about the advice she receives from the new NHS research and development forum.

  Mr. Malone
  The national forum will bring together the major health-related research funders to provide advice to the national health service and the Government at a strategic level on health-related research and development issues. It will provide an important means of establishing closer working links between research interests in the national health service and in the research councils, the research charities, universities and industry.

  An important role for the national forum will be to help set the strategic framework within which the central research and development committee will advise on how national health service funds should be used to support research and development. Membership of the central

  247
  research and development committee reflects a wide range of interests.

  The central research and development committee will consult widely on national health service needs for research and development and will benefit from advice from regional research and development committees through the regional research and development directorates. These have a broad membership including representatives of the service and others who use research-based information.

  Research (Human Beings)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department accepts the principles of recommendation No. R(90)3 of the Committee of Ministers to member states concerning medical research on human beings; and if she will incorporate them into United Kingdom legislation.

  Mr. Malone
  The Department accepts the principles contained in this Council of Europe recommendation on medical research and human beings. They reflect current good medical research practice across the United Kingdom, particularly in terms of informed consent which is underpinned by the Department's own guidelines on medical research given in the booklet "Local Research Ethics Committees", which was published in 1991. It has no plans to incorporate the principles into UK legislation.

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is her latest estimate of the cost of closing Bart's hospital and moving the facilities to Whitechapel;

  (2) what is her estimate of the annual revenue saving from operating Bart's and Royal London, Whitechapel hospitals on one side;

  (3) what is the estimated extra revenue cost of a two-site solution of merging Bart's with the Royal London hospital, over the one-site solution.

  Mr. Malone
  Estimated revenue and capital costings are contained in the East London and the City health authority's consultation document "Health services for the future", copies of which can be obtained from the authority.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is Bart's hospital projected trading surplus for the current financial year.

  Mr. Malone
  St. Bartholomew's hospital together with the Royal London and London chest hospitals comprise the Royal Hospitals trust. The hon. Member may wish to approach Sir Derek Boorman, chairman of the trust, to establish the availability of this information.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much capital has been invested in Bart's hospital over the years 1989 to 1995.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Derek Boorman, chairman of the Royal Hospitals trust, for details.

  Mental Handicap Hospitals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many long-stay mental handicap hospitals have gained trust status.
  248
  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available in the form requested. There are, however, 101 national health services trusts which provide long-stay mental handicap beds.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions blood collected by the blood transfusions service and contaminated with hepatitis C has been sold to private sector hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service does not sell blood. It has always been the policy of the NHS to meet independent hospitals' reasonable requests for blood on the basis of availability and clinical need. Independent hospitals will be included in the look-back exercise to trace, counsel and—if necessary—treat those who have been inadvertently infected with hepatitis C in this country, as I announced on 11 January 1995,Official Report, column 145.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has of hepatitis C infected blood volumes donated prior to current testing methods but during the period when other testing regimes were available to the blood transfusion service.

  Mr. Sackville
  Testing regimes were not available to the blood transfusion service until September 1991, when routine testing of all blood donations for antibodies to the hepatitis C virus was introduced. The blood transfusion service directors estimate that around 3,000 people may have been infected through blood transfusions prior to September 1991. The look-back exercise, which I announced on 11 January, will enable a more precise calculation to be made.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of expenditure has been committed to combat hepatitis C infection within the blood transfusion service from 1990 to the present.

  Mr. Sackville
  The cost of measures to combat hepatitis C infection within the blood transfusion service is not separately identifiable. Since September 1991, all blood donations have been routinely tested for antibodies to the hepatitis C virus.

  Mental Illness
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to publish the 1994 social services inspectorate monitoring report on the mental illness specific grant.

  Mr. Bowis
  This has not yet been received.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the report of the 1994 survey of English mental hospitals initiated by the mental health task force has now been submitted to Ministers; and when its publication may be expected.

  Mr. Bowis
  No.

  General Medical Council
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the lay members of the General Medical Council; on what date each was appointed; what qualifications they hold; when each term of office ceases; and what is their remuneration.
  249
  Mr. Malone
  The current lay members of the General Medical Council are:

  Name

  Date appointed

  Expiry date of term of Office

  Mr. John Ifron Davies

  2 August 1992

  1 August 1997

  Professor Christine Chapman

  16 September 1992

  15 September 1997

  Mr. James Campbell Morton

  1 August 1993

  31 July 1998

  Mrs. Rani Atma

  1 August 1993

  31 July 1998

  Rabbi Julia Neuberger

  1 August 1993

  31 July 1998

  Mr. Rodney Brookes Yates

  1 August 1993

  31 July 1998

  Mrs. Angela Macpherson

  18 May 1994

  17 May 1999

  Mr. Roy Goddard

  18 May 1994

  17 May 1999

  Mrs. Johanna White

  18 May 1994

  17 May 1999

  Mr. William Darling CBE

  13 June 1994

  12 June 1999

  Mr. Roger Sims (Conservative)1

  1 August 1994

  31 July 1999

  Mr. Alec Carlile (Liberal Democrats)1

  1 August 1994

  31 July 1999

  Mr. Gareth Wardell (Labour)1

  1 August 1994

  31 July 1999

  1 Political nominations.

  There are no formal requirements concerning lay members' qualifications other than that a lay member must neither be a fully registered medical practitioner, nor hold a qualification registrable under the Medical Act 1983.

  Lay members receive no renumeration, but are able to claim their expenses for attending council and committee meetings.

  NHS Centre for Information Technology
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the staff of the NHS centre for information technology became civil servants when CIT merged with the corporate data administration to form the NHS information management centre in May 1988.

  Mr. Sackville
  The staff of the national health service centre for information technology remained employees of the NHS when CIT merged with the corporate data administration.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of her departmental colleagues were responsible for the setting up of the NHS centre for information technology in 1985; what considerations underlay the decision to set up the centre, and what documents have been published setting out the justification for the centre.

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the time was responsible for setting up the national health service centre for information technology. CIT was concerned primarily with the development and application of common standards and systems for the NHS. Further details were contained in the document "A National Strategic Framework for Information in the 250
  Hospital and Community Services" published in October 1986, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 20 December 1994,Official Report, column 1145, if the agency agreement with the west midlands regional health authority was the sole legal basis for the centre for information technology.

  Mr. Sackville
  West Midlands regional health authority was given formal status within existing legislation to act as agents of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the employment of centre for information technology staff.

  Private Detectives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health trusts hired private detectives in the last year; for what purpose; at what cost; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances regional health authorities may make use of private detectives; and what guidelines her Department has issued on their use.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not available centrally. It is the responsibility of each health authority and trust, after seeking appropriate advice, to consider the circumstances under which they would wish to take such action.

  Special Transitional Grant
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by authority the amount of special transitional grant for 1993–94 spent on(a) nursing home placements, (b) residential home placements and (c) non-residential services.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which authorities failed to spend 85 per cent. of the special transitional grant in the independent sector during 1993–94.

  Mr. Bowis
  Audited returns detailing community care spending in the independent sector by local authorities in 1993–94 were due to be submitted to the Department by 31 December 1994. Some returns are still outstanding and are being followed up through the Audit Commission.

  Blood
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide a full list of tests undertaken to identify pathogens in donated blood.

  Mr. Sackville
  In the United Kingdom, all blood donations are screened for hepatitis B surface antigen, and antibodies to hepatitis C and HIV! and 2, and syphilis.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to require NHS trusts(a) to hold all meetings in public and (b) to publish minutes of all meetings.

  Mr. Malone
  No. National health service trusts are already required to hold one public meeting each year, at which they must present their annual accounts, annual report and any report on the accounts.
  251
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many trusts have introduced some aspect of performance-related pay for their staff;

  (2) how many trusts have negotiated their own pay awards for staff.

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: As national terms and conditions for management, ancillary, maintenance and ambulance staff have included performance-related pay for some time all trusts will have staff who benefit from such pay. Comprehensive information is not available centrally about the nature of new local terms and conditions being introduced in national health service trusts. However, from responses to a survey of trusts in autumn 1994, it is estimated that around 70 per cent. of trusts already had some staff on locally determined pay—involving over 10,000 nursing staff and a small but growing number of hospital doctors.

  EC Butter
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she has taken or intends to take against Doncaster royal infirmary and Montagu Mexborough NHS trust in their selling to the public at the Doncaster royal infirmary coffee shop European Community intervention board butter; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have been assured that no charge was made for the European Community intervention board butter when a small quantity was used in the hospital's coffee shop, and that all remaining supplies will be used, as the scheme intends, solely for the benefit of hospital patients and staff. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the Doncaster Royal and Montagu national health service trust, Mr. Raymond Tonkinson, for further details.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the number and percentage of emergency ambulance calls in the London area that took (1) up to 14 minutes, (2) 15 minutes, (3) 16 minutes, (4) 17 minutes, (5) 18 minutes, (6) 19 minutes, (7) 20 minutes, (8) 21 minutes, (9) 22 minutes, (10) 23 minutes, (1 1) 24 minutes, (12) 25 minutes, (13) 26 minutes, (14) 27 minutes, (15) 28 minutes, (16) 29 minutes, (17) 30 minutes, (18) 31 minutes, (19) 32 minutes, (20) 33 minutes, (21) 34 minutes, (22) 35 minutes, (23) 36 minutes, (24) 37 minutes, (25) 38 minutes, (26) 39 minutes, (27) 40 minutes, (28) 41 minutes, (29) 42 minutes,

  Female

  All

  UG3

  UG7

  EO

  AO

  AA

  19911

  2,431

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19921

  2,586

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  2,552

  6

  108

  389

  494

  185

  1994

  2,584

  7

  135

  384

  537

  205

  Note:

  1 Individual grade data not available.

  Source:

  DH staff in post returns for 1 April in each of the years. Figures represent a head count of full and part-time staff.

  Conception Rates
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the rate of conceptions among
  252
  (30) 43 minutes, (31) 44 minutes, (32) 45 minutes, (33) 46 minutes, (34) 47 minutes, (35) 48 minutes, (36) 49 minutes, (37) 50 minutes, (38) 51 minutes, (39) 52 minutes, (40) 53 minutes, (41) 54 minutes, (42) 55 minutes, (43) 56 minutes, (44) 57 minutes, (45) 58 minutes, (46) 59 minutes and (47) 60 minutes during (a) October 1994, (b) November 1994, (c) December 1994 and (d) in total since April 1994.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested has been supplied by the London ambulance service, and will be placed in the Library.

  The hon. Member may wish in future to write to Martin Gorham, chief executive of the LAS, asking for the information.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the absenteeism rate for the London ambulance service in 1994.

  Mr. Sackville
  The London ambulance service states that in the year 1994–95 to date the absenteeism rate is as follows:

  Per cent.

  Accident and Emergency Service

  7.79

  Central Ambulance Control

  8.14

  Patient Transport Service

  10.51

  Appendicectomy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in respect of the recent appendicectomy case in Cornwall, what considerations underlay the decisions(a) to suspend the theatre sister, (b) initially not to suspend the surgical registrar and (c) to take no action against the anaesthetist.

  Mr. Malone
  This is a matter for the Royal Cornwall Hospitals national health service trust and the South and West regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. John Williams, chairman of the trust, and Ms Rennie Fritchie, chair of South and West regional health authority, for details.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many employees for which her Department is responsible were women(a) in 1991, (b) in 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994; and of these, how many were i) at grade 7 level, (ii) at grade 3 level, (iii) at executive officer level, (iv) at administrative officer level and (v) at administrative assistant level.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  under-16s for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.
  253

  Conception rates per thousand girls under 16 (England and Wales)

  Year

  1982

  7.8

  1983

  8.3

  1984

  8.6

  1985

  8.6

  1986

  8.7

  1987

  9.3

  1988

  9.4

  1989

  9.4

  1990

  10.1

  1991

  9.3

  The provisional figure for 1992 is broadly in line with the 1991 figure.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospitals, overall and by region, have been closed since 1979; and how many NHS hospitals there are at present.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are at present, depending on definition, 1,600 national health service hospitals in England. Information about the numbers of hospital closures since 1979 is not available centrally.

  Consultants
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS consultant doctors currently opt for maximum part-time NHS contracts; and what is the average and median amount of hours per week that these consultants spend in their private practices.

  Mr. Malone
  At 30 September 1993, 28.7 per cent. of national health service hospital medical consultants in England were on maximum part-time contracts. Information is not available on the amount of hours per week that those consultants spend on private practice.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospital consultants also practise in the private sector of health-care.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Compulsory Registration (Care Workers)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to introduce a compulsory registration process for all paid care workers.

  Mr. Bowis
  Many people in the care professions already have to be registered with a professional organisation. Proposals for a general social services council have been submitted to the Government. These include a recommendation that all persons employed in the personal social services should be registered. We are considering these.

  NHS Boards
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who appoints those individuals who have responsibility for interviewing and assessing the suitability of applicants for positions as non-executive members of NHS boards; and what criteria are used to select them.
  254
  Mr. Malone
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health appoints the chairmen of regional health authorities, who are responsible for making recommendations to Ministers on appointments in their region. Regional chairmen are appointed for their personal qualities, knowledge and skills.

  Supplementary Medicine
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to extend statutory powers to require continuing professional development in medical and nursing professions to professions supplementary to medicine.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are considering the scope for a review of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960.

  GP Lists (Patients' Removal)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were removed from general medical practitioners' lists in each year since 1989(a) in total and (b) at the request of the doctor by regional health authority area.

  Mr. Malone
  Information is available only for 1992–93 and I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Minister for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), to the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) on 19 July 1994,Official Report, columns 367–68.

  Medicines Expenditure
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a copy of the statistical model used by her Department to forecast future expenditure on medicines.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. The details of the Department's spending models comprise an important strand of the Government's internal public expenditure discussions, informing but not determining decisions about public spending priorities. It would not be appropriate to publish this material.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what increased resources she has provided for the NHS to fulfil the standards and expectations raised by the patients charter.

  Mr. Malone
  The patients charter is about doing things differently, changing ineffective working practices, providing a more patient-orientated service and adopting good practice from elsewhere. This need not require additional resources. Funding for the national health service in 1995–96 will increase by £1.3 billion—that is 1 per cent. in real terms. In addition, we expect hospital and community services to improve efficiency by at least 3 per cent. which is equivalent to an extra £600 million for patient care. As a result patients will continue to receive improving standards of service across the whole of the NHS, including those set out in the patients charter.

  Operations
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average number of operations carried out per NHS hospital surgeon per week.

  Mr. Sackville
  This cannot be determined from the data available. Information on the number of cases operated on in operating theatres in 1993–94 is available in "NHS operating theatres availability and use: England 1993–94", and the number of hospital medical staff at 30 September 1993 is available in the "Statistical Bulletin: Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Service Medical and Dental Staff in England 1983 to 1993". Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  Asthma
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will commission a report into the level of asthma in rural areas; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to do so.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average time it takes for a patient to be admitted on to a waiting list including time accounted for by self-deferral; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  Data on the time to first appointment are collected. It is not possible to separate data relating to patients who have out-patient appointments and who are then put on to waiting lists for in-patient or day case treatment; nor does it include time elapsed as a result of self-deferral.

  Cigarette Advertising
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the findings of a recent survey on the level of compliance with the voluntary agreement covering cigarette advertising at newsagents.

  Mr. Sackville
  As part of the 1991 voluntary agreement on tobacco products' advertising and promotion, the industry undertook to reduce the number of external permanent advertising signs for cigarette and hand-rolling tobacco brands at retail premises by 50 per cent. over five years. The committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship last year commissioned an independent survey to monitor the industry's progress in this undertaking in the year from July 1993. The findings of the survey will be announced in the committee's eighth report, which is expected to be published in summer 1995.

  Commercial Lobbying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on how many occasions in the last four months of which she has knowledge any civil servants in her Department have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements;

  (2) on how many occasions in the last four months she or any of her Ministers have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.
  256
  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave him today.

  Abortions
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest available data on the percentage of abortions which are funded by the national health service in each regional health authority area.

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest year for which the data requested are available is 1992.

  NHS funded percentage of total

  England

  56.8

  RHA

  Northern

  85.4

  Yorkshire

  58.3

  Trent

  70.6

  East Anglian

  82.9

  North West Thames

  47.0

  North East Thames

  56.2

  South East Thames

  53.6

  South West Thames

  41.4

  Wessex

  51.5

  Oxford

  55.7

  South Western

  79.2

  West Midlands

  53.0

  Mersey

  51.3

  North Western

  45.0

  Breast and Cervical Cancer
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many breast cancer(a) cases and (b) deaths occurred in each health region in the latest available year.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Deaths and new registration of malignant neoplasm of female breast—ICD1 174—by regional health authority, for the latest years for which data are available.

  Deaths (1992)

  Registrations (1989)

  Northern

  796

  1,472

  Yorkshire

  888

  1,918

  Trent

  1,287

  2,166

  East Anglian

  593

  1,144

  North west Thames

  819

  1,821

  North east Thames

  938

  2,125

  South east Thames

  1,061

  2,069

  South west Thames

  885

  1,762

  Wessex

  871

  2,004

  Oxford

  648

  1,132

  South Western

  989

  1,976

  West Midlands

  1,402

  2,860

  Mersey

  646

  1,356

  North Western

  981

  2,032

  Wales

  824

  1,931

  1 International classification of diseases, 9th revision.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of female deaths were a result of(a) breast and (b) cervical cancer in each regional health authority area, in the latest period for which data are available.
  257
  Mr. Sackville
  This information is shown in the table.

  Percentage of all female deaths that were a result of (a) malignant neoplasm of female breast (ICD1174) and (b) malignant neoplasm of cervix uteri (ICD1180), by regional health authority 1992.

  RHA

  Breast

  Cervix uteri

  Northern

  4.2

  0.5

  Yorkshire

  4.2

  0.6

  Trent

  4.9

  0.6

  East Anglian

  5.3

  0.5

  North west Thames

  5.0

  0.6

  North east Thames

  4.8

  0.6

  South east Thames

  4.9

  0.6

  South west Thames

  5.1

  0.4

  Wessex

  5.1

  0.4

  Oxford

  5.5

  0.5

  South western

  4.9

  0.7

  West Midlands

  5.0

  0.6

  Mersey

  4.5

  0.6

  North western

  3.9

  0.6

  Wales

  4.7

  0.6

  1International classification of disease, 9th revision.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities routinely carry out cervical smear tests every(a) two, (b) three, (c) four and (d) five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many dentists were offering national health service treatment in September 1994;

  (2) how many salaried dentists were employed by English family health service authorities in December 1992, 1993 and 1994.

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 23 January 1995]: At 30 September 1994, excluding salaried dentists, there were 15,084 principal general dental practitioners on the dental lists of family health services authorities. Additionally, although not on family health services authority lists, there were 801 assistants and vocational trainees working under the supervision of a principal.

  The number of salaried dentists employed by English family health services authorities is shown in the table.

  Table 1: General Dental Service: Number of salaried dentists1 by family health services authority as at 31 December2 England

  FHSA

  31 December 1992

  31 December 1993

  30 September 1994

  All FHSAs

  66

  91

  115

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  1

  Derbyshire

  1

  1

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  2

  3

  3

  Norfolk

  1

  3

  Kensington, Westminster and Chelsea

  8

  9

  9

  258

  Table 1: General Dental Service: Number of salaried dentists1 by family health services authority as at 31 December2 England

  31 December

  31 December

  30 September

  FHSA

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Essex

  2

  3

  2

  City and East London

  8

  8

  9

  Kent

  3

  5

  5

  Greenwich and Bexley

  6

  7

  7

  Bromley

  —

  1

  1

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  28

  31

  31

  Surrey

  —

  3

  5

  West Sussex

  1

  1

  1

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  1

  1

  2

  Wiltshire

  —

  1

  2

  Isle of Wight

  —

  1

  2

  Buckinghamshire

  1

  2

  4

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  2

  4

  3

  Gloucestershire

  —

  1

  3

  Somerset

  —

  4

  4

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  1

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  8

  Liverpool

  2

  2

  2

  Lancashire

  —

  1

  2

  Manchester

  —

  —

  1

  Salford

  1

  1

  1

  Source:

  Dental Practice Board.

  Notes:

  1 This is the number of salaried dentists with contracts registered at the DPB. It is not the number of salaried dentists in employment at the actual specified dates.

  2 December data for 1994 are not available.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many unfilled vacancies for salaried dentists there were in English family health service authorities in December 1994;

  (2) how much was spent on providing the services of salaried dentists employed by English family health services authorities, including establishment costs for 1992–93, 1993–94 and to date in 1994–95; and if she will provide a breakdown of those costs.

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 23 January 1995]: The information is shown in the table:

  Expenditure on salaried dentists employed by English family health service authorities

  £ million

  1992–93

  Remuneration

  1.805

  Expenses

  0.594

  Total

  2.399

  1993–94

  Remuneration

  2.729

  Expenses

  1.907

  Total

  4.636

  259

  Expenditure on salaried dentists employed by English family health service authorities

  £ million

  1994–95

  Remuneration

  2.398

  (to November)

  Expenses

  1.439

  Total

  3.837

  Notes:

  1. The above figures show a gross expenditure by FHSAs for the provision of general dental services by salaried dentists and include National Insurance costs and superannuation contributions. These figures are reported by the FHSA through the financial information system.

  2. Figures under the heading of expenses, including establishment costs.

  3. Figures for 1994–95 are year to date to November.

  The information on numbers of unfilled vacancies in December 1994 is not available centrally.

  GP Surgeries
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list the average value of capital projects(a) at general practitioner fundholders' surgery premises and (b) non-general practitioner fundholders' premises in each regional health authority area in each of the past three years;

  (2) what estimate she has made of the average capital value of the surgery premises of (a) general practitioner fundholders and (b) non-fundholders and of any change in the average value of such premises since 1991; and if she will make it her policy to carry out a full valuation of all surgery premises at five-yearly intervals.

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 23 January 1995]: General practitioners are independent self-employed contractors to the national health service. Under their terms of service, they are required to provide adequate practice premises from which to see their patients. The capital value of and investment in premises they own is a matter for them or the owners of any accommodation they rent.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been allocated to general practitioner fundholders for(a) computer hardware costs and (b) computer software costs in each of the last five years in each region.

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 23 January 1995]: Family health services authorities are not allocated separate funds for general practitioner fundholder computers. Available information about expenditure is shown in the table. It is not possible to identify hardware and software costs.

  Spend on information technology to Support GP fundholding

  £000s

  Region

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Northern

  736

  900

  835

  Yorkshire

  1,363

  2,193

  1,294

  Trent

  1,337

  2,949

  2,395

  260

  Spend on information technology to Support GP fundholding

  £000s

  Region

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  East Anglian

  200

  612

  752

  North west Thames

  741

  1,411

  1,298

  North east Thames

  95

  398

  367

  South east Thames

  783

  1,455

  1,868

  South west Thames

  1,029

  916

  1,160

  Wessex

  952

  626

  939

  Oxford

  1,246

  1,377

  1,392

  South western

  1,165

  1,121

  1,149

  West Midlands

  1,152

  2,371

  2,413

  Mersey

  463

  731

  1,024

  North western

  361

  994

  1.619

  Total

  11,623

  18,054

  18.505

  Expenditure figures are estimates taken from FIS4 returns by English FHSAs.

EMPLOYMENT

  Lambeth College
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department accepts responsibility for payments due from South Thames training and enterprise council to Lambeth college; and how much his Department estimates is due from the council to the college.

  Mr. Paice
  The Department is making payments for legitimate claims to providers, including Lambeth college, for training delivered under the terms of their contract with South Thames training and enterprise council between 7 November 1994 and 1 January 1995 for the following Government programmes: training for work, youth training/credits, careers and guidance years nine and 10, work-related further education, child care and careers libraries.

  For the period of three months from the appointment of the receiver the Department will make available to the receiver sufficient funds to ensure that providers receive payments for training delivered by them under the terms of their contract with South Thames TEC for the same programmes.

  The amount of money owed by South Thames TEC to Lambeth college prior to 7 November 1994 is a matter for the administrative receiver.

  Integrated Regional Offices
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list those of his Department's responsibilities on which the integrated regional offices are required to advise him on the allocation of resources and, for each integrated regional office, the annual expenditure on each programme;

  (2) if he will list those of his Department's responsibilities which are administered by the integrated regional offices and, for each integrated regional office, the estimated annual expenditure on each of these responsibilities;

  (3) if he will list those of his Department's responsibilities on which integrated regional offices are responsible for preparing, advising on or implementing regional policy.
  261
  Mr. Paice
  Government offices for the regions are primarily concerned with delivering the Department's training, enterprise and education responsibilities. The estimated allocation of resources for the administration and the programmes delivered through the offices in 1994–95 is shown in the following tables:

  Administration expenditure

  £000

  South East

  2,170

  London

  3,653

  Eastern

  1,960

  South West

  2,098

  West Midlands

  2,456

  East Midlands

  1,941

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,508

  Merseyside

  1,371

  North West

  2,904

  North East

  2,018

  Total

  23,079

  Programme expenditure

  £000

  Region

  Youth training

  Training for work

  Employer investment in People

  East Midlands

  57,644

  36,309

  3,440

  South West

  55,568

  28,115

  2,738

  London

  58,441

  58,430

  5,967

  South East

  68,028

  26,967

  4,488

  Eastern

  56,713

  22,892

  2,260

  Northern

  60,784

  39,137

  3,574

  North West (GM)

  46,958

  23,573

  3,089

  North West

  74,718

  37,914

  4,353

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  80,136

  47,047

  3,978

  West Midlands

  74,916

  44,052

  5,247

  Total

  633,906

  364,436

  39,135

  Programme expenditure continued

  £000

  Region

  Business start up1

  Local initiative fund1

  TEC management fee

  East Midlands

  7,230

  5,539

  9,259

  South west

  9,230

  4,638

  11,089

  London

  9,447

  6,497

  19,809

  South east

  7,868

  4,461

  13,031

  Eastern

  5,405

  3,094

  9,842

  Northern

  4,938

  4,933

  11,730

  North west (GM)

  5,869

  3,083

  8.720

  North west

  6,833

  2,845

  12,543

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  11,140

  8,373

  16,159

  West Midlands

  9,416

  4,206

  14,775

  Total

  77,377

  47,669

  127,303

  1. Programme expenditure based on 1993–94 estimated regional expenditure (latest available figures).

  1 Business start up and local initiative fund now form part of the single regeneration budget.

  Inward Investing Companies
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the British work force 262
  is employed by inward investing companies within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In 1991, foreign owned firms accounted for 17 per cent. of manufacturing employment in the United Kingdom. The information is not available for the service sector.

  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new jobs have been created by inward investing companies in the United Kingdom since 1979.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  According to figures notified to the Department of Trade and Industry's Invest in Britain Bureau, 320,104 new jobs were created and 302,143 jobs were sustained in the United Kingdom as a result of inward investment for the financial years 1979–80 to 1993–94.

  Commercial Lobbying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) on how many occasions in the last four months of which he has knowledge any civil servants in his Department have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements;

  (2) on how many occasions in the last four months he or any of his Ministers have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for how long the Child Support Agency has been logging telephone calls from clients.

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 24 January 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency logging telephone calls.
  The Agency has logged the number of calls received from clients since operations began in April 1993.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will instruct the CSA to terminate Mrs. Sandra Thurlbeck's (Ref. 1002139325) authority to act on her behalf in collecting maintenance.

  Mr. Burt
  I shall write to my hon. Friend separately.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals have been made to child support appeal tribunals since 1 April 1994; what is the total number of cases awaiting a Child Support Agency tribunal hearing; how many have been waiting more than three months; in how many of these cases the Child Support Agency has forwarded submissions; how many of these met the target of responding to the Independent Tribunal Service within 18 days; and what has been done
  263
  since his answer of 17 May 1994; Official Report, column 440, to improve the success rate.

  Mr. Burt
  I am informed by his honour Judge Bassingthwaighte, the president of the Independent Tribunal Service, that since 1 April 1994 it has received, 4,876 appeals. At 31 December 1994, 4,337 were waiting to be heard. On these cases they have received 1,022 submissions: six within 18 days of lodgement. The information requested about the number which have been waiting over three months is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I am informed that the chief executive of the Child Support Agency set up a centralised appeals unit on 30 August 1994 as a measure to improve the production of submissions. Since then clearance rates have improved significantly.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many child support appeal tribunal hearings have been held since 1 April 1994, how many of these have been adjourned; in how many cases(a) the absent parent and (b) the parent with care attended; in how many one of the parties was represented; and in how many cases the child support officer's decision has been overturned.

  Mr. Burt
  I am informed by his honour Judge Bassingthwaighte, the president of the Independent Tribunal Service, that 1,446 cases have been heard since 1 April 1994 and of these 132 were adjourned. In 229 cases one of the parties was represented. In 614 instances the child support officer's decision was overturned. The information requested on the number of absent parents and parents with care who attended the hearings is not available. However I can inform the hon. Gentleman that the appellant attended 976 hearings and the other party attended on 378 occasions. Both the absent parent and the parent with care can appeal against a child support decision.

  Family Credit
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many parents are in receipt of family credit child care disregard;

  (2) what proportion of parents who are in receipt of family credit child care disregard receive (a) less than £10 per week, (b) £10 to £20 per week, (c) £20 to £30 per week and (d) more than £30 per week or the best available breakdown of the amount paid.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  In the three-month period to 31 December 1994, the latest date for which figures are available, 7,180 families received higher family credit awards as a result of the new help with child care charges. The amounts of additional family credit, and the proportion of families receiving these amounts, were as follows:

  (a) 35 per cent. received less than £10 a week

  (b) 27 per cent. received between £10 and £19.99

  (c) 38 per cent. received between £20 to £28.00

  The maximum extra help in family credit alone is £28 a week although families may benefit by up to £38.20 a week if they also receive housing benefit and council tax benefit.
  264
  Source:

  Five per cent. sample of family credit awards made between 1 October 1994 and 31 December 1994. The figures do not include claims made by 31 December 1994 but decided after that date.

  Back-to-work Bonus
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his most recent calculation on the financial consequences of the proposed back-to-work bonus.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Our latest estimate of the financial implications of the back-to-work bonus is that the scheme will bring an estimated increase in benefit expenditure of around £20 million in 1996–97 and around £50 million in 1997–98. However, when behavioural effects are taken into account, the scheme is likely to be broadly cost neutral.

  Notes:

  1. Assumes 2.4 million unemployed.

  2. Estimates rounded to nearest £10 million in cash prices.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost to the national insurance fund of all current holders of an APP who make no additional contributions 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 into SERPS.

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

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total cost to date to the national insurance fund of national insurance rebates, tax relief and other incentives paid in respect of personal pensions contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of Tuesday 10 January to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra),Official Report, column 56.

  There is no cost to the national insurance fund of tax relief as the fund is continually reimbursed by the Inland Revenue for any payments of tax relief. Total tax relief to appropriate personal pensions amounted to £0.8 billion up to and including 1992–93.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost to date to the national insurance fund of national insurance rebates, tax relief and other incentives paid in respect of personal pensions contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme of individuals 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.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is shown in the table.

  Rebates and incentives for Personal Pension holders with earnings under (£ per annum)

  Total up to and including 1991–92 GB, £ millions Cumulative by earnings

  2,000

  0

  3,000

  16

  4,000

  114

  5,000

  341

  265

  Rebates and incentives for Personal Pension holders with earnings under (£ per annum)

  Total up to and including 1991–92 GB, £ millions Cumulative by earnings

  6,000

  724

  7,000

  1,246

  8,000

  1,887

  9,000

  2,600

  10,000

  3,350

  Notes:

  1. Data is based on an analysis of a 1 per cent. sample of people who are recorded on the Department of Social Security national insurance recording system as contributing to an appropriate personal pension scheme.

  2. The figures are for accruals of rebates and incentives up to and including 1991–92 which are normally paid in the next year. The figures are therefore comparable with figures for total payments up to and including 1992–93.

  3. The cost of tax relief is not included as this is not a charge to the national insurance fund.

  4. Earnings are used, as a breakdown by income is not available.

  The following table shows estimates of tax relief.

  Tax relief for PP holders with earnings under (£ per annum)

  Total up to and including 1991–92 GB, £ millions

  2,000

  0

  3,000

  2

  4,000

  10

  5,000

  40

  6,000

  62

  7,000

  107

  8,000

  163

  9,000

  223

  10,000

  289

  CommercialLobbying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on how many occasions in the last four months of which he has knowledge any civil servants in his Department have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements;

  (2) on how many occasions in the last four months he or any of his Ministers have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Severe Disability Premium
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made, following the recent appeal court judgment, of how many severely disabled people should have been receiving the premium between April 1988 and 1 December 1994, when the amending regulations were laid, but did not receive it; what steps are being taken to identify these people; and where the premium is now being awarded for the years in question, what policy he has with regard to suspending payment pending the appeal which he and the chief adjudication officer are seeking to bring to the House of Lords; and in how many cases a suspension has been imposed.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Court of Appeal decision given on 30 November 1994 resulted in entitlement to the severe 266
  disability premium being extended until the amendment regulation came into force on 2 December 1994. Consideration is still being given as to how the cases affected for these few days might be identified.

  It is our practice to suspend payment in cases which are subject of an appeal to the courts, or in cases where benefit would be affected by the outcome of such an appeal. The number of cases in which payment of the severe disability premium has been suspended in these particular circumstances is not known.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently in receipt of the severe disability premium as part of income support.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  As of February 1994, the latest date for which figures are available, the total number of claimants whose income support entitlement included the severe disability premium was 184,000.

  Source:
  "Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry" February 1994—based on a 5 per cent. sample.

  Note:

  The figure has been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Jobseekers Bill
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of the provision of the Jobseekers Bill on the classification of unemployment benefit and analogous expenditure on income support into(a) planned expenditure and (b) cyclical expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: Like the benefits which it is to replace, jobseeker's allowance will be, subject to passage of necessary legislation, cyclical social security expenditure.

WALES

  Dental Services, Gwynedd
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what emergency provision there is for dental patients in Gwynedd who cannot get access to NHS dental treatment.

  Mr. Richards
  According to information supplied by the Gwynedd family health services authority, there are 11 emergency sessions each week, at various times, on most days, including weekends, in clinics throughout Gwynedd.

  That authority is best placed to advise and assist patients who require emergency treatment. Patients can also be referred to the community dental service, which provides a "safety net" for those unable to obtain general dental services.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received during the past three months on the subject of dental service provision in Gwynedd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  Since 1 October 1994, 38 representations have been made on the subject of dental service provision in Gwynedd. During the same period, three questions have been asked in the House on the same subject.
  267
  I am aware that patients in Gwynedd who are not registered with a dentist may have difficulty in obtaining NHS treatment. I fully recognise the unsatisfactory situation in the county and officials are in frequent contact with the Gwynedd health authorities. I will continue to assist them in their efforts to find solutions.

  Nurses
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of those now being taken on in Wales for training as qualified nurses come as graduate entrants; and if he will make a statement on the changing qualification patterns for nurses in Wales and its implications for recruitment in future.

  Mr. Richards
  The current proportion of graduate entrants to Project 2000 student nurses is approximately one to 12. It remains the responsibility of the United Kingdom Central Council, as the statutory body governing nurse registration, to ensure that nurse training is tailored to meet the requirements of the NHS. This is monitored in Wales by the Welsh National Board.

  It was anticipated that the recent introduction of Project 2000-September 1991 in Wales—with its emphasis on a broader-based training would better meet the needs of patients. This diploma level qualification will be evaluated including the implications for recruitment.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that the forthcoming increase in nurses pay will not be financed by a reduction in the number of nurses employed in the NHS.

  Mr. Richards
  This is a matter for individual health authorities and NHS trusts to determine.

  Police Funding
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the standard spending assessment proposed for the North Wales police authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received 67 written representations on the proposed standard spending assessment for North Wales police. On 20 December, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), the Under-Secretary, met a deputation from the police authority to discuss its concerns. I will announce my final settlement decisions shortly.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the consultation period for discussion on the standard spending assessment proposed for Welsh police authorities will expire.

  Mr. Redwood
  Formal consultation in respect of my provisional standard spending assessment and capping proposals for Welsh police authorities ended on 9 January. I am considering all the representations received and I will make my final settlement decisions shortly.

  Training Providers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the companies in(a) Gwent and (b) the Islwyn constituency that facilitate the work of training and enterprise councils by being training providers; and if he will make a statement.
  268
  Mr. Richards
  Gwent TEC has contracts with the following training providers who arrange placements for trainees in a wide range of companies across the country.

  Provider

  Location

  (a) Gwent

  Age Concern

  Ebbw Vale

  Agency for Caring Environments (ACE)

  Cardiff Office

  Gwent-wide

  Beacon Training Ltd.

  Pontypool

  Gwent-wide

  Blaenau Gwent Borough Council

  Tredegar

  British Steel Llanwern

  Newport

  British Steel Tinplate

  Ebbw Vale

  CITB

  Gwent-wide

  CTF

  Cwmbran

  Focal

  Gwent-wide

  Gwent NCT

  Blaina

  Newport

  Gwent Quality Training

  Newport

  Gwent-wide

  Gwent Tertiary College

  Newport

  Pontypool and Usk

  Ebbw Vale

  Hill Management Criteria

  Newport

  JHP Training Ltd.

  Brynmawr

  Newport

  Cwmbran

  Ystrad Mynach

  Link Training

  Cwmbran

  Brynmawr

  Lucas Automotive Braking Division

  Cwmbran

  Monmouth Borough Council

  Monmouth

  Newport and District GTA

  Pontypool

  Saunders Valve Co. Ltd.

  Cwmbran

  Torfaen Training

  Cwmbran

  Training Management (Wales) Ltd.

  Cwmbran

  Gwent-wide

  Victoria Training

  Ebbw Vale

  (b) Islwyn

  Gwent NCT

  Pontllanfraith

  Gwent Tertiary College

  Crosskeys

  Mates Training Design and Development Ltd.

  Blackwood

  Dairy Farmers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the approximate average net profit for dairy farmers in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on incomes of full-time dairy farms and other farm types is collected in the farm business survey and published each year in "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom". The latest edition, "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom 1992/93", shows estimates of several different measures of income for dairy farms in 1991–92 and 1992–93. Definitions of these income measures are contained in appendix 2.

  To illustrate longer-term trends in incomes, index series are also given for net farm income, occupier's net income and cash income back to 1986–87—table 1.1 and appendix 1, tables 1 and 2—the earliest year for which data are available on a consistent basis.

  "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom 1993/94" will be published in the spring.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out for each of the next steps agencies in his Department, whether they have acquired their own headquarters buildings and, if so, at what purchase cost or annual rental; how many support staff they have required which were not required when their operations were within his Department; how many of them publish periodical journals and at what annual cost; how many have fleets of executive cars or single executive cars and at what annual cost; how many have specially designed logos and at what cost; how many have corporate clothing and at what cost; and what is the cost of specially designed and printed corporate stationery.

  Mr. Redwood
  CADW: Welsh Historic Monuments is the Welsh Office's sole wholly-owned, executive agency. The body's corporate identity was established in 1984 when it was launched as a discrete management unit in its own headquarters, where it remains. No additional costs arose in this area when the agency was vested in April 1991. However, four additional support staff were required. A uniform or protective clothing is provided for some staff, but no additional costs arose from agency status. A newsletter is provided for members of Heritage in Wales—a subscription scheme which allows admission to CADW sites without further charge. The agency does not provide executive cars.

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of sheep scab there were in each year since 1990 and in each month for 1994.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The total number of confirmed cases of sheep scab in Wales for the years 1990 to 1992 was as follows:

  Number

  1990

  9

  1991

  15

  1992 (to 30 June)

  14

  The collation of official records on the number of outbreaks of sheep scab was discontinued after deregulation of compulsory controls in 1992.

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out those matters in regard to environmental policy in Wales that are the responsibility of his Department and those which are primarily the responsibility of other Government Departments or non-departmental public bodies.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Details of the Welsh Office's environmental policies and programmes and information on the environmental activities of its public bodies are given in the departmental report, Cm 2515, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Information on the environmental policy responsibilities of other Departments and their public bodies is similarly available in their reports.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new measures he proposes to lessen air pollution in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  On 19 January, the Government published new proposals for improving air quality in the paper "Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The measures detailed there will apply, as appropriate, in Wales as elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average council tax for a band D house in(a) Alyn and Deeside district council and (b) Westminster.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The average band D council tax for 1994–95 in Alyn and Deeside is £385 and in Westminster £245. The value of properties in valuation band D ranges from £51,000 to £66,000 in Wales and from £68,000 to £88,000 in England.

  Millennium Fund
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what projects under the control of his Department he will be applying for funds from the millennium fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given on 20 December by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, which explains the relationship between Ministers, Departments and the lottery distributing bodies.

  Fluoride
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to implement the recommendation of Health Promotion Wales to add fluoride as a supplement to Welsh water supplies.

  Mr. Richards
  None. This is a matter for local determination.

  Through Ticketing
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he will be making to the rail regulator concerning the future availability of through ticketing from railway stations in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Rail Regulator and Ministers are committed to continuing easy access to through ticketing for passengers. Ministers will consider carefully the Rail Regulator's decisions on ticketing obligations at railway stations after his wide-ranging consultations.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated number of(a) jobs lost and (b) new jobs created in each of the last five years for which figures are available for (i) each district council area in Wales and (ii) Wales as a whole.

  Mr. Redwood
  Comprehensive information on the number of jobs lost and created is not available. Information on employees in employment for district council areas is available from the 1989 and 1991
  271
  censuses of employment. Figures for Wales are available from the Employment Department's quarterly estimates series and are published in table 1.5 in the Employment Gazette. All these data are available from the NOMIS database which can be accessed by the staff of the Library of the House.

  Commercial Lobbying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions in the last four months of which he has knowledge any civil servants in his Department have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.

  Mr. Redwood
  Officials may receive representations about a variety of matters, but the information requested is not collected.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions in the last four months he or any of his Ministers have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Ministers and I meet a wide range of people from many organisations at informal and official occasions.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Employment to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West of 11 January, concerning outcomes-based funding of training and enterprise councils, if he will give details of the consultation exercise referred to as it applies in Wales; and which organisations in Wales have been consulted.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department is currently in the process of consulting TECs in Wales on the prospective changes in the funding arrangements for training for work before the determination of contacts for 1995–96.

  Mr. W. C. Powell
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) of 7 January, concerning Mr. W. C. Powell, what proposals he has to issue new guidelines to require the participation of general fundholders in inquiries such as the one agreed with Mr. Powell.

  Mr. Redwood
  There are no plans to issue guidelines. Informal inquiries of the kind offered to Mr. W. C. Powell, do not include powers to compel the attendance of witnesses. There is no distinction to be drawn between fundholders and non-fundholders.

SCOTLAND

  Higher and Further Education
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of students entering higher and further education in 1994–95.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of students who entered higher education in Scotland for the first time in 1994–95 is currently estimated to be 46,800.
  272
  Many FE students enter courses at different times or for studies of less than one academic year. The current estimate of the total number of students on all FE courses in 1994–95 is 169,200.

  Poverty
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his best estimate of the number of people in Scotland living in poverty; what plans he has to reduce this figure; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Statistics on patterns of household disposable income are provided in "Households Below Average Income 1979 to 1991–92", published in July last year. The best response to low household income is to sustain economic recovery and to assist those in greatest need. The Government's policies address both these aspects.

  Nursing and Residential Homes
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to modify the rules governing the ownership and management of both nursing and residential homes for elderly citizens.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no present plans to modify the rules governing the ownership and management of nursing and residential care homes for the elderly. Officials are, however, reviewing the procedures and standards in both sectors.

  Motorail Service
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effect on tourism of the proposals to terminate the motorail service and reduce sleeper services to Scotland; and when he was consulted on these matters.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for railways rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. However, I understand British Rail has yet to decide the future of these services in the light of the franchising director's decision not to include certain services in passenger service requirements.

  Scottish Prison Officers Association
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish Prison Officers Association; what he discussed with them; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend last met representatives of the Scottish Prison Officers Association on 6 May 1994 when he met a delegation from the Scottish Prison Service trade union side.

  The subjects discussed were the Criminal Justice arid Public Order Act 1994, market testing and staff morale in the Scottish Prison Service.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Scotland what further assessment he has made of the staff and other costs of work being undertaken by local authorities in preparing for the new authorities.

  Mr. Stewart
  I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for
  273
  Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), on 13 December 1994, Official Report, columns 595–96, which outlined his plans for funding the costs of local government reorganisation in 1995–96.

  Local Government Expenditure
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from local authorities in Scotland on their spending plans.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and some individual local authorities have made representations to my right hon. Friend about the level of the 1995–96 local government finance settlement and the implications for authorities' budgets.

  Health Care, Lanarkshire
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chief executive of Lanarkshire health board to discuss the provision of health care in Lanarkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State regularly meets representatives from all health boards to discuss health issues. There are no immediate plans for a meeting with Lanarkshire health board.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Enterprise National to discuss the state of manufacturing industry in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend regularly meets the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Enterprise. He has, however, no immediate plans for a meeting.

  Floods, Strathclyde
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the recent floods in Strathcylde.

  Mr. Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies to his parliamentary questions answered last week and to his recent meeting with my right hon. Friend and me.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet Strathclyde regional councillors to discuss flood prevention.

  Mr. Stewart
  Although there are no such plans at present, my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for agriculture and the environment, who is responsible for flood prevention matters, would be willing to meet the hon. Gentleman together with representative Strathclyde councillors, if this would be helpful.

  Proposed Bridge, Kelso
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will approve the financial consents necessary to enable Borders regional council to build a new bridge at Kelso.

  Mr. Stewart
  Final decisions have not yet been made about the distribution of roads and transport capital allocations for 1995–96. The case for a new Kelso bridge 274
  will be taken into consideration, along with other proposals, in setting the levels for individual councils.

  Prison Cell Searches
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the adequacy of prison cell searches.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E.W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Lady Olga Maitland, dated 25 January 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about what assessment has been made of the adequacy of prison cell searches.
  Cell searches are an essential element in a range of security measures, which includes the use of drug detection dogs, closed visits, rub down and strip searches, to prevent the introduction of unauthorised and/or prohibited articles into prisons. A comprehensive set of guidelines on the safe custody of prisoners, including cell searches, was issued to all Governors-in-Charge of establishments in 1991. These are subject to continuous review.
  In the year ended 31 March 1994, 2079 punishments against prison discipline were awarded by Governors to prisoners who either took or were found in possession of unauthorised or prohibited articles. We have no statistical information which would indicate how many of those offences against discipline were the result of cell searching, but Governors are aware of the importance of the security guidelines and of the need for cell searching to be properly carried out.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of rail privatisation upon the economy of the highlands and islands; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for railways rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. However, the Government believe that private sector involvement in the railways will benefit users and the economy as a whole.

  Secondary Schools
  Sir David Know
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the figures in 1978–79 at constant prices.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Current expenditure per secondary pupil in 1992–93 was 46 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979. The latest figure is £2,914 per secondary pupil.

  Details of budgeted school running costs per pupil for 1994–95, for individual primary and secondary schools in Scotland, were published last month and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Scottish Homes (Tenants)
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy that tenants of Scottish Homes are entitled to remain with Scottish Homes if they vote against the takeover of a new landlord.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Disposal of housing stock by Scottish Homes must be in accordance with
  275
  guidelines issued by my right hon. Friend which promote substantial safeguards for tenants. These provide that the majority view should prevail and all the tenants in a ballot area will transfer if a majority of those voting are in favour. Throughout the consultation process Scottish Homes emphasises to tenants the importance of casting a vote. My right hon. Friend has no plans to change these arrangements.

  Forth Rail Bridge
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he is going to publish the results of the Scottish Office independent engineering and structural survey of the Forth rail bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No such survey has been undertaken.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the result of the meeting arranged by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) between Mr. Patrick Hetherington of the Scottish Office, Mr. Colin Aston and Mr. John Watson of Maid of the Forth in relation to metallic problems of the Forth rail bridge and of the subsequent inspection of the bridge by Mr. Hetherington in relation to bird remains, bird droppings in crevices and the non-function of lights installed by Scottish Power.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Inquiries are continuing and I shall write to the hon. Member when these are complete.

  Bank Holidays
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he has taken to safeguard bank holidays in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The dates of bank holidays in Scotland are either defined in schedule 1 to the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 or designated each year by royal proclamation under section 1(3) of the Act. There are no proposals at present to change these dates.

  Rented Housing
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to increase the supply of affordable rented housing in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Our policy is to assist and enable provision of an adequate supply of housing, by monitoring housing supply and demand and encouraging housing agencies to identify and address local imbalances in the supply of housing.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many men were in full-time jobs in Scotland(a) in June 1979 and (b) at present.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Information on male full-time employment is not available for 1979. The total number of male employees, in June 1979, was 1,205,200. In June 1994, there were 972,800 male employees, of whom 876,300 were full-time. The total number of employees in June 1979 was 2,102,300, and in June 1994 was 1,963,600.
  276
  In comparison, the total civilian work force in employment fell by 29,600 over this period. This includes an increase of 76,900 in the number of self-employed and the introduction of the work-related Government training schemes.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the trend in national health service waiting lists in Scotland; and what comparable statistics he has on waiting lists elsewhere.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As the information requested is lengthy, I have arranged for a copy to be sent to the hon. Gentleman and for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Scottish Constitution
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what pamphlets or speeches he wrote or delivered in 1994 setting out his views on the Scottish constitution.

  Mr. Lang
  During 1994, my belief that Scotland's constitutional future lies firmly within the United Kingdom was expressed on many different occasions.

  Barnacle Geese
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland further to his answer of 16 December 1994,Official Report, column 1055, if he will give details of the conditions attached to the licence issued to a farmer on Solway firth on 15 December 1994 for the killing of barnacle geese.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The current licence was issued on 11 November 1994. As the information requested is rather lengthy, I am arranging for a copy of the licence and guidance notes to be sent to the hon. Member and placed in the Library of the House.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent by each hospital trust in Scotland on public relations for each year for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  The Arts
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to fund overseas presentation of Scottish arts linked to efforts by Scottish businesses to win contracts.

  Sir Hector Monro
  None. Government support for overseas activities by arts organisations is primarily a matter for the British Council. The business sponsorship incentive scheme, which provides matching government funds for private sponsorship moneys, may also help.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to assist arts organisations to make themselves and their educational services known to individual schools and to the new unitary authorities.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Scottish Office Education Department will draw the potential role of arts
  277
  organisations in education to the attention of the new local authorities in a guidance circular on the arts to be issued later this year.

  The Scottish Arts Council has identified education as a priority and has published a handbook "Now to Create: Arts and Education in Partnership", a copy of which has recently been sent to every school in Scotland, to every school board and to appropriate local authority officers.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to increase pupils' access to active participation in arts activities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  National guidelines on the expressive arts, issued in 1992, offer schools advice on art education for pupils aged five to 14. The guidelines cover art, drama and music, and place emphasis on the value of active participation. They set out attainment targets and programmes of study in which performance, participation and appreciation have a place. The arts community generally has welcomed this advice to schools.

  Guidelines issued by the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum for pupils aged 14 to 18 also ensure that the arts have a secure place within the curriculum. Scottish Examination Board and Scottish Vocational Education Council courses and qualifications are available at standard grade, higher grade, certificate of sixth year studies and national certificate in the areas of music, drama and art. Within the higher still programme, a unified framework of study programmes and qualifications will be developed in these areas.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funding is available to arts organisations to assist them with tourism-related projects.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Relevant financial assistance is available to arts organisations from the Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise networks, including the local enterprise companies, and the Scottish tourist board. The Scottish Arts Council has a general responsibility for funding and encouraging the arts in Scotland; in partnership with the Scottish tourist board and the Scottish Museums Council among other public sector organisations, the council is actively involved in various initiatives to develop arts-based tourism.

  Tanker Terminals (Benzene Emmissions)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the levels of benzene emissions from tanker terminals in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Benzene is a commodity chemical that has well-recognised toxic and carcinogenic properties and transfers of the chemical itself into tankers of all sorts are undertaken using closed vapour handling systems to prevent emissions leading to unacceptable exposures to the process operators.

  Benzene is also a constituent of petrol and its precursor component mixtures. Vapours given off by such materials contain only very low concentrations of benzene which is vented along with the displacement gases during tanker loading. The implementation of the stage 1 petrol vapour recovery directive, formally adopted by the European Union in December 1994, and intended primarily to reduce emissions of ozone precursors, will see the progressive installation of closed vapour handling systems at all road, rail and inland waterway terminals. For shiploading terminals such as Hound point and Braefoot
  278
  bay, the International Maritime Organisation is negotiating amendments to the MARPOL convention that, once implemented, will extend closed vapour handling systems to ships. An incidental benefit of these changes will be to reduce further the very low levels of benzene emissions arising currently during tanker loading.

  Monitoring exercises in the Grangemouth area have detected benzene at levels consistently below 1 part per billion-14-day average. Some at least of this concentration can be attributed to tanker loading, but when compared with the 1ppb air quality target recommended by the expert panel on air quality standards, it is clear that the operation of the tanker terminals in the Grangemouth area has a negligible impact on air quality in that locality.

  A recent monitoring exercise carried out around the Braefoot bay terminal during shiploading of natural gasoline, which contains low concentrations of benzene, and is used in petrol formulation, demonstrated that peak concentrations—eight-hour averages—in the Aberdour area were greater in numerical terms than the levels recommended by EPAQS for adoption as annual average air quality concentrations. The panel, in making its recommendation, noted that at concentrations occurring in the ambient atmosphere benzene does not have short-term, or acute, effects. In these circumstances, any carcinogenic effect is attributable to the total intake of the material over a lifetime and short-term peaks are of themselves of little import. Concentrations in the Aberdour area measured at times other than during shiploading of natural gasoline were found to be negligible.

  Student Finance
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on guidelines on the award of bursaries and students by the new unitary authorities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The power to award bursaries to further education students is discretionary and it is for the authorities themselves to determine if and how these awards are to be made. Officials from the Scottish Office Education Department, COSLA, and the Employers Association for Further Education Colleges meet periodically to discuss the operation of the guidelines for existing education authorities. I expect such discussions to continue when the new authorities come into existence.

  Homelessness
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the level of additional capital allocations to Scottish local authorities for projects for homelessness people in each of the past five years;

  (2) what has been the level of direct Government subsidy to public bodies for tackling homelessness in Scotland in each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Specific supplementary allocations totalling almost £30 million for homelessness projects have been issued to local authorities in each of the past four years as follows:

  1991–92: £7.6 million

  1992–93: £15 million

  1993–94: £4.35 million

  1994–95: £2.62 million

  279
  Since March 1993, homelessness has been designated as a national priority for housing investment and some local authorities also received an increase in their mainstream allocations for 1993–94 and 1994–95 based on the homelessness strategies included in their housing capital programmes.

  Local social work authorities, new towns, Scottish Homes and health boards also make a contribution to

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Hostel housing support grant

  1.4

  1.3

  1.4

  1.6

  1.6

  Urban programme

  0.8

  0.8

  0.9

  1.1

  1.1

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the age profile of emergency admissions recorded for each health board for the last five years for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As the information requested is rather lengthy, I have arranged for comes of the age profiles to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Dourine
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of dourine were reported in each year since 1985.

  Sir Hector Monro
  No cases of dourine have ever been reported in Scotland.

  Equine Infectious Anaemia
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of equine infectious anaemia there have been in each year since 1985.

  Sir Hector Monro
  There have been no recorded cases of equine infectious anaemia in Scotland over this period.

  Robes and Regalia
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy in respect of the availability for use on appropriate ceremonial occasions of robes and regalia used by office holders in the former Scottish boroughs.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 January 1995]: Following local government reform in 1975, ownership of the former burgh councils' civic robes, insignia and so on, passed to the new district councils. However, entitlement to the wearing of robes requires royal approval. The design and use of coats of arms on chains of office and other insignia are matters for the Lord Lyon King of Arms.

  Liver Transplants
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many liver transplants were carried out in 1994.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 January 1995]: Thirty-one liver transplants were carried out in 1994.
  280
  tackling homelessness. Normally, neither mainstream capital allocations nor the substantial grants in aid or other direct central Government subsidies given to public bodies are earmarked for specific activities.

  Exceptions to this relating to homelessness are:

DEFENCE

  Gulf War
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what triggered the nerve agent immobilised alarm detectors alarms on the night of 20–21 January 1991 during Operation Granby.

  Mr. Soames
  We have found no record of such an incident. There are, however records of an incident in the Al Jubayl area on 19 January 1991 when chemical agent monitor—CAM—and residual vapour detector—RVD—indicated the presence of blister agent—mustard. Nerve agent immobilised enzyme alarm and detector—NAIAD—did not respond, however, thus ruling out the presence of nerve agent.

  An immediate follow up by explosive ordnance device—EOD—and chemical reconnaissance teams failed to find any evidence of chemical attack, which if it had taken place, would have included ground contamination, blister is a persistent agent, and weapon debris.

  The identity of the compounds which caused the CAM and RVD to alarm on 19 January 1991 is therefore not known. It was assessed that the most likely cause of the incident was a damaged aircraft jettisoning JP4 fuel which is consistent with reports of air activity at the time.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the administration of nerve agent pre-treatment set, anthrax and plague inoculations would normally require a medical consultation with the patient to determine whether there are counter indications; to what extent these drugs were administered to military personnel involved in the Gulf war without such consultation; and for what reasons.

  Mr. Soames
  Standard peacetime medical practice is for consent to be obtained before immunisation with any vaccine. Specific details of anti-biological warfare medical counter-measures employed by British forces remain classified. However, in Operation Granby it was policy for vaccines against those biological agents identified as a threat to be made available to service personnel on the standard basis of informed consent. This entailed informing service personnel of the vaccines they were receiving, their purpose and their possible side effects. In the operational circumstances pertaining in the Gulf it is not possible to guarantee that this policy was universally adhered to.

  Standard text books on immunisation detail no specific contraindications for the anti-biological warfare vaccines used during Operation Granby.
  281
  The universal and regular basis on which the nerve agent pre-treatment set—NAPS—has to be taken do not allow for individual medical consultation. However NAPS is a licensed drug and the safety and efficacy of its active ingredient, pyridostigmine bromide, in giving protection against chemical warfare agents is internationally medically recognised.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when personnel at Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, acknowledged that chemical detectors, nerve agent immobilised alarm detectors and chemical agent monitors, could be activated by substances other than the toxic chemicals they were designed to detect; and by what means military personnel involved in Operation Granby were expected to know when they should use their personal protective equipment;

  (2) when a copy of the report by Major John Watkinson, the Officer Commanding 21 EOD squadron, was received by Major Parsons of M.0.1/MoD UK Army and Mr. P. Hearn of Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down; and when the memorandum written by Captain Michael Johnson, Commander of the US 54 Chemical Troop, dated 4 January 1994, was seen by MoD officials;

  (3) what assessment the MoD has made of the availability of the plague and anthrax vaccines; and what are their common applications.

  Mr. Soames
  These are matters for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, CBDE, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham S. Pearson to Mr. Peter Robinson, dated 25 January 1995:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when personnel at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, acknowledged that chemical detectors (NAIAD and CAM) could be activated by substances other than the toxic chemicals they were designed to detect, and by what means military personnel involved in Operation GRANBY were expected to know when they should use their personnel protective equipment has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the British Armed Forces have the most effective protective measures possible against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them.

  3. The staff of the Chemical and Biological Establishment have long recognised that any detection system for chemical warfare agents needs to have appropriate sensitivity and selectivity so as to respond to the chemical warfare agents and to minimise false alarms. The principal route by which chemical warfare agents attack the body is through the respiratory tract although some agents such as mustard and some nerve agents are percutaneously active. The aim in designing an effective detector is to obtain sufficient specificity without reducing sensitivity to a level in which personnel would be exposed to a harmful concentration prior to the detector responding.

  4. The British chemical agent detectors such as NAIAD and CAM are designed to be highly specific whilst having a sufficient sensitivity to ensure that those utilising such detectors receive a warning from the detector before they inhale a harmful concentration of chemical warfare agent. Although they like all other chemical warfare agent detectors can respond to substances other than chemical warfare agents, it is important to recognise that these other substances are very unlikely to be present on the battlefield in concentrations sufficient to produce an alarm. In practice, the use of more than one type of detector reduces the chance of possible false
  282
  alarms whilst retaining an undiminished capability for the detection of chemical warfare agents.

  5. Consequently, British Service personnel serving in Operation GRANBY donned their personal protective equipment when they were judged to be under a possible chemical warfare attack. This is known as the Immediate Action Drill and is designed to ensure that Service personnel are protected should they be subjected to an attack in which chemical weapons may be used. Likewise, if a chemical detector such as NAIAD or CAM alarms then full protective equipment is donned. The information relating to the possible attack is then passed to the next high level of command at which a judgement will be made as to whether chemical warfare agents have indeed been used in such an attack. Such a judgement would take into account whether other techniques for detection and monitoring of chemical warfare agents have indicated the presence of a chemical warfare agent or not. The equipment provided to the British Armed Forces to detect and monitor chemical warfare agents is highly effective and is second to none.

  Letter from Graham S. Pearson to Mr. Peter Robinson, dated 25 January 1995:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when a copy of the report by Major John Watkinson, the Officer Commanding 21 EOD Squadron, was received by Major Parsons of M.0.1/MOD UK Army and Mr. P. Hearn of CBDE Porton Down; and when the memorandum written by Captain Michael Johnson, Commander of the US 54th Chemical Troop, dated 4 January 1994, was seen by MOD officials has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them.

  3. The report by 21st EOD Squadron was received in MOD in August 1991 and, in accordance with its recommendations, samples collected in Kuwait City were provided to CBDE Porton Down for analysis.

  4. A subsequent note from CBDE Porton Down to the Ministry of Defence dated 23 August 1991, prior to the receipt of the samples, stated that the brown fumes associated with the material, the destruction of the NBC suit material and the burns produced on skin suggests that the material may be fuming nitric acid, a highly corrosive oxidising acid which may be used as a rocket propellant. The damage to the NBC suit material and the brown fumes showed that the material was not liquid mustard.

  5. The CBDE analytical report dated 24 September 1991 showed that the samples had a definite yellow/brown colour compared to the original white of the resin and were labelled Sample 1 dated 10 August 1991 and Sample 3 dated 10 August 1991. Analytical results showed that there was a high concentration of nitrate in the sample and a pH that was extremely acidic. Extraction of the resin with dichloromethane and analysis by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry showed the presence of no material of CW interest. The samples were entirely consistent with the contents of the tank being nitric acid and there was no evidence of any CW agent being present.

  6. There is no record of a copy of the memorandum by Captain Michael Johnson of the US Army having been received by MOD officials.

  Letter from Graham S. Pearson to Mr. Peter Robinson, dated 25 January 1995:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what assessment the MOD has made of the availability of the plague and anthrax vaccines, and what are their common applications has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the British Armed

  283
  Forces have the most effective protective measures possible against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare is assessed and the effectiveness of medical countermeasures evaluated.

  3. As part of this work, the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment carry out a continuing assessment of the availability and effectiveness of vaccines. Plague and anthrax vaccines are available from a number of countries which include the following:

  (a) Plague. This is available from Greer Laboratories in the United States of America and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in Australia.

  (b) Anthrax. This is available from the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research at Porton Down and the Michigan Department of Public Health in the United States of America.

  These vaccines are produced to protect individuals at risk from the respective diseases; these include persons working with these microorganisms in laboratories and the pharmaceutical industry or at risk from the natural occurrence of the disease.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if plague vaccine used during Operation Granby was obtained on a named-patient basis.

  Mr. Soames
  Details of the specific medical countermeasures employed by British forces against the potential biological warfare threat during Operation Granby remain classified. All vaccines administered to British forces in Operation Granby were offered on the basis of voluntary informed consent. Any vaccines without a United Kingdom product licence were licenced in their country of origin, fully tested in the United Kingdom and cleared for use.

  Pyridostigmine Bromide
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if licence No. 4537/0003 for pyridostigmine bromide, 30mg, granted to the MOD by the Medicines Control Agency governs(a) by whom the drug is supplied and (b) the chemical make up of the drug.

  Mr. Soames
  Yes. The licence specifies the manufacturer of the active substance as Raschig AG, Germany, and of the finished product as Duphar BV, Holland. The active constituent of the product is listed as pyridostigmine bromide and the other constituents are: pregelatinised starch, maize starch, lactose, colloidal silicon dioxide, talc and magnesium stearate.

  Atomic Energy Co-operation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information Her Majesty's Government have received as to the disposition of plutonium sent to the United States under the 1959 amendment to the Anglo-American mutual defence agreement on atomic energy co-operation of 1958, Cmnd 859; and whether all plutonium sent to the United States under this agreement since 1965 was transacted under the barter arrangement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The disposition of plutonium supplied to the United States under the 1958 agreement is a matter for the United States Government. However, the United States Government gave an assurance in 1964 that plutonium originating from United Kingdom civil reactors would not be used in their weapons programme.

  Most plutonium supplied to the United States under the 1958 agreement has been transferred under barter arrangements. However, some plutonium has also been transferred under separate loan arrangements.
  284
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what costs are expected to be incurred through the Atomic Control Office in implementing the 10-year extension to the 1958 United States-United Kingdom mutual defence agreement on atomic energy matter, Cm 2686.

  Mr. Freeman
  The articles of the 1958 mutual defence agreement that were recently amended have little bearing on the work load of the atomic control office, London. The additional costs that will fall to this office as a result of the amendment will therefore be negligible.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out details of the nuclear materials accounting and central arrangements to which the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) made reference in the Official Report, 15 December 1994, column 1237.

  Mr. Freeman
  These arrangements involve bookkeeping and auditing systems, similar to those in the civil nuclear industry, to control and monitor movements and inventories of nuclear materials. For reasons of security, it is not our practice to reveal further details of such arrangements.

  British Troops (Gorazde)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of British troops in the Bosnian enclave of Gorazde; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  British troops in Gorazde are making a very effective and highly valued contribution to UNPROFOR's efforts to stabilise the situation on the ground and to assist in the delivery of humanitarian aid to the enclave. One of their current priorities is to facilitate the implementation of the four month cessation of hostilities agreement which came into effect on 1 January 1995.

  International Military Services Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what date the staff council was first elected at International Military Services Ltd.; and if it is his general policy to encourage such staff councils.

  Mr. Freeman
  The MOD's support for staff councils is demonstrated through the long-standing Whitley council arrangements which have existed in their present form since 1956.

  The staff of International Military Services Ltd., who were not civil servants, were not covered by the MOD Whitley councils. As a private company, International Military Services made its own arrangements for staff representation. The Ministry of Defence played no part in these arrangements.

  Nuclear Co-operation Agreement
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what joint actions are being taken in pursuit of the Anglo-French nuclear co-operation agreement.

  Mr. Soames
  There is no such agreement. We are, however, developing contacts on defence nuclear matters with France in a number of ways, including the
  285
  Franco-British joint commission on nuclear policy and doctrine. The work of the commission has shown an identity of approach between the UK and France on fundamental policy issues. The detail of this work is, of course, confidential between the two Governments.

  Joint Services Command
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many acres of land are currently occupied by the Army Command and staff college at Camberley.

  Mr. Soames
  The staff college at Camberley occupies an enclave within the site of the Royal military academy, Sandhurst. The overall size of the site, including the married quarters, is some 883 acres. In addition, a training area serving the staff college and the academy occupies a further 1,176 acres.

  Commercial Lobbying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on how many occasions in the last four months of which he has knowledge any civil servants in his Department have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements;

  (2) on how many occasions in the last four months he or any of his Ministers have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer today from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Combined Cadet Force
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent in 1993–94 to support the Combined Cadet Force in schools; what schools received support; and what was the amount awarded to each school.

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

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries were caused to pupils taking part in Combined Cadet Force activities in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Soames
  Available records show that between January 1990 and December 1994 there were no deaths or serious injuries sustained by members of the Combined Cadet Force which were attributable to cadet activities.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of running the Defence Export Services Organisation; and how many people were employed(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) overseas for each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  Numbers employed by DESO:

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  541

  626

  662

  673

  708

  1523

  1542

  2150

  2166

  1 UK based.

  2 Overseas.

  286
  Information relating to the breakdown between United Kingdom-based and overseas posts is not available prior to financial year 1993–94. The net cost of the organisation in 1993–94 was £16.02 million. Changes in accounting conventions make exact comparisons difficult with earlier years.

  Equipment (Exports)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of exports of United Kingdom military equipment to(a) all countries and (b) developing countries for each of the last five years in (i) cash prices and (ii) constant prices.

  Mr. Freeman
  Details of the value of exports of defence equipment by geographic region are contained in table 1.1 of "UK Defence Statistics". A copy of the 1994 edition has been placed in the House Library. The figures are published at current prices. There is insufficient data on the prices of such goods to enable satisfactory estimates to be made of defence exports at constant prices.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what deliveries of United Kingdom manufactured arms to Nigeria have taken place since December 1993.

  Mr. Freeman
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to publish details of individual exports.

  United States Bases
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 19 January, what jurisdiction the Visiting Forces Act 1952 gives to American military personnel to take action against those entering bases to make a peaceful protest; to what extent the powers exceed those of the Ministry of Defence Police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Visiting Forces Act 1952 does not give United States service personnel jurisdiction to take action against United Kingdom citizens. In accordance with article VII of the NATO status of forces agreement, however, the United States visiting forces are entitled to police premises made available to them in the United Kingdom and, with due regard to United Kingdom law, to take all appropriate measures to ensure the maintenance of order and security on such premises.

  United States service personnel do not have more legal powers over United Kingdom citizens in this country than the Ministry of Defence police.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what was the sortie mission, operational height and actual height of the military jet aircraft that overflew the village of Clayton-with-Frickley in South Yorkshire at approximately 09.32 hours on 12 January; if the sortie transgressed the low flying transit area in that locality; what airfield the aircraft took off from; where it landed at the end of its sortie; at which squadron or unit it was based; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  A Tornado aircraft from the Standards Squadron at RAF Cottesmore overflew the village at approximately the time indicated. The aircraft, which was on a routine low flying training sortie; took off from and landed at RAF Cottesmore. We have no reason to believe the aircraft flew below the permitted height of 1000 ft within the low flying transit area.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Charities in Scotland
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are preparing further legislation to clarify and regulate the situation of charities operating in Scotland.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, we do not consider that there is a need for further legislation at present. The existing structure was put in place relatively recently after full consultation and consideration. The early results have been most encouraging and clearly show that the present regulatory system is working well. Both the Scottish Office and the Scottish Charities Office are monitoring the operation of the existing arrangements and we will keep the matter under review.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that reassuring reply. While I applaud recent government action in investigating certain cases which received publicity and therefore some notoriety, is it not better to provide clear guidance to guard against dubious practices rather than having to act later, especially since the Charity Commission does not operate in Scotland?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. A number of recent investigations by the Scottish Charities Office revealed that there were improprieties, which have been satisfactorily dealt with. That is an important part of its work. I want to make clear also to my noble friend that a significant proportion of the work of the Scottish Charities Office is related to the provision of advice to trustees. I hope that that results in a more efficient and effective charities management in Scotland. Furthermore, the Scottish Charities Office is considering, with the Charities Commission—which, as my noble friend said, extends only to parts of England and Wales—the provision of advice in areas which are of mutual interest. Examples include guidance on the student unions and on campaigning and political activities by charities.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that it would be wise for him to meet the people who briefed his noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and myself on this subject? There appears to be a misunderstanding. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations is concerned about the inadequacy of the existing provisions. If the noble and learned Lord met its members, perhaps the difficulties could be resolved.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I regularly meet members of the Scottish Council for Voluntary
1054
Organisations and have had a fairly extended correspondence with them on this matter. I hope that they now appreciate that some of the anxieties they expressed are not necessarily well founded. One of their concerns was that there should be a better set of regulations on accounting requirements. When the new statement of recommended practice for charities accounting on this side of the Border has been produced, we certainly anticipate revising the regulations for Scotland in the light of that.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, as most people who join the Conservative Party in Scotland now join out of sympathy rather than conviction, is there any truth in the widespread rumour that the Scottish Conservative Party is thinking of applying for charitable status?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the Scottish Conservative Party is anticipating some extremely successful fundraising over the next few weeks. But we are certainly not proud; if people want to join us as a charity, we shall be happy to receive them.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, this is an interesting Question. Although it has been on the Order Paper for over a week, I have so far received no representations from charities and normally they are not slow to come forward with information. The points made by the Minister clearly illustrate the need for some clarity in our knowledge of the administration of charities in Scotland. I am therefore grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for raising this Question today.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend. I believe that the Scottish Charities Office is settling in extremely well. If there are any particularly outstanding points, clearly we want to address them. We will take forward the way we offer advice and manage charities in Scotland, appreciating that there have been important changes on this side of the Border from which we can learn.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations—I am glad to hear my noble and learned friend is in touch with it—is extremely concerned that unwelcome people may be tempted to start up activities in Scotland in the expectation that they will not be monitored or investigated in the way that they would be south of the Border?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, any fraudsters who believe that they can run a charity in Scotland and get away without being properly monitored or supervised had better appreciate how well the Scottish Charities Office has settled down. As my noble friend indicates, in two widely publicised cases where the charity got off on the wrong lines, swift action was taken and appropriate steps implemented.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am a little surprised by this Question. The Scottish legislation about charities which preceded the legislation applying

1055
to England and Wales included a number of provisions which we were only too happy to copy when our turn came.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful if that was indeed the case. There are a number of matters where clearly we wish to march in step because although there will be charities here in England which will be under the supervision of the Charities Commission, the larger ones in particular will often extend their operations north of the Border.

British Rail: Through-ticketing Facilities
2.44 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the regulator or Ministers will exercise their powers to prevent any reduction of through-ticketing facilities at British Rail stations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Secretary of State for Transport and the Rail Regulator both have a statutory duty under the Railways Act 1993 to promote measures to protect through-ticketing. The regulator is consulting on the requirements for retailing through-tickets which he might impose on operators as a licence condition.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Where exactly does authority lie in this matter? Is he aware that when the Rail Regulator announced the proposed reduction of core stations to 294 his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport said:
"If the regulator is proposing that the number of stations offering through-ticketing should be fewer than now, that is unacceptable"?
Can the Minister tell me where authority lies in this matter? Is it with the Secretary of State, who declares the through-ticketing arrangements to be unacceptable, or the regulator, who insists that that is what he proposes to do? It raises an important constitutional question. Since the recommendation on through-ticketing there has been a further announcement from the regulator that the price for using Railtrack should be substantially reduced—reduced by £1.5 billion. Will the Minister tell me what the effect on the flotation price of Railtrack will be if revenues are cut to that extent?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord's final question is very different from that concerned with through-ticketing. If I may correct the noble Lord, first, the regulator did not announce that there would be 294 core stations. The regulator is engaged in a consultation exercise which has yet to be completed. The noble Lord asked about the division of authority. The position is that the Rail Regulator is under a statutory duty to facilitate through journeys involving services of more than one operator. He is not authorised to grant passenger train operating licences except with the Secretary of State's approval, without an obligation on operators to comply with approved arrangements for the
1056
sale and honouring of through tickets. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has powers to give guidance to the regulator and, under the Railways Act, the regulator is obliged to take account of it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend and his Minister take account of the fact that, if through-ticketing is in any substantial degree reduced, it will have a very adverse effect on the public reaction to privatisation of the railways?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that through-ticketing and other network benefits have a substantial effect on the desirability of the railway. That is why the Government have always been committed to seeing improvements in the service.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that many people are extremely puzzled as to the difficulties which appear to be being realised in relation to through-ticketing? Is he further aware that before the war, when we had several railway companies, there was a system called the railway clearing house which managed to provide through-ticketing for very many more stations than we have at the present time and without the assistance of computers? That being so, why on earth is it proving so difficult for through-ticketing to be arranged after privatisation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not believe that there are difficulties with the issue of through-ticketing. The regulator will be setting a minimum standard. We do not expect it to be the norm. The noble Lord described what happened many years ago with the clearing house system. We believe that private sector operators will take full advantage of the innovations in technology and computer booking and retailing systems in delivering a service which the customer wants.
Lord De Freyne: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some years ago one could get a ticket on the Great West Clare Railway from Kilkee to Paddington? Possibly that could still be done.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that information.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as regards the availability of timetables, particularly InterCity ones, I understand that these are now being restricted. I also understand that at one time there was even the possibility that they would no longer be produced. Can the noble Viscount give an assurance that this very important service, alongside through-ticketing, will be taken into account so that the availability of this service can be generally known to the travelling public?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the objective of this privatisation exercise is substantially to improve the service which the railway network gives consumers in order to provide more choice. I am sure that timetabling and the availability of timetables are an essential part of that.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, can my noble friend explain why it is necessary to buy tickets at railway

1057
stations which, after all, are for boarding and dismounting from trains rather than for the sale of tickets?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend asks a very important question. Of course, retailing from other outlets—such as travel agents—the use of railway warrants, telesales and the purchase of tickets on the train itself will be an important part of the way in which tickets are sold in future.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the noble Viscount give an assurance that the reduced fares which are available to those of advanced years will continue to be available under the new regime, if and when it comes into effect?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that assurances have already been given on the issue of discount-type fares.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that just under 150 years ago, Mr. Gladstone, who was not unassociated with the noble Viscount's great grandfather, I would guess, made a slightly sad journey from King's Cross to a station between Dundee and Aberdeen and complained that, contrary to assurances which he had been firmly given, he was forced to pay five times in five separate instalments? Is the noble Viscount further aware that that had the effect of turning the mind of as notable an individualist as Gladstone to the benefits of rail nationalisation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am very grateful, as I am sure the whole House is, for the history lesson on this particular subject. We believe that the privatised rail network will deliver all the benefits for which Mr. Gladstone would have been grateful.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister give an undertaking to the House that rural areas in particular will not be prejudiced as a result of any new arrangements in connection with through-ticketing? How does the Minister reconcile his answer to one of my noble friends, that the Minister has real powers in this matter if the regulator decides, while taking account of what the Minister has to say, to go his own way? Furthermore, how does it make any sense for the Minister in another place to say that the concept of reducing the number of core stations to 294 is unacceptable?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the regulator has a duty to protect passengers and to make sure that the service is improved and up to the standards which we all demand. As I mentioned, the Secretary of State has the power to give guidance to the regulator. But ultimately there are clear advantages from having an independent regulator. For the first time it will mean that the railways will have a guarantee of the minimum service available.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, can my noble friend take a look at the 20th century and one system which works? It would be delighted to give the regulator or the
1058
Minister free advice—that is to say, one address, one telephone number and one person in Berne with Swiss Railways.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am very grateful for the offer.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the Minister clear up this situation once and for all? On behalf of the Government, can he give an undertaking that, under privatisation, rail through-ticketing will in fact be secured to the same level as it is at the moment?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that I have made the situation absolutely clear. The regulator has a duty which I have fully explained. For the first time the railways and the passengers using them will have the protection of a minimum standard. That does not exist at the moment.

Scottish Constituencies
2.55 p.m.
Lord Ellenboroughasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, when the average number of electors required to return a Member of Parliament in England is approximately 69,500, the equivalent number in Scotland is only 55,000.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, successive governments have endorsed the provision currently contained in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 that Scotland should be divided into not less than 71 constituencies. There has never been an equivalent provision for England.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, in thanking my noble and learned friend for that answer, may I reassure him that as an ardent United Kingdom Unionist I would have no cause to wish for there to be any change under the existing arrangements. But does he agree that, if there were a separate Scottish Parliament with wide powers, that would be a very different matter and would almost certainly necessitate a drastic reduction in the number of Scottish MPs in the House of Commons, with dire implications for the unity of the United Kingdom as a whole? Furthermore, is my noble and learned friend aware that the current devolutionary proposals of the Labour Party are even more irresponsible and worse than they were back in the late 1970s when they last plunged into the devolutionary quagmire? Does he further agree that the situation is worse now because the Labour Party wants to institute a motley collection of assemblies, regions and parliaments, all with different powers, which is a blue-print for disaster?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said. There are clearly distinctive circumstances applying in Scotland. For example, if Orkney and Shetland and Caithness and Sutherland combined into one constituency, the electorate would still be significantly below the English average. As my noble friend will appreciate, I certainly do not advocate the establishment of a Scottish

1059
Parliament, and neither do I advocate the establishment of regional assemblies in England. I doubt whether there are any people in England who would want to have such assemblies established. However, if they were, I believe that one necessary consequence of a Scottish assembly would be a significant reduction in the number of Members of Parliament. Just to achieve an equivalence it would probably be necessary to bring the number down to 56. If they were to have less to do within a Westminster Parliament, one can see that there would be a compelling case for reducing the number even more.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord says that he is not in favour of the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, why does he not just add the word "now"? His present attitude was not always the position. When we started out on the course of devolution the noble and learned Lord was one of our strongest supporters, along with many of his colleagues in the Conservative Party. He should have the courage to say that he has changed his mind.
Will the noble and learned Lord accept that now that I am a Member of your Lordships' House the number of Scottish MPs does not seem to be of the same concern to me as it once was? But when we talk about electoral representation in Scotland, why does he not explain to his noble friend that, because of the reorganisation of local government in Scotland, at that level Scotland will become the most under-represented country in Europe? In Scotland we shall have fewer councillors representing the people than any other country in Europe. Is the Minister aware that it is that diminution of democracy in Scotland, which was inflicted on us by the Tory Party, which poses a threat to the Union?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it is curious that the noble Lord should seek to pray me into an alliance with him on matters relating to a Scottish assembly. If there had ever been a proposal which I thought was at least worth considering, it was the one put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Home, years ago, which was a very different proposal to the one which the noble Lord now puts forward. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his honesty because in an earlier debate in your Lordships' House it will be recollected that he pointed out that, if the West Lothian question is to be answered, it will mean that regional assemblies in England will have to be given exactly the same powers as are to be given to a Scottish assembly—in other words, the gutting of England and the end of the Westminster Parliament.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, to return to the more immediate Question on the Order Paper, does not my noble and learned friend agree that travelling through the Highland areas of Scotland and the Border country it is very easy to understand why each Member of Parliament represents a smaller number of constituents than the average in England because the population is sparse? It is across the central belt of
1060
Scotland where the comparison can be made much more closely with the highly populated areas of England. That is where the trouble is.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. Circumstances are very different in the remote rural parts of Scotland and, given its geography, one understands why the Western Isles constituency has an electorate of only some 22,000. Perhaps I may reassure my noble friend that some years ago the central Glasgow constituencies had very small electorates. However, I am glad to say that that position has been corrected and the three smallest Scottish constituencies are now remote rural constituencies. A further boundary review is under way, and I believe that in the west central belt the figures will more or less come up to the Scottish average.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, given the strength of the Lander in Germany and the undoubted power of the Federal German Government, why does the Minister think that regional devolution in Great Britain would lead to the demise of the Westminster Parliament?
Lord Mottistone: Because we are not Germans!
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that question seems to have been answered for me. My concern is that, while I regard Scotland within the Union as a nation, I also regard England within the Union as a nation and I do not believe that it does anyone in England any good to have what has been the unity of England for some 800 years broken up.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel. We should get this straight. When the referendum was held in, I think, 1979 he made a clear statement that he would introduce a proper devolution Bill and that we should not therefore vote on the Bill that was then put forward by the Government. That caused distortion and a great deal of feeling against devolution among Conservatives. Fortunately, there are now even fewer Conservatives in Scotland than there were then. He also suggested that there was some support for devolution at one time. May I quote—
Noble Lords: No. Question!
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, a very distinguished Member of the other House, who is reckoned to be possibly the next Foreign Secretary, made it clear that he was totally in favour of devolution for Scotland. I am referring to the present Secretary of State for Defence, Malcolm Rifkind, as well as which—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, if Scotland had had proper representation on geographic terms, I understand that there would be something like 90 Members for Scotland. Whatever the Government expect to do now, I believe that Conservative

1061
representation in Scotland is now running at about the same percentage as that for Gerry Adams in Northern Ireland.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the important thing that the noble Lord, Lord Home, revealed at the time of the referendum was that the proposals that were being put before the Scottish people were fundamentally flawed. In the 15 years that have elapsed since then, no significant effort has been made to eliminate those flaws. To return to the Question, I want Scottish constituencies to remain as they are. In particular, I hope that the West Lothian constituency will continue to vex us for a considerable time!

Public Utilities: Managerial Salaries
3.3 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswickasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the present financial rewards being received by chairmen, directors and senior management in the privatised public utilities are in accordance with the Government's original privatisation objectives.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, privatisation has proceeded fully in accordance with the original objectives. In line with those objectives, management issues, including remuneration, are matters for the companies themselves and their shareholders.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, unfortunately the Minister is disagreeing with what the Prime Minister said yesterday at Question Time when he said that he did not support such astronomical salary increases. Is it not the case that the people who are now running the privatised, former public sector industries are disgorging labour rapidly in order to buttress their own salaries? Is it not disgraceful that most of the people who are being sacked were doing reasonable jobs within the community? Is not that an outstanding example of avarice on the part of those who are acting simply for personal gain?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not think that I will take a lesson on avarice and envy from the Labour Party. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made two things abundantly clear. The first is that he does not agree with excessive and unjustified wage increases; and the second is the point that I made in my Answer, which is that the companies concerned are in the private sector and remuneration is a matter for them and their shareholders.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that under the capitalist system there is no problem over paying people highly, but those who receive that high pay may well have a problem earning it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Indeed, that point encompasses a much wider field than merely the
1062
chairmen and chief executives of companies that were previously in the public sector. It encompasses all other companies, as well as people like footballers who seem extraordinarily well paid, and television and media personalities among others. Indeed, if I dare say so in your Lordships' House, it might even include some lawyers who earn what most of us would consider to be fairly astronomical fees. My question is whether the Labour Party is going to set up a body to regulate all those incomes.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, the Minister said that this is a matter for the shareholders. The Government say that frequently, but is the Minister aware that the power of the shareholders is much exaggerated? The big institutional shareholders do not want to get involved, and many of the smaller shareholders are retired people who do not have the resources to organise any opposition to such enormous and disgraceful pay rises.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government appreciate the important role which institutional shareholders have to play in this and other regards. On a number of occasions when this issue has arisen my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it quite clear that we wish to encourage institutional shareholders to play an active part in such companies, most of which they own.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords—
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Lord has already spoken this afternoon.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Campbell!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, we have one minute left for Questions. I know that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman has wanted to get in, but if the noble Lord is quick, I imagine that there may be time for another question.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am always extremely brief. The Minister referred to "avarice and envy". I am not sure that I am avaricious, but I am certainly envious of such salaries and I would not beat about the bush on that point. I only wish that I had the chance of them! Is the Minister really saying what he appears to be saying, which is that the privatisations have occurred exactly as the Government predicted and that these salaries are therefore what the Government predicted? If the Minister is saying that, how can his right honourable friend the Prime Minister possibly complain about them? If it has gone according to plan, what is the argument about on the Government's side?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, there are two issues. I have made it perfectly clear that the companies are in the private sector and that we accept that these are matters for those private companies. On the noble Lord's point about privatisation, electricity consumers have seen an 8 per cent. price reduction in real terms in the past two years; the price of gas has fallen by 23 per cent. in real terms; and British Telecom's prices have come down by 38 per cent. in real terms since privatisation. I should have thought that those are things to be welcomed.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank and the Lord Perry of Walton set down for this day shall each be limited to2½ hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Prison Service
3.8 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bankrose to call attention, in the light of recent escapes and disturbances, to the arrangements for policy-making, management and accountability as they affect the Prison Service in England and Wales; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on 19th December last year, the Home Secretary, Michael Howard, made a Statement in another place about Sir John Woodcock's report on the escape of six category A prisoners from Whitemoor Prison the previous September. He said that the report revealed,
"a dreadful state of affairs".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/12/94; col. 1397.],
and he accepted 64 recommendations for change.
On 10th January, a fortnight ago, the Home Secretary made a further Statement to the Commons, this time mainly about the escape of two category A and one category B prisoner from Parkhurst Prison. He said that the preliminary inquiry showed,
"serious failures at local level … specific lapses on the night in question".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/95; col. 32.]
The Governor of Parkhurst was removed.
Two other events occurred between 19th December and 10th January. On New Year's Day, Frederick West, awaiting trial at Winson Green Prison, was found hanging in his cell. On the evening of the following day, there were serious disturbances at Everthorpe Prison on Humberside.
Each of those events was bad enough in itself, but taken together they caused a public outcry. There is now genuine apprehension about what may happen next. Some press comment has been mischievous and shown no understanding of the problems of managing prisons, but one question is entirely legitimate and has inevitably been asked: who is to blame and who allowed it to happen? Anyone reading Sir John Woodcock's report must be profoundly shocked, and the manner of the escape from Parkhurst too is shocking.
To the question who is to blame, the Home Secretary's reply has been simple and consistent, "Not me". His justification for that answer has also been consistent, if sometimes convoluted: that he is responsible to Parliament for policy not operations, and that all those appalling events were due to operational failures. But what is so clear to Mr. Howard is not so clear to everyone.
The question of resignation is for the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. Thirteen years ago the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, resigned as Foreign Secretary
1064
because he believed he had made an error of judgment. It was an honourable gesture by a brave, widely respected, and honourable man. It is for Mr. Howard to decide where his duty lies. I say this with regret and reluctance, but no gesture would do more to restore public confidence and raise morale in the Prison Service than his resignation.
As many noble Lords will be aware, the Home Office is one of the great offices of state and it is held by the incumbent in trust for his successors. It is not a property to be used lightly for personal or narrow party political purposes.
I do not intend today to discuss the Parkhurst escape in detail, but the governor's fate is central to the question of the arrangements for policy making, management and accountability in the Prison Service. On the day of the Home Secretary's Statement (10th January) came the news of what had happened to Mr. Marriott. First, it appeared that he had been sacked. Then it was said that he had been suspended. Next we heard that he had been transferred. In his Statement to the other place, the Home Secretary said that Mr. Marriott had been removed from his duties, and, in a circular letter to governors, the director general said that he was not sacked or suspended but was taking on other duties.
Those possibilities are not all mutually exclusive, but they left in the public mind much confusion about what had happened to Mr. Marriott. He seems at least to have been decisively sacked from Parkhurst, unless the Minister can today promise, without qualification, that returning there as governor is one of the options open to him. Failing that, it is fair to say that he has been sacked, and on the basis of an internal inquiry conducted by Mr. Richard Tilt, the prison director of security, who reports to Mr. Derek Lewis, the director general, who reports to the Home Secretary.
A week ago, Mr. Lewis appeared before a Select Committee of the other place. He agreed that he had seen the Home Secretary on the day that Mr. Marriott was removed from his post, but rejected any suggestion that the Home Secretary had interfered with an operational decision. Of course we must accept the director general's carefully chosen words. But what would a transcript of the conversation show? Surely not that the Home Secretary had no views of his own about the matter. Might not he have said, "You have read the papers, and I have a Statement to make in the House. You are appointed to make tough decisions. For God's sake I hope that you have made them".
I do not want to put words into the Home Secretary's mouth, but, given public and parliamentary concern, he could hardly have said anything else. Whether that represents interference, noble Lords are free to judge. I understand that the Minister may herself have been present at that meeting.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way at this time. He is making very, very serious statements. He is impugning the honesty of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I was present at every meeting between the director general and my right

1065
honourable friend the Home Secretary on that day. I therefore ask the noble Lord, in the traditions of this House, to give the basis upon which he is making serious allegations.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I have made a very serious statement; I have made no allegations. I gave way out of courtesy to the Minister. I said that I understood that she was present at that meeting. She confirms that she was present at that meeting. I look forward to hearing what she says about the words used. I did not claim that those were the actual words used. I said that I did not want to put words into the Home Secretary's mouth. If I do not have the spirit of that conversation, of course I shall apologise to the Home Secretary, but only if the Minister will tell the House today the words which were used and convey to us the spirit of the occasion.
The point I am making—the Minister's impatience prevented her from seeing this—is that the relationship between the Home Secretary and the head of the Prison Service is inevitably a close one. That is the burden of my message today. Although I say it now when I intended to reach it later, my message to the House, and the point to which I hope the Minister will turn her attention, is that it is impossible to separate policy from operations in the Prison Service, and that being so, it is false and a fiction to pretend that there can be an arm's length relationship between the Home Secretary and the head of the Prison Service.
It remains the case, and I challenge the Minister to say otherwise, that throughout that period—from his Statement of 19th December to his Statement of 20th January—the Home Secretary's reply to every suggestion of responsibility was, "I am not to blame. It is an operational matter, and therefore not a matter for the Home Secretary". Again, the Minister shakes her head. I ask her to read all the comments—I heard them on radio and television—and I read what the Home Secretary said in another place. At every stage he said, "This is an operational matter and not a policy one".
If the Minister doubts that there is an issue, perhaps she will look at paragraph 9.28 of Sir John Woodcock's report when he focused on that very question. He said:
"There exists at all levels within the Service some confusion as to the respective roles of Ministers, the Agency Headquarters and individual Prison Governors. In particular, the Enquiry has identified the difficulty of determining what is an operational matter and what is policy".
Sir John Woodcock's report was accepted by the Home Secretary in another place. He accepted that statement which, as I understand it, the Minister now seeks to dispute.
Noble Lords will know well that many of the decisions which are claimed to be policy decisions have serious operational consequences. How could one expect otherwise? The Home Secretary, in a debate on the Address, said a number of things which come into that category. He said:
"Prison will always part a vital part in the criminal justice system … I want it to be more effective still in the future, and that is why I am proposing far-reaching changes to our prison regime".
Announcing new arrangements for temporary prison leave, he went on to say that they will be:
1066
"likely to lead to a reduction of about 40 per cent. in the amount of leave granted".
Those are the operational consequences of a policy decision. He went on to commend austerity in prisons. Referring to reports of lax conditions and privileges handed out as a matter of course, he said:
"I shall soon announce a new system of privileges and sanctions. Under that new system, privileges will have to be earned by good behaviour and will be removed for bad behaviour".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/94; cols. 243–4.]
In his further remarks he referred to drug taking in prisons.
At this moment I am not discussing the merits of the proposals. But if the Home Secretary sees them as matters of policy appropriate to himself—I do not for the moment dispute that—he cannot then wash his hands of the consequences as operational matters. I said that I did not wish to discuss the merits of the Home Secretary's policy proposals. That is not our business today. But I should like to ask the Minister one policy question.
The report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Justice Woolf, and Judge Stephen Tumim on the prison disturbances of 1990 was widely welcomed in all quarters for its scope and authority. It was, I believe, welcomed in this House. As a result, in autumn 1991 the Government published a White Paper called Custody, Care and Justice. The opening paragraph of the White Paper reads:
"This White Paper charts a course for the Prison Service in England and Wales for the rest of this century and beyond".
My question to the Minister is: would she confirm that the White Paper still represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government and that the recommendations of the Woolf Report, accepted by the then Home Secretary, continue to be implemented?
I turn to the origins and basis of the present arrangement for the Prison Service. There are four rather glossy documents which two years ago, in the words of the then Home Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, set a new direction for the Prison Service in the 1990s. There is a framework document, a corporate plan, a business plan and a citizen's charter. That is quite a lot of paper. The first three documents contain a statement on purpose, vision, goals and values. Those are supplemented by further statements on integrity, commitment, care, equality of opportunity, innovation and improvement.
What matters today is the framework document. In effect, it sets out the terms of reference of the Prison Service and contains a description of how it fits into the Home Office. There are short sections on planning, finance and personnel matters which seem to be unexceptionable. But there is also a section on accountability, which explains the role of the main players in the current drama. Again I quote:
"[The Home Secretary] will not normally become involved in the day to day management of the Prison Service, but will expect to be consulted by the Director General on the handling of operational matters which could give rise to grave public or parliamentary concern … [The permanent secretary] is responsible for advising the Home Secretary on the Prison Service's corporate and business plans, proposed key targets and performance".
The director general, in addition to responsibility for day to day management:

1067
"is also the Home Secretary's principal policy adviser on matters relating to the Prison Service".
I referred to the Home Secretary's role; I hope that I referred to the permanent secretary's role; and now I have referred to the director general's role. In terms of the framework document, as the Home Secretary's principal policy adviser, the director general is responsible for preparing the Prison Service's corporate and business plans, upon which the permanent secretary is responsible for advising the Home Secretary. That is not simply opaque language; it appears to be opaque thinking as well.
The document goes on to refer to Members of Parliament. It says that they should be encouraged to write to the director general, who has "delegated responsibility". Nowhere else in the framework document does the phrase "delegated responsibility" occur. There is no list of matters which the Home Secretary has delegated to the director general.
There is also one curious omission from the framework document. The ministerial strength of the Home Office has grown inexorably over the years, despite the loss of Northern Ireland to the Northern Ireland Office a quarter of a century ago. After the war, when Mr Shuter Ede was Home Secretary there was one parliamentary secretary. In 1952 there were two parliamentary secretaries. By 1964 there was one minister of state and two parliamentary secretaries. By 1974 there Were two ministers of state and one parliamentary secretary. Since 1987 there have been three ministers of state and one parliamentary secretary.
Noble Lords may wonder what three ministers of state find to do. But one of them, Mr. Michael Forsyth, according to the Cabinet Office list of ministerial responsibilities, "oversees policies relating to prisons". But there is no mention of a minister of state in the framework document. I do not know where the minister of state fits in. There is the Home Secretary, the permanent secretary and the director general. Where does the minister of state fit in? What are his responsibilities? How does his accountability fit?
There is a further development which makes this even more fascinating as an exercise in how government should not be conducted. In his Statement to the House on 19th December, the Home Secretary announced "a new unit"—as he called it —"outside the Prison Service". It was intended:
"to strengthen Ministers' ability to supervise the performance of the Prison Service".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/12/94; col. 1400.]
I hope that the Minister will tell the House how that will fit into the organisational structure of the framework document. Will the new unit be staffed by career civil servants or by personal and political appointees? What will be their level of seniority and to whom will they report? A month has passed since the Home Secretary's announcement. Given the urgency of these matters, all those points should be settled. I hope that the House can count on a very clear statement of the new organisational framework when the Minister replies to the debate today.
1068
If she has time, the Minister might also refer to the role of Sir John Learmont, who is conducting a review, and to the role of Sir David Yardly, who is conducting another review. Perhaps he will explain to the House where they fit in with the continuing role of Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons, Judge Tumim.
Those are very serious matters indeed. They go far beyond the behaviour of the present Home Secretary. They raise questions about the structure of government. They raise questions about whether an executive agency is a suitable way of dealing with such highly sensitive matters. I do not believe that the Home Secretary - any Home Secretary—can divorce himself from matters of such parliamentary and public concern. But if he cannot divorce himself from them, the accountability set in the framework document may not make sense for the future of the Prison Service. Whatever decision the Home Secretary may make, or whatever the Minister may say today, there remain serious problems about policy-making, management and accountability. Those are matters for government and it is critically important that they are addressed by ministers without delay.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.29 p.m.
Lord Woolf: My Lords, it was almost exactly four years ago that Judge Tumim and I delivered our report on the prisons, to which reference has been made by the noble Lord. We were more fortunate than others who have the task of writing such reports in that, as noble Lords heard, our recommendations were almost unanimously taken up by the Government in their White Paper, to which the noble Lord also referred.
The White Paper was entitled Custody, Care and Justice, the Way Ahead for the Prison Service in England and Wales. The title was, of course, not chosen at random. It was chosen because it reflected an immensely important theme of my report, which was that if the Prison Service was to emerge from what was then accepted to be a very unsatisfactory state, it was necessary for there to be a programme of change implemented over a period of years which would achieve a proper balance between custody, care and justice —the words which appear in the title of the White Paper. One of our recommendations was that it was essential that there should be what was described as a structured stand-off between Ministers and the Prison Service. There should be a head of the Prison Service who was in a position to give the visible leadership to that service which it craved and which it undoubtedly needed. The requirement for that divide between Ministers and the service remains today. It is because of that that I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for raising this subject for debate before your Lordships. It goes to the very heart of the proper running of the Prison Service and therefore goes to the effectiveness of the whole criminal justice system.
The relationship between Ministers and the Prison Service is difficult and delicate. My report and the White Paper which followed said with regard to the management of the Prison Service that that was a matter of importance. It was followed by the report of Admiral Sir Raymond Lygo. He commented that the Prison

1069
Service was the most complex organisation that he had encountered and its problems some of the most intractable. He reiterated the need for greater managerial independence for the Prison Service from the Home Office. He recommended a clear division between continuing political—that is ministerial—accountability for the major policy and resource issues and managerial authority for day-to-day operations. He also recommended agency status, and that has been achieved.
Although when I finished producing my report my direct involvement with the prison system came to an end, I was fortunate to be able to keep in touch with what was occurring within it because of my position as chairman of the Butler Trust, a charity which is devoted to recognising and spreading excellence in the Prison Service. I was heartened by the progress which over the ensuing years the Prison Service was able to achieve. The three Home Secretaries who have been in office since that time and the three Ministers responsible for prisons who have been in post can rightly claim credit to the extent that their policies have contributed to what has occurred. However, the main credit must go to the two director generals who have been in office during the period of change—first, Mr. Joe Pilling and, secondly, Mr. Derek Lewis, the present Director General—and their staff. The two director generals, neither of whose backgrounds suggested that they were ideal choices to play this role, have provided the visible leadership which was necessary.
The director of the Butler Trust has told me how during the course of his many visits to prisons throughout the country, he has heard universal praise from the most junior staff upwards for what Mr. Lewis has shown to be his deep involvement in what is happening in all prison establishments. Together with his staff, he has achieved a change in ethos in the Prison Service. The Prison Service has also had to absorb a radical programme of change to which it would be difficult for any organisation to adjust. In my view the public has cause to be grateful to the Prison Service for the way in which it has coped with that. As to part of this change, I am, as a matter of principle, not comfortable with the introduction of market testing and the involvement of the private sector within a service which has the responsibility of keeping secure those whom courts sentence to imprisonment. But I have to accept that the involvement of the private sector has had its positive side. It has proved to be a catalyst for change and, incidentally, in relation to the escorting of prisoners by Group 4, has been responsible for some of the best cartoons and jokes about prisons over recent years.
While, therefore, there is much to approve of which has occurred since my report, over the past 12 months there have been events which have caused me real concern for the future of the Prison Service. I believe that what has happened could put at risk all that has been achieved and, what is more important, could be achieved.
My views of the mounting prison population are well known. They provide the background to what I am now going to say because an increasing population puts an insidious stress upon the prison system as a whole. What now causes me concern is that a series of
1070
sensational events have resulted in immediate policy statements which could result in interference with the day-to-day management of prisons which would undermine what the Prison Service is seeking to achieve.
In any prison system there will inevitably be worrying events from time to time. After all, in prisons there is a concentration of dangerous, evil prisoners as well as those of whom it is questionable whether they should be there at all. The prisoners, to differing degrees, have been deprived of their liberty and are subject to what is now referred to as austere conditions. Among the prisoners are those who are in Category A, some of whom remain in prison for an exceedingly long time—sometimes for life—because their return to the community could seriously endanger the public.
When in prison, that category of prisoner is subject to intense scrutiny. It is very difficult to achieve a balance between security and justice for such prisoners. But the Prison Service does its best. If those prisoners escape, there is understandable outrage. It could be possible to reduce to a minimum that danger by keeping them locked up 22 hours a day, but that would be intolerable, inhuman and unacceptable. Other prisoners return to the community relatively quickly. It is important that they are returned in circumstances when it is most likely that they will not offend again.
What worries me is that, for example, in recent times we have had a sensational offence committed by children and immediately resources are found and decisions made to provide new prisons especially designed to deal with children. No consideration is given to the alternatives which perhaps deserve resources of that kind to a greater degree. Relate has referred to the distressing repetition of children from broken homes repeating the pattern of conduct of their parents, which results in a life of crime. Again, there are cases of prisoners not returning from home leave which are, quite wrongly, reported in the media. Immediately, changes are made in the temporary release and home leave systems, which are an important part of the proper functioning of any prison system.
Now we have the problems to which the Home Secretary referred in his Statement on 10th January this year. In regard to the disturbances the noble Lord referred to the Statement that the Home Secretary made, they were, in part, attributed to the attempts by the governor to curb the misuse of drugs. That was in accord with the policy. However, the policy was introduced without the necessary back-up. There are a few full-time intensive addiction treatment providers in the English prison system. One is the Addictive Diseases Trust, of which I have the honour to be patron. The trust has considerable experience and success in the area but, as I understand it, no such treatment was available at Everthorpe. If it had been, it might have reduced the risk of the disturbance that occurred there.
The escapes from Whitemoor and Parkhurst should not have occurred. It is, however, essential that those incidents are kept in proportion. There should be a

1071
measured response to rectify any lack of balance which has occurred between the requirements of security, care and justice. Problems of that nature must be kept in proportion. I appreciate the difficulties created for Ministers, but I deeply regret the response, the tone of which gave a misleading impression, to which reference has already been made. For example, I am told on good authority about another governor walking around his establishment afterwards who was confronted by prisoner after prisoner asking, "Guv'—is it your turn next?" What does that do for the stability and proper running of a prison?
Having regard to the seriousness of the events which took place, I do not criticise the fact that the Woodcock Inquiry is now to be followed by the Learmont Inquiry. However, I am concerned that, once more, we have a situation where the reports are restricted to prison security. That can produce the unbalanced result which I think would be a danger to the prison system.
What is needed is not more ministerial interference but less. Where the prison service is bringing about a process of change, it and its Director General needs support. It needs stability. I hope that it will be allowed to continue upon its path of progress in the measured way that the service requires.
3.42 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow two speakers who have such an honoured place in my regard. I was a lifelong friend—having shared rooms with him at Oxford—of the late Hugh Gaitskell. When his career faced total destruction, it was the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, who saved him by undertaking a campaign which eventually reinstated him and gave him back control of the Labour Party. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, has moved since then, but we all move about as time goes on. However, that achievement will never be forgotten, especially not by me.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, paid tribute to the valuable assistance that he received from one of my most esteemed public figures, Judge Tumim. That will probably be the most famous report in the history of penal reform. So, there again, one pays him tribute.
I cannot pretend that I agree with the noble and learned Lord's cheery view of the way that the ethos in prisons is improving. I know that it is about four years since the report was produced and that he is a very busy man. However, I visit a prison every week. I should like to persuade the noble and learned Lord to accompany me on such visits. He would be very lucky to find anyone at the governor, officer or prisoner level who would say a good word for Mr. Michael Howard. He would indeed be very lucky. Therefore, I am afraid that I do not go along with the idea that there is some improvement in the prison ethos.
We must all submit to the iron discipline of the House. Therefore, my contribution may be no more than a sound bite. However, I have asked one of my
1072
close friends to warn me when I am in danger of running out of time. I shall just continue until that moment arrives. There are so many topics that one could mention under the heading of today's debate. I am so glad to know that my noble friend Lady Gould is speaking on behalf of prison officers. They need someone to champion them. I know that my noble friend will do so most effectively.
There are two topics to which I should have liked to refer, one of which I have mentioned before—the first is the question of the recall of life prisoners—but, again, time does not permit me to do so. The second is a new topic which has come to me lately from those closest to women's prisons; namely, the need for a new secure unit for long-term women prisoners. Nevertheless, I shall not deal with that aspect either.
I shall come to the point and express, yet again, in the clearest possible way my detestation of the penal philosophy of Mr. Michael Howard. I am bound to say that that detestation is widely shared among those who know most about prisons at any level. The Daily Mail—still, I gather, in some reactionary kind of way—supports Mr. Howard's general principles. However, even that newspaper admits that he has made a mistake in antagonising prison governors, prison officers and prisoners all at the same time. The Daily Mail might have added to that list the judiciary. After all, the judiciary convicted him of gross illegality. Incidentally, there is also the police, the Probation Service and the Civil Service to be considered. A representative of the latter has written to The Times to call Mr. Howard to order. Indeed, he has done about as much as one can do to antagonise everyone who is relevant in that world.
What is Mr. Howard's policy? Well, he has made it pretty plain: he wants to make prisons more unpleasant. He has said that prison works. That means that he sends more people to prison. But we do not have time to discuss that aspect of the matter. While people are in prison, Mr. Howard wants them to have a more unpleasant time than they had previously. Let us not be personal about it. I am aware that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House does not like us to mention personalities. However, the grandfather of the present Leader of the House, the former Marquess of Salisbury, on one occasion accused a noble Lord of oleaginous hypocrisy. But he hastened to add with a disarming smile, "I am not saying anything personal about the noble Lord". Well, in the same spirit, I am not saying anything personal about Mr. Michael Howard's private life. That is understood to be beyond reproach. I am merely talking about his policies, which seem to me to be rather evil, or worse, if that is possible.
What does Mr. Howard stand for? He has the idea of making prisons more unpleasant. Previous Home Secretaries have not adopted that tone. Indeed, we have had half a dozen of them since 1979 and, on the whole, with one possible exception—and I shall not dwell on that—they have tried to make life a little more civilised, humane and more in accordance with Christian principles for prisoners. Of course, some of

1073
the Ministers of State have been outstanding. I have in mind the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who has written two classic books on the history of penal reform since the war.
However, Mr. Howard comes along and strikes a new note: indeed, life has to be made worse and more unpleasant for prisoners. Although we must not mince our words, we must try to be fair to Mr. Howard. That is a task which I find peculiarly difficult; but I keep on trying. We must remember that he did not appoint himself. Moreover, he did not retain himself in office during these disastrous years. Indeed, the Prime Minister appointed him.
What did the Prime Minister say at that Conservative Conference which in the eyes of many of us was one of the most appalling events in the history—I was going to say of the world; but that is overdoing it—of penal reform? The Prime Minister said that we must condemn more and understand less. I do not suppose that the noble Baroness, or, indeed, anyone else in the House, will defend the last part; but, as regards "understand less", perhaps it will be said that it was misreported. In regard to condemning more, well, as St. Augustine would have said, we must:
"Love the sinner but [condemn] the sin".
No one can doubt the fact that the policy introduced in the Conservative Party Conference of 1993 was a new policy, but no one can say that it was in accord with the ideas of the Woolf Report, which had been accepted not so long before.
What does that policy amount to? Well, it means many more people in prison and things like saying that some people should go to prison for life—that is quite new—or, for example, that a few people should rot and die in prison. That is also quite new. I hope that that will never come to pass in reality. Mr. Michael Howard cannot ensure that it does. He will not live for ever; indeed, nor will I. Therefore, I do not suppose that it will ever happen. But, nevertheless, that was the iniquitous thing. I would call it obscene, although there may be worse words that some noble Lords with a wider command of vocabulary would use.
I should like to mention one topic referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers; namely, the cutting of home leave by 40 per cent. No one can say that that was the kind of thing that Mr. Lewis would welcome. I have met him once and he is a charming man. I blame him for nothing; I praise him for nothing. I believe that he has been placed in an impossible position and he is doing his best in a position in which he should never have been placed. That is how I view Mr. Lewis. As regards cutting home leave, that is another aspect of making life more unpleasant for prisoners.
I visit prisons every week. Recently I was going to visit one or two prisoners, one of whom had agreed the day before to see me. However, when I arrived he did not wish to see me. Noble Lords may sympathise with him and think that that is understandable. It has happened before now but not all that often. I therefore accepted that. However, the
1074
prisoner's friend wrote to me offering his apologies for the incident. I want noble Lords to understand what making life more unpleasant for prisoners in lots of little ways amounts to. The prisoner who refused to see me had been told, just before my visit, that the day out shopping under supervision which he had been promised had been cancelled. He was so depressed that he did not feel like receiving any visitors.
Perhaps that is just a small thing but that sort of thing is happening over the whole front of prison activities. It is happening in all prisons, and I visit all these prisons. What does that mean for the prison officers who have to tell the prisoners—some of whom are there for many years—"Sorry, it has been decided that life will be a bit harder in future"? The prisoners ask, "Who has decided that?" The prison officers will then say, "It is not the fault of Mr. Lewis. It has been decided by Mr. Michael Howard". The prisoners then ask, "What does he know about it?" In fact he knows nothing about it. He visited Brixton once before he became Home Secretary. That is all the prisoners know about the position but, as far as they are concerned, the Howard policy poisons the whole atmosphere in prisons. That is why I cannot agree with the eminent noble and learned Lord who spoke before me that life in prisons is better. I believe it is worse. I do not wish to stir up any trouble as regards talking about the chance of riots but I think it will be an awkward year in that respect. What are we really talking about here? We are talking about life being made more unpleasant for prisoners.
We must regard this as a fundamental issue. Are we going to reverse the policy that has been carried on over past years? One of the top Home Office officials explained that Mr. Howard was introducing a dramatic change. However, today if one is at all interested in these matters one has either to be in favour of the policy of Michael Howard, supported by the Prime Minister and his colleagues, or against it. I am against it.
I have seen great changes in this House. We are told that public opinion is in favour of Mr. Michael Howard. I wonder whether that is the case. It is hard to know what public opinion amounts to. People write nasty letters to me, but they also write nice ones. Curiously enough, I receive more nice letters in old age than I received when I was younger. At any rate one receives many letters from which to adduce the state of public opinion. I believe that a Home Secretary who just tries to pick up the latest news from the street corner is to be despised. I am afraid I have to use that word as regards the policy of Mr. Howard. I think it is a contemptible policy. As someone who has visited prisons for many years, I must make that plain.
However, I hope and pray that all that will pass away. Party politics aside, it is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, cannot become Home Secretary, but that would be too much to hope for. At any rate some Conservative, or possibly a Labour person, will take up office after Mr. Howard, and Mr.

1075
Howard's policy will seem like a bad dream. I hope and pray that the whole age of Howard will seem like a bad dream.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, over the past 25 years I have had to follow my noble friend Lord Longford often and I have always found that difficult because he gets the House into a good temper and leaves me to bring it back to normal. Therefore it is with some hesitation that I speak today.
I want to begin by saying that I am proud and pleased to have heard the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I shall not mention at least half a dozen matters I should have liked to discuss because the noble and learned Lord has already done so. I refer, for example, to Category A prisoners, children, home leave, drugs, and one thing he did not remark on but something that his report remarks on in great detail, and that is remand. These are all important matters. I shall not talk about them and I shall not even talk about my noble friend's opening speech, which is about the past. I shall consider the present and the future, and I hope I shall do so briefly.
I am grateful to my noble friend for opening this debate not in the usual way, which consists of asking what is wrong with the Prison Service, but for asking, if there is something wrong,—as I think he would be the first to admit—whose business is it to put it right? I will give him a short but irritating answer: it is the Treasury's business. We all know many things which ought to be put right, but year after year they are not put right, and that is, simply, because there are no votes in prisons and it is considered better to spend the quite large sums needed on other less uninteresting but more vote-winning projects. That applies, I am afraid, to all governments.
But at least we have the Woolf Report. This was regarded by more or less everybody with any experience as an illuminating and a brilliant report, and we all hoped the Home Secretary would accept its 12 major and 200 minor recommendations and get along with acting on them. At least after this no one could justify inaction. After due consideration, the new Home Secretary said he would accept, in principle, 11 of the 12 major recommendations, and would begin at once to work on some of them, and indeed did so. But, alas, Recommendation No. 7, which he had refused, was the recommendation about limiting overcrowding, and it is hardly an exaggeration to say that without some vigorous action on overcrowding many of the other recommendations could not be made to work effectively.
Overcrowding has a disastrous effect on staff morale, and a disastrous effect on all the improvements which have been gradually introduced to make imprisonment more tolerable and more constructive for those confined. The result is a dissatisfied staff and resentful prisoners, which is not a good background for a happy life. The growing mood of harshness is leading to the imprisonment of increasing numbers of non-violent and minor offenders for whom community sentences would
1076
be a better option with a much greater chance of preventing reoffending. The pressure of excessive numbers also prevents the Prison Service from providing full and positive regimes for all prisoners which can equip them to lead law-abiding lives on release.
In 1969, which is quite a long time ago, I opened a debate on the subject of prison reform saying,
"There is a prerequisite to any prison reform, that is to get rid of overcrowding".
Eighteen years later I repeated myself and now, after another six years, that situation is as bad as it ever was and getting worse. The number of prisoners on 31st December 1994 was 48,304—a 19 per cent. rise in two years. It is expected to reach 51,000 this year. This rise, as has already been said by my noble predecessor in the debate, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is the direct result of penal policy, summarised in the Home Secretary's slogan "prison works". He encouraged the courts to send more people to prison, and he encouraged them to give longer sentences, and they have responded.
One cannot correct overcrowding by increasing the number shut up. In the overcrowded local prisons the pressure is such that the prison officer can hardly do his proper job, which is keeping order. He can hardly touch the more interesting part of his work, which is correcting bullying and helping his prisoners with their home and private problems, which every prison officer regards as a proper part of his duty.
On 20th January last, there were still 111 people held in police cells because no prison had room for them. Overcrowding in local prisons ranged from a high of 81 per cent. in Leicester to 44 per cent. in other prisons. That is an impossible situation. It is not a situation for which anyone has made any effort to find a solution. I made a suggestion some time ago which consisted of letting people out of prison before letting others in, but nobody took any notice of it, so I shall not go into it again, although I believe that it is the right answer.
An overstretched system is also forced into transferring many prisoners to prisons far from their home areas, reducing contact with their families and increasing dissatisfaction and tension among prisoners. On 9th March, Brendan O'Friel, chairman of the Prison Governors' Association, said:
"We are building up a significant number of prisoners with a justifiable grudge against the Prison Service for moving them so far away from home … Steps must be taken to bring this to an end or it will bring trouble within our prisons".
The present difficult state of overcrowding is the direct result of penal policy. There has to be a solution. Only a Home Secretary, by his own actions, can do anything to change the situation for the better. It is clearly his responsibility, and we want to know what he proposes to do to ease the situation, which will soon again become explosive. The situation is very depressing, but at least we can agree where the responsibility lies.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I shall keep well within my time, but I should like to make one or

1077
two points in a debate which touches on some of what we shall discuss next week on the Motion about the Civil Service.
As an ordinary newspaper reader, I thought it a little odd that, at a time when the Home Secretary was saying that prison conditions should be made more austere, it turned out that some of those for whom he was responsible were in the habit of sending out prison officers to buy their wines and lobsters. I could not help thinking that in those distant days when I was deputy chairman of the Prison Commission, a body which in its time stood a little aloof from the Home Office, we might have known that we were not carrying out the Minister's wishes. Also, although obviously we were lacking in management skills in those days, I like to think that we would have had the nous not to put into effect a decision to transfer prisoners to Northern Ireland at a time calculated to cause the maximum possible political embarrassment to the Government.
There is a much more serious point. When I joined the Home Office, the chairman of the Prison Commission was Harold Scott, who went on to hold two Permanent Secretary posts and ended a spectacular career by being made commissioner of police for the metropolis. His predecessor, Alexander Maxwell, another career civil servant, went on to become one of the great Permanent Secretaries at the Home Office and masterminded the work leading to the very important Criminal Justice Act 1948.
With their wide experience of other parts of the Home Office and their background knowledge of government, civil servants of that calibre were able, during the time they ran the prisons, to make a special contribution to discussions with Ministers on penal policy in general, whereas someone brought in from outside for his management expertise can hardly be expected to be equipped to make any such contribution. I do not imply any criticism of the highly paid Mr. Lewis, who, as my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf explained, has achieved a good deal, even if rather too many things seem to have gone wrong recently. I am also glad that the noble and learned Lord paid a special tribute to Mr. Pilling, the previous head of the Prison Department.
Of course I recognise that since those days long ago matters have greatly changed and there have been the various developments of which we have heard. The problems have become more complicated, with the increased number of prisoners, problems of drugs, ethnic minorities and so forth. However, I am still concerned about the operation of a more or less independent special agency and its possible impact on the fragmentation of the Civil Service, given that one of the fundamental principles of Northcote Trevelyan was the unity of the service. That is something that we shall give up at our peril.
Looking at the sequence of recent events, I think that Mr. Howard has been unlucky. That tends to happen to Home Secretaries from time to time. However, I cannot accept that there is a sharp distinction between policy and operations and between policy and its implementation, notwithstanding the precedent set by the noble Lord, Lord Prior, in Northern Ireland and by Mr. Kenneth Baker when he was Home Secretary.
1078
My thoughts naturally turned to events in 1966, when there was an abundance of prison escapes, in particular that of George Blake. I have reread the debate on the motion of censure moved against the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, at that time (although he was not then Lord Jenkins). The debate was a little unreal, in that it turned merely on the form of the inquiry that the Home Secretary had set up. But deep passions were aroused and it was a memorable parliamentary occasion. It is of interest that nevertheless there was no demand for the Home Secretary's resignation and also that the Home Secretary unequivocally accepted full responsibility for what had gone wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, in opening the debate, referred to the escapes from Parkhurst and the comments by Sir John Woodcock about confusion in the Prison Service as to where responsibility rests. I do not propose to pursue that issue in any detail. However, we shall all be interested to learn when the Minister winds up the debate whether the decision to move Mr. Marriott was taken solely by Mr. Lewis and simply reported to the Home Secretary as an operational decision. I notice that when the Home Secretary announced that move in the other place he simply referred to it in the passive tense without answering that particular question.
I should like to refer to one other recent incident. On 1st December (col. 699 of Hansard refers), I asked a Question about the regrettable number of assaults on prison officers. In reply the noble Baroness gave a helpful list of what was being done. However, I wondered whether that material was simply supplied direct by the Prison Service or whether it was filtered through the Home Office. The Minister explained that a reduction in the level of violence was a strategic priority. The Prison Service itself put that rather differently in its own statistical return, in what I regard as one of the most delightfully ambiguous sentences I have ever encountered in an official publication. The sentence reads:
"The number of assaults on staff, prisoners and others, which account for about five per cent of all offences is now one of the key performance indicators of the Prison Service".
It sounds exactly like a classic formula for increased productivity.
More seriously, I believe that it is the Minister who settles the key targets for the year. I wonder how that is done. Is it basically an estimate of what the Prison Service thinks that it can achieve? Any enlightenment that the Minister can give us on these matters and the process which is gone through will be received with great interest.
Finally, perhaps the Minister will either later today or by correspondence clear up one small mystery. In the Next Steps review published by the Government last month, the section on the Prison Service states that by March 1994, the target for the year 1993–94—that no prisoners should be held three to a cell designed for one person—had been achieved. I had always thought that targets were hit rather than achieved, but we shall let that pass. The review also states that a key target for 1994–95, the current year, is,

1079
"to ensure that … the average number of prisoners held 3 to a cell in accommodation which is intended for one prisoner is fewer than in 1993–94".
As we are told that the final figure for the previous figure was nought, at first sight it is not clear how that figure could be reduced, but I realise that it is my own lack of management training which makes me unfitted to answer for that conundrum.
4.13 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, before intervening in the debate, I must again declare my interest in that I am acting as an adviser to the Prison Officers' Association. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for initiating this timely debate. It is made even more timely by the figures produced yesterday which indicated that prison riots had risen in 10 years from 38 to 146 at an estimated cost to the taxpayer of £39 million.
The serious erosion of accountability with regard to prison matters has developed since the Prison Service became an executive agency in May 1993. That has been typical of the pattern of agency status since the Next Steps initiative was announced in 1988. The disaster at Whitemoor, the escape from Parkhurst and the rioting at Everthorpe have resulted in no one accepting the blame or responsibility. Perhaps the phrase, "Success has many fathers but failure an orphan is", is appropriate in this instance. Such a series of major errors, of which there had been warning in advance at Parkhurst and Everthorpe, is no coincidence. Either policy or operation must be at fault. Yet the two people responsible, as has been said, both deny that it had anything to do with them.
The continued devolution of powers and responsibilities within the Prison Service has resulted in less and less parliamentary accountability. Everyone can deny responsibility. Yet the inescapable fact is that it is to be the Secretary of State and his Ministers who have to be ultimately responsible. At the end of the day they have to be responsible for both policy and operation of the agency. The reality is that one cannot divorce policy from operation.
The document, Questions of Procedure for Ministers, published in 1992 on the Prime Minister's authority, well after agencies were established, states:
"Each Minister is responsible to Parliament for the conduct of his or her department, and for the actions carried out by the department in pursuit of Government policies or in the discharge of responsibilities laid upon him or her as a Minister".
That must contradict the Home Secretary's claim on 10th January that,
"With regard to operational responsibility, there has always been a division between policy matters and operational matters".— [Official Report, Commons, 10/1/95; col. 40.]
As a result nobody is accountable for the operation in terms of Parliament. A 90-minute cross-examination of the director general every two years by the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place hardly constitutes accountability.
1080
The issue of blurred responsibility is enhanced, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said, by the Director General of the Prison Service having a key policy role as outlined in the framework document. The removal of information from the public sphere is hardly consistent with the statement of purpose, vision, goals and values in the business plan of 1994–95 which states:
"Integrity is fundamental to everything we do. We will meet our legal obligations and act with honesty and openness".
Those are fine words in a glossy brochure. But openness is hardly the byword, particularly in respect of the private prisons, when information is denied on the ground of commercial confidentiality. That failure to address the problems of accountability and responsibility and the lack of leadership, has had a serious effect on the morale of all those who work in the service.
The policy leadership in the Prison Service is in a complete muddle. New and ill-considered changes are announced with little consultation or thought as to the effects in real terms, not least the effects on staff. A recent survey by the Prison Governors' Association reveals staggeringly high numbers who say that they cannot think, sleep or concentrate. David Roddan, the PGA general secretary said that the main culprit was the burden caused by the month to month policy changes of the Government, and the ultimate consequences for the administration. Those changes have ranged from the Criminal Justice Act 1991, to market testing and the introduction of privatisation and, now, the austere regimes of the current Home Secretary.
When the Woolf Report was published in 1991, prison officers, other penal interest groups and the Government accepted it as the definitive future for the Prison Service. We have seen its virtual abandonment by the Government. That lack of consistency and gradual erosion of the conditions in which officers work on a day to day basis is at the root of the loss of morale. I hesitate to disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. But in a Prison Service staff attitude survey, published last year, 60 per cent. of prison officers had worried about their physical safety at some time in the previous six months. A staggering 91 per cent. agreed or strongly agreed that,
"the people who run the prison service don't care enough about the people who have to deal with prisoners face to face",
while only 19 per cent. felt that they worked for a well managed service. That is hardly a vote of confidence for either the Government or the Director General of the Prison Service.
In his report the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, referred to prison overcrowding as the most corrosive influence on the prison system and to the fact that an overcrowded prison is an unstable prison. The prison governors have called on the Home Secretary to introduce a legal limit on gaol overcrowding to avert the risk of riots. But overcrowding is still a problem.
However, even prisons which are undercrowded can experience problems from prisoners who should be in more secure conditions but are placed in lower security conditions. Speaking to the Select Committee in the House of Commons last week, Mr. Lewis believed that the prison population is becoming more violent and

1081
more volatile, and that there is a serious problem now in respect of secure accommodation. Combined with longer times out of cell, that can make inmate population difficult to manage; and the staff certainly feel less secure.
That was a contributory factor in the disturbance at Everthorpe when it was estimated that a number of prisoners were disruptive and would have been better placed in more secure conditions. But those conditions were not available. The Chief Inspector of Prisons, Judge Tumim, in his annual report in 1994, said:
"If regular major disturbances are to be avoided, the Prison Service needs to develop a coherent policy towards the control of Prisoners in Category C prisons, making better use of the secure accommodation".
The pressure on space has also meant too many prisoners being accommodated a long way from their homes, creating a sense of isolation and causing more control problems.
Many prison staff feel that the amount of time that prisoners spend out of their cells has become unmanageable, not because they disagree in principle, but unless it is backed up with activities and staff to occupy the prisoners, control problems can quickly build up. With up to 60 prisoners out of their cells and as few as two staff to manage them, gang cultures, bullying, no-go areas and the passing of drugs can happen almost unchecked. What is needed is an understanding of this problem by the policy makers. Only by having more staff on duty and having more educational and constructive activity for the prisoners, coupled with full management support, can this be overcome.
This also relates to the question of training. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and Judge Tumim have both called for more officer training, yet in the new private sector prisons, which we are told are to be the models of the future, the officers receive only seven weeks' training—half that of officers in other prisons, even though the 13 weeks they receive is grossly inadequate.
A further concern is the new business ethos of the Prison Service. Of course prisons must be run efficiently; but key performance indicators should not represent the absolute judgment of a prison. Often the indicators conflict, or in many situations they may not represent what is best for the management, for that prison at that particular time. We have seen this at Everthorpe, one of the 12 prisons that might be subject to market testing, where the governor—under severe pressure to increase the time out of cell (a key performance indicator) allowed all the prisoners out of their cells the night after the first riot. That was a major factor in the second night of rioting.
Finally, I wish to refer to under-resourcing and under-staffing. Since the 1987 Fresh Start agreement, it is estimated that there has been an equivalent of 4,000 fewer officers on duty arising from hours, including overtime, being reduced from an average of a 57-hour week to a 39-hour week.
We shall no doubt hear from the Minister that there has been an increase in the number of officers employed. That is true, an increase of approximately 4 per cent. in the past two years—mainly in private
1082
prisons—to cope with an increase in the prison population of 17 per cent. The resulting increase in pressure on officers' time has meant that many tasks which are important to the security of the prisons are not being done. Cell searching in many institutions is virtually non-existent and constructive regime activities and education programmes have been reduced. Although there are now more officers than 25 years ago, no provision has been made to take account, for instance, of the reduction of home leave, of the increased time out of cell or for visits. As a consequence, understaffing is still a problem.
What is needed is for the basic job of security to be prioritised and the return to a stable regime and also the return to the core policy of the Woolf agenda. That needs money and resources, but the Government have to accept that responsibility. Not to do so will allow the present feelings of concern and anxiety about the prison system in this country to continue.
4.23 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity of adding to the discussion of the management of prisons and to thank my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank for calling this debate. It is aimed at the seemingly parlous state of the Prison Service in England and Wales. I should say that I speak today as the one-time prison social worker of Scotland's most northerly prison, Porterfield, in Inverness. I speak also as a member of the visiting committee of the Young Offenders Institution at Glenochil in Clackmannanshire.
While I acknowledge that the Scottish Prison Service has its problems, I have the distinct feeling that the English Prison Service is faring even less well. Perhaps the most vital indicator of this has been the poor state of industrial relations within the Prison Service. The effect of all this is that in many a prison we may well have not just the usual "us" and "them" divisions between the staff and prisoners, but we may also have deep divisions between management—that is the governors—and the uniformed staff. My first point is that this three-way division needs to be attended to as a priority because it has such a chronic effect on the life of the prison.
My second point relates to one of the fundamentals of imprisonment. On my first day as a social work student on placement at the former Borstal institution at Polmont in Stirlingshire, the point was made to me by several prison officers that the prison staff had to be in control at every moment of the day and that nothing should be done which jeopardised that control. The British prison services have traditionally rejected the worst of the American model in which the staff secure the perimeter and the prisoners run the prison. This, of course, leads to a complete failure of the responsibility of care for individual prisoners and especially vulnerable prisoners. On a day-to-day basis, this retention of control has to be the central core of the prison officers' work. All the highly desirable medical, recreational, industrial and social work activities of the prison hinge on the retention of control.

1083
I am concerned about the design of some recent prisons in which the cells have been arranged in cul-de-sacs. Experience has shown that this can lead to these areas becoming no-go areas for staff. Ironically, the traditional and much maligned galleried prisons—the so-called Victorian prisons—do not suffer this problem as the gallery is continuous and always leads to somewhere else. So my second point is about the need for well thought out plans for new prison wings and halls and the avoidance of staff no-go areas.
My final point is about the regime for longer sentence prisoners. I believe that the state has a duty to keep the longer term prisoner alive and alert to the ever-changing society outside to which she or he will return one day. This means that the conditions and regimes of longer term prisons will appear to have more liberal regimes and better facilities than short-term or local prisons. I accept that this is open to abuse by those prisoners who can never settle to get on with their sentence. For those prisoners, more controlled regimes must be available.
Striking the right balance in the design of the regime will be essential. The tabloid description of Parkhurst as being "Marriott's Hotel" reflects how the Government may have got it right in respect of keeping the prisoners alive and alert, but may have failed to retain control while doing so. It is easy to create a regime, but more difficult to secure the acceptance of its privileged status by some of the prisoners. So my final point is that the development of regimes for longer term prisoners needs further and urgent attention.
4.28 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, it often seems to me that debates in this House can be divided between those of a historic and constitutional nature—set occasions of some drama at which this House excels—and those no less important on matters of considerable topical interest. Such a debate is before us today, thanks to the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. He led off with a cogent and powerful speech.
My only regret is the attenuated list of speakers. In fact, I cannot recall when I was last so high in the batting order as a tail-ender. One of the troubles of being a tail-ender is that many of one's best birds have already been shot, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. But I comfort myself that some tunes bear repetition.
In a debate enriched by authoritative speakers from both the law and the administration of the law, I feel a pygmy indeed. My only excuse for dipping a toe into these swirling and muddied waters is that as a magistrate I have, on occasion and only after the greatest care and with ultimate regret, had to send men and women to prison. As a magistrate, too, I very properly have to visit prisons from time to time. It is clearly undesirable to commit people to detention without any idea of what awaits them there. Accordingly, the way in which prisons are run and their success rate in both protecting the community from those inside them and at the same time ensuring that the lives of the inmates themselves
1084
are structured and productive, is a matter of considerable interest and indeed anxiety to me and, I believe, to many of my colleagues as well.
This is not the time to go into the oft-raised and debated claim that we send too many offenders to prison—or, to be more precise, that we send too many to prison who ought not in any circumstances to be going there. We are concerned today with the current running of the Prison Service—or rather with the state of disrepair and uncertainty in which it finds itself.
However, sending more people than we should to prison in one respect creates what is perhaps the most fundamental problem of all confronting the service today—it has been mentioned before—namely, overcrowding. Overcrowding increases tension among prisoners and prison officers alike. It brings with it the dangers of placing high-risk prisoners in inappropriate prisons. It lowers the morale of prison officers. But, most important of all, it prevents proper control in prison and invites the sort of nightmare events that have recently taken place in Whitemoor, Everthorpe and Parkhurst.
Just as we seem unable to make up our minds about what sort of criminal justice system we want—the current state of play being that we have replaced the carrot with the stick —so, inevitably, has that uncertainty paralysed the Prison Service. How do we overcome that paralysis? We do it not by knee-jerk reactions to every incident, nor by cobbling together nostrums to please the matrons at Conservative Party conferences, but by a reasoned approach, such as my noble and learned friend's, or a measured response, making use of all who are engaged in the Prison Service. In the event, there is no shortage of constructive advice—particularly from my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf, who succeeded in his report, quite remarkably, in uniting all participants in the service in its praise, and who has today rightly paid tribute to the progress made in recent years as a result of that report and in particular paid tribute to the immediate past director-general and the current one.
What first needs to be defined unambiguously—and it is at the heart of this debate—is the chain of command. Coming, as I do, from an older and more settled generation, I find it difficult to accept the concept of the separation of policy making from operational control. But even if, for the sake of argument, it may be possible to achieve this—and even a former commander of the 8th Army might have had his problems in coming to grips with this proposition—the one who holds operational responsibility must in the long term bear responsibility for all shortcomings in the service. And in turn, the one holding policy responsibility must surely see that that is the case and that that is done. That seems to me to be elementary.
Some of the relevant factors that contribute to this state of affairs have been or will be mentioned. There is the difficulty for prison staff of performing a complete about-turn. We know all about that in the magistracy: substituting the stick for the carrot while dealing with what is at the best of times an extremely volatile population. There was the lack, which is now being remedied one gathers, of a geophone detector system at

1085
Parkhurst, which is a Category A prison and has requested its installation for years, when the immediately adjoining Category B prison, Albany, had one. There was the disquiet of both HM Inspector of Prisons and the chairman of the Board of Visitors over security at Parkhurst weeks before the recent incident. One wonders at times why one has people in these sorts of positions if their reports are pigeon-holed. The handling of that same situation famously succeeded in alienating both the Prison Governors' Association, ineptly described at the time as a trade union, and the Prison Officers' Association. The discoveries at Whitemoor, the rioting at Everthorpe—all these and more are the symptoms of a service that is unsure of itself and of its role.
Some initiatives surely hold out promise for the future: in particular the "points for prizes" system that is being tried at Deerbolt. Instead of privileges being automatically available on arrival, prisoners must earn them by their attitude and achievements during their sentence, thereby increasing their self-respect. On the down side, I confess to having reservations about the plans for drug testing through compulsory urine tests. The distasteful truth is that drugs, particularly soft ones, are freely available in prisons. It may be that in their milder form —for example, marijuana—a blind eye is turned to their use: a relatively contented prison is preferable to one that seethes with discontent. But if prisoners receive a sentence for the use of drugs where cautions or small fines are coming to be the normal disposals in the outside world, a sense of grievance, however irrational, can quickly build up.
Let me make it quite clear that I am extremely worried about the drug culture in our prisons. But until we can devise some effective method of controlling the supplies that are being smuggled in, such testing will do nothing but tell us what we already know, and in doing so stir up a hornets' nest.
Very few Members of this House, and very few people outside it, query the need for strict but fair regimes in our prisons. Let us forget prison officers shopping for luxury foods in local supermarkets, unlimited phone calls, and attempts to make prisons as much like home as possible—they are not, and they never will be. Let us be more careful about the appropriateness and frequency of home visits generally. On the reverse side however, let us give prisoners a full and varied life of education and work. We should not disperse them to prisons where visiting becomes difficult for relatives and friends. Above all, make them feel that they are being treated firmly but fairly.
All this will cost money. That is not because throwing money at problems makes them go away—it does not automatically sort them out—but because creating these kinds of conditions will inevitably require increased staffing levels. I ask the noble Baroness the Minister, with her customary efficiency and courtesy, to provide assurances that the Government will not give way to Treasury pressure by skimping on staffing in our prisons. In the final analysis, it is not a question of who has the best business plan, important thought that may be in increasing efficiency, or indeed even of whether the private sector is tackling the problems more
1086
effectively. Whoever the players may be, the facts of prison life remain the same. Two facts, however, stand out above the rest. The first is that cutbacks and under-staffing are creating most of the problems that face us today. The second is that indecisiveness and uncertainty at the top are contributing to, rather than solving, those problems.
I have to say with some regret that there appears to be little evidence that those who are in charge of the Prison Service today, whoever they may be, have a coherent and workable strategy for its future. Without such a strategy, we shall run many risks in the months to come. I fear that we may now be sowing the seeds of what will be a bitter harvest.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I think it will be generally agreed by all who have listened to the discussions we have had today that this has been a valuable debate. Not least, we have had the opportunity of listening to notable speeches from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and from my noble friend Lord Rodgers.
The matters before us today have been of high public importance. They relate to the management and the current state of morale of the Prison Service at a time when the number of inmates is rising remorselessly—a process which, of course, is being actively encouraged by Ministers. We were reminded today of the conference speech of Mr. Howard, in which he announced that prison worked. That was exactly the opposite of what Mr. Douglas Hurd said when he was Home Secretary. Mr. Howard also indicated that prison conditions were to be made more austere. He made that statement on the basis of a single visit to a prison; namely, Brixton. I do not know how one could make conditions at Brixton more austere than they are at the moment.
Over the years I suppose I have had the opportunity of visiting between 70 and 80 prison department establishments. The idea that offenders are living in conditions of opulent splendour may be believed by a handful of tabloid journalists; but it is hard to believe that any serious-minded person accepts such nonsense for a moment. Quite apart from that, the purpose of custody—we must remember that our prisons are full of thousands of people who have not been convicted of any criminal offence; they are remand prisoners—is not to create thoroughly unpleasant conditions for inmates; it is to deprive them for the time being of their liberty. That is punishment enough. One only needs to read the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to be reminded once again of the squalor of much of our prison estate and the grievous effects on a prisoner's spouse and children of their imprisonment, often in an establishment hundreds of miles away from home. That is why the report and its recommendations were so warmly welcomed by many people, both inside and outside the Prison Service.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will tell us in a few moments that the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord will still be implemented. However, there are many in the Prison Service who doubt the

1087
Government's resolve. There are many, including some of the most senior governors in the service, who believe that policy is increasingly being made not by the prison department, but by the editors of the Sun and the Daily Mail newspapers. Of course, politicians must have a decent regard for the concerns of a public which has become increasingly alarmed by the rising level of serious crime. But that does not mean that one surrenders in the face of every gust from tabloid newspapers. Sometimes it is necessary to be resolute and explain one's case firmly and calmly. That is what the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, did when he was Home Secretary, and so did Mr. Douglas Hurd.
My noble friend Lord Rodgers referred to the case of Mr. John Marriott, the governor of Parkhurst. In a letter to governors published in the press, Mr. Lewis, the Director General of the Prison Service, said that he was,
"rightly noted and appreciated for his dedication, humanity, courage and innovation".
I am sure we all agree that that was a warm endorsement. However, it was delivered just after Mr. Marriott had been removed from his position as governor of Parkhurst. The television cameras focused lovingly on this man of courage and dedication as the car carrying him left Parkhurst. It must have been a moment of intense grief for Mr. Marriott and his family. And, of course, it was done without any form of due process. Mr. Marriott was given no opportunity of putting his case at a disciplinary inquiry. In contrast, that opportunity was given by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, when he was Home Secretary, to the then governor of Brixton, after the escape of Mr. Tuite, an alleged IRA offender. It was denied to Mr. Marriott.
Is there any wonder therefore that there is now such bitterness in the Prison Service? Indeed, there is now the possibility that the Prison Governors' Association will take the department to court on this issue. It is a sad day when the leaders of the Prison Service are compelled to consider such action in order to secure justice for one of their number. And this is taking place at a time when there is an almost unprecedented escalation in the number of inmates. As my noble friend Lord Donaldson said a few moments ago, their number has risen by nearly 20 per cent. in the past 24 months. It is extraordinary that at such a time the Government are prepared to continue with the follies of their market-testing policy in the prisons.
I indicated at the time that I had no objection to the original proposal of a carefully monitored experiment at a new private sector remand establishment at The Wolds in Humberside. Instead, the Government have indulged their more doctrinaire supporters by producing a list of existing establishments which may be privatised. Many men and women in the Prison Service therefore, confronting this explosion of inmate numbers, are also facing the prospect that their establishments may be handed over to the private sector. The consequences have been inevitable. The report produced by the Home
1088
Office inquiry into the serious disturbances at Everthorpe which occurred on 2nd and 3rd January this year, said,
"A substantial proportion of management time had, in the months prior to the incidents, been directed towards a response to the establishment's inclusion in the market testing bid procedure. This caused uncertainty amongst staff and prisoners about the future of the establishment and adversely affected staff morale. This process remains unresolved".
That is the position not of the Government's critics, but it is contained within a Home Office inquiry report. It is not only the problems of Everthorpe which concern us. The prison department has disclosed one of the consequences of overcrowding and the deteriorating atmosphere in many prisons. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said a few moments ago, it was admitted that the number of disturbances in prisons had risen from 38 in 1985–86 to 146 last year—an increase of nearly 400 per cent. In the past five years the number of assaults on staff increased from 1,750 to 3,204—a rise of around 80 per cent. I accept at once that there are other reasons for those increases as well as overcrowding. Drugs is certainly one of the factors. But one cannot possibly ignore the relevance of gross overcrowding.
As many of us recognise, the prison population is volatile and the majority of prisoners are young. Many inmates are inadequates and others are mentally ill. Many of them should not be in prison in the first place; they should be out in the community or, in the case of the mentally ill, in mental hospitals. Others have been convicted of offences of violence and can be potentially dangerous. They require significant security arrangements both to keep them in custody and to ensure, as far as possible, that they do not disrupt life in the prisons which hold them.
We must accept that, given the situation I described, it is possible that there may be more disturbances in our prisons in the future. The people who will have to deal with those disturbances are members of the Prison Service. The overwhelming majority are decent and responsible public servants doing a difficult job on behalf of the whole community. Yet the Government have chosen to exhibit total indifference to rising prison numbers, a disposition to scapegoat members of the service when things go wrong, and to continue with their doctrinaire programme of privatisation thus making staff working in an increasingly violent environment believe that their jobs are now at risk.
The House should recognise that there is now real anger in the Prison Service about the way in which it is being treated. The standing ovation accorded to Mr. Marriott by the Parkhurst staff on his departure is just one indication of that. I hope that Ministers will realise the perilous situation which has now arisen. If they do not, the consequences could be extremely serious.
4.50 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for initiating this important and timely debate. The Motion which he moved so ably is worded largely as a topical debate, but I am sure that he will be

1089
as glad as I am that the debate we have actually heard, although it has covered topical issues, has also covered many of the more fundamental problems which underly the crisis in the Prison Service. When I say "crisis in the Prison Service" I am not speaking for myself. Judge Tumim, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, on 4th January last, described the Prison Service as having "a crisis of confidence". From the debate that has taken place—incidentally, without any intervention from the massed ranks of the Conservative Benches—we can all confirm that the House has been unanimously of the view that we have a crisis and that there are major problems which have to be resolved.
I wish to refer first to the topical issues. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, rightly drew attention in the first instance to the extraordinary position in which we find the Home Secretary. He answers, as do all Ministers, to Parliament for his actions. Ultimately, he answers to Parliament for the actions not only of his own department but of the agencies which are set up under his department. He certainly has had some answering to do in the past few months. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, described him as having bad luck. I think he did so in the knowledge of having worked with and seen the actions of very many Home Secretaries over recent years. Certainly, the present Home Secretary in the past few months has seen an unprecedented increase in the breakdown of communications, in the breakdown of security and in the breakdown of morale within the Prison Service.
I am not suggesting—indeed, no one is suggesting—that the Home Secretary is responsible for operational matters. No one has been heard from the Opposition Benches, either here or in the House of Commons, demanding the resignation of the Home Secretary. However, it has to be said that the Home Secretary has been consistently denying the ultimate responsibility which must be his not only for operational matters but even for the policies which underlie the operational problems.
It cannot be said that he has not been warned. He was warned of the problems four years ago by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, after the riots in Strangeways. We have had a most welcome reminder of that during our debate. More recently, he was warned by Mrs. Seligman, then the chair of the prison visitors of Whitemoor, about the problems which would arise there. He was warned by Judge Tumim about almost all of the problems which have since become evident. As far as I can understand—perhaps the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—many of those warnings were marked for his personal attention and the personal attention of the Director General of the Prison Service. If indeed they were marked for his personal attention, someone must have made the decision either to show them to the Home Secretary or not. If they were shown to the Home Secretary, surely it is incumbent on him to say to Parliament that he saw the warnings and that he chose, for whatever reasons he may give to the House, not to take action on them; or if he was not shown them, we ought to know why he was not shown them, because Judge Tumim in particular has, as part of his terms of reference, direct access to the Home Secretary, and that
1090
ought not to be denied under any circumstances. Most recently we had the report of Sir John Woodcock on Whitemoor Prison. The report, confirming the warnings which had been given before, calls directly on the Home Secretary for action. We have no indication that that action is being taken.
Indeed, when we look at the reactions of the Home Secretary to some of the crises that have arisen in recent months, it can only be said that his policy reactions have been ill-considered and probably even dangerous. A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Longford, referred to the problem of home leave and the almost instinctive knee-jerk reaction of the Home Secretary to a very few cases of serious over-staying by those on home leave by an overall reduction in home leave of 40 per cent. In any tolerable and constructive prison regime, if I may use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, home leave is surely an essential. It is essential for prisoners who are going to be released to be prepared for that release in a civilised way. For home leave to be denied as a reaction to a very few offences committed on home leave is not rational and is not worthy of anyone who holds the position of Secretary of State in Her Majesty's Government.
A number of noble Lords referred to the distinction between operations and policy and to the desirable relationship between the Home Secretary, the Prison Service and the Home Office. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, called it a structural stand-off, which I thought was very nicely put. But what has the Home Secretary's reaction been? In the three words of Jack Straw, his reaction to particular complaints has been "Not me, guv"; in other words, it has nothing to do with him. But in terms of an objective examination of the relationship—it is the relationship between the Prison Service, the Home Office and the Home Secretary which has been the subject of explicit criticism by, among others, Sir John Woodcock—all the Home Secretary does is to muddy the waters even more.
What on earth did he mean on 19th December when he said in the House of Commons that he was going to,
"set up a new unit outside the Prison Service to strengthen Ministers' ability to supervise the performance of the Prison Service"?— [Official Report, Commons, 19/12/94; col. 1400.]
What can that mean? We have operations carried out by the Prison Service, we have policy carried out by the Home Office under the Home Secretary, and now we have a new unit to mediate between the two. If the Minister can enlighten us on what that means, we shall be very much better off than was the House of Commons when it received that extraordinary statement.
However important—and they are important—the present crises have been, behind them lie failures of policy. It is failures of policy for which we must blame the Government and the Home Secretary. First, there is the failure of policy which is inherent in the ideas of privatisation and market testing. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has very properly referred to that. We may, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, have fun with Group 4, but we must also look at the amount of disruption which has been caused in the Prison Service not just by the privatisation of new prisons but by the proposal that 12 existing prisons are to be privatised. All

1091
this is happening without any real evidence that privatisation works. Where, after all, is the report on Blakenhurst?
Judge Tumim's reports are usually published within four months of the completion of the inspection. This particular report should have been published in September last year. We understand—but only from leaks, of course—that there are serious criticisms of the regime in Blakenhurst in that report. Judge Tumim's report should now be published as urgently as possible and we should know whether there is any evidence about the privatised prisons—we must remember that this is a real prison and not a remand prison —a reasonable time after their establishment.
The second problem referred to so well by my noble friend Lady Gould is morale in the Prison Service. The Home Secretary appears to have forfeited the respect and confidence not just of the prison officers, who may be expected on occasion to disagree with what he does, but of the prison governors themselves.
Thirdly, and most important of all, there is the issue of this Home Secretary's view of penal policy which has resulted in the extraordinary level of overcrowding which we now have. Its effects are well known and have been referred to by a number of noble Lords during the course of the afternoon. We know about Strangeways, Whitemoor, Everthorpe and Parkhurst. Do not let me be told that that is not relevant to Whitemoor and Everthorpe because they are themselves not overcrowded. The reports on the incidents have made it clear that what has been wrong with Whitemoor and Everthorpe, although they are not overcrowded themselves, is that the wrong category prisoners have been in those prisons because of overcrowding elsewhere. I suspect that the same will be true of Parkhurst when the report appears where the accommodation and security procedures for one category of prisoner are appropriate only for a lower category.
On the surface we have many damaging effects of overcrowding. But below the surface we have what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, calls "insidious stress" and what my noble friend Lady Gould referred to as the pressure on prison officers. The one recommendation which the noble and learned Lord made in his report which was not accepted by the Home Secretary was that on overcrowding. I suggest to your Lordships that it is the deliberate policy of this Government, expressed most clearly in the Home Secretary's speech to the Conservative Party conference in 1993, to make prison more austere and to encourage the magistrates and higher courts to award longer sentences. That has given rise to an increase of nearly 20 per cent. in the prison population in a period of only two years.
At this rate overcrowding can never be resolved. It will not be resolved by building more prisons, which is a long-term policy and which is in doubt in itself. What is required is a more enlightened penal policy which takes account of the need for a tolerable and constructive regime in prison itself. Instead of saying, "Prison works", it should acknowledge what all
1092
progressive prison regimes throughout Western Europe—but not in the United Kingdom —acknowledge that prison is the last resort. We have too many people in prison and they continue to be treated badly. While that happens, boils will erupt on the surface as they have in the past few months. But it is the underlying failures of the penal policy of this Government which are ultimately responsible for it.
5.4 p.m.
Baroness Match: My Lords, this has been and is indeed a very important debate. I understand the many concerns expressed in the debate this afternoon in the light of recent incidents in the Prison Service.
In opening the debate the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, dealt substantially in innuendo and speculation as to what was said at meetings which he did not attend and speculation about who did what in situations where he was not present. Posing questions is one thing, and that is entirely understandable and proper in the circumstances following these events. However, to make statements such as "It is fair to say that Mr. Marriott was sacked", as the noble Lord did, was irresponsible.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary reported to another place:
"The present governor is today being removed from his duties at Parkhurst. Pending the outcome of the disciplinary investigation and any subsequent proceedings, he will not be running any other prison in the Prison Service. When he has completed any assistance that he needs to give to the various inquiries now in hand, he will take up non-operational duties elsewhere. Six members of staff, including one of governor grade, will also be temporarily transferred to duties at other prisons. Both these actions are without prejudice to the outcome of the disciplinary investigation".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/95; col. 33.]
When the media, in the form of press, sound and television, reported that Mr. Marriott had been sacked, the director general and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made it absolutely clear that that was not correct. The director general made it clear again before the Select Committee in another place. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister accounted publicly before the House. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has answered for his part in this matter before Parliament. The director general has accounted for his performance and his responsibilities to the Select Committee. As I stand here before the House, my right honourable friend is appearing before a Select Committee, too.
I find it distasteful in the extreme that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who is aware of the numerous public assurances, including the assurance that there is to be the Sir John Learmont review and disciplinary reviews, should insist that it will only be after assurances from me that he will accept these explanations.
So I am left with no alternative understanding of what the noble Lord is implying other than that the words of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, the words of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the words of the Director General of the Prison Service are to be treated with great suspicion with the consequent slur on their characters and that I, a mere

1093
Minister of State at the Home Office, should be the only person whose word is to be accepted by the noble Lord. I believe that that is not in the honourable traditions of this House.
The noble Lord finds it amusing. He also made light, in the course of his speech, of the under-employment of Ministers in the Home Office. I want very quickly—and it will be very quickly, and will not be inclusive—to give a list of my own duties at the Home Office: the fire service, the probation service, race relations, charities, the Charity Commission, animals, dangerous dogs, pornography, obscenity, identity cards, data protection, animal research, constitutional matters including Euro-matters, race discrimination policy, religious discrimination policy, women's issues, coroners, by-laws, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, boundaries and electoral matters, civil defence and emergency planning. If that is being under-employed, I would invite the noble Lord not just to come and inspect my portfolio, but to inspect those of all the Ministers in the Home Office. I hope that we too will get the apology which he promised he would give if he were proved wrong.
In direct response to the Motion, perhaps I may make it clear—
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me for a moment. Why was it possible a few decades ago to run the Home Office, on the whole so much more efficiently, with fewer junior Ministers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am dealing with what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said. He implied that because there are five of us —the Home Secretary plus four at the Home Office—somehow or other we did not have enough work to keep us employed.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am very sorry indeed if I have misled the House in any way. That is certainly not what I said. I said very plainly that there has been a very substantial growth in the number of Ministers despite there being fewer responsibilities for the department. I juxtaposed that with the existence of the agency. With respect to the noble Baroness, she is getting unreasonably upset about perfectly legitimate criticisms of the Government of this country, just as it is unreasonable for her to say that I should ask her to answer all these questions when the Prime Minister appears in another place and cannot be asked questions here by noble Lords.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think that I am doing my duty in defending the honour of my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. I base my information on facts, not press reports.
In direct response to the Motion, let me make it clear that the arrangements for policy-making, management and accountability in the Prison Service are clear. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is accountable for the Prison Service. The director general is responsible for the day-to-day management of the Prison Service. The director general is directly accountable to my right honourable friend for the Prison Service's performance and operations and is also his
1094
principal adviser on prisons policy matters. Governors are accountable to the director general through area managers who report to him through two operational directors.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, asked about the position of Ministers of State. I have already referred to them, but perhaps I should add specifically that the Minister of State who is responsible for prisons assists the Home Secretary with his responsibilities for the Prison Service under the framework document in the same way as he assists the Home Secretary with other responsibilities.
The distinction that I have set out between accountability and responsibility is fully consistent with the general position on ministerial accountability most recently expressed in the evidence by Sir Robin Butler to the Scott Inquiry. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for all the activities of their department, but that does not mean that a Minister is directly responsible for all the actions and decisions taken in his department. It has been accepted for many years that, while a Minister is accountable for all the actions of his department, he cannot be held personally responsible for all those actions.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was concerned about the acceptance of responsibility. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that if his policies were found to be responsible for an event like the attempted escapes from Whitemoor or if he failed to implement anything that he should have implemented, he would resign. That is entirely consistent with the line taken by previous Ministers, such as my noble friend Lord Prior.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am afraid that I am deeply confused by the noble Baroness. She said that the Minister is responsible but that he is not personally responsible. What does that distinction mean?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am saying that Ministers are responsible for the activities of any subject under their command, but they cannot be responsible for the individual actions of a prison officer, a prison governor or even—dare I say?—the director general. It would be for the Home Secretary or a Minister to be accountable. The chain is that I am accountable to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary accounts to Parliament for the whole department and for all subjects within his remit. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will know that no Home Secretary can be held personally responsible for the activities of a single individual who may be working in any one area of policy.
In the light of recent events, my right honourable friend has considered whether any change was necessary in the arrangements for the supervision of the Prison Service. A new unit has been set up in the Home Office to support Ministers in carrying out their duties in respect of the Prison Service in accordance with the agency's framework document. It is not intended as a substitute for the policy advice which is provided by the Prison Service to Ministers. It is a further step in the development of work which has been done since the Prison Service became an agency. The unit will be staffed by civil servants. The numbers will be entirely

1095
in line with the programme of work that is now being developed. The unit will report to Ministers and, of course, to the Permanent Secretary.
Let me turn now to the points which have been raised in the debate on the Prison Service generally. This debate clearly comes at a time when the Prison Service is under great pressure. There is no question but that recent events at Whitemoor and Parkhurst involved very serious breaches of security. They have damaged the credibility of the Prison Service in performing its basic task, that of serving the public by keeping in secure custody those committed by the courts. The Government and Prison Service are determined to learn from what went wrong and to put it right quickly and effectively.
Noble Lords have made it clear they are concerned about the Prison Service, and I understand their concern. Having said that, I believe that it is wrong and unhelpful to talk ourselves into thinking the Prison Service is in crisis. We should not ignore the progress the service has made in recent years. I should like to put recent events in perspective by saying something about the achievements of the Prison Service since 1979.
Physical conditions in our prisons have been transformed as a result of the most ambitious prison building and refurbishment programme since Victorian times. Twenty-one new prisons have been built since 1980, providing 11,285 new places at a cost of £1.2 billion; 13 of them have opened since 1991. Redevelopment of the existing estate has provided a further 7,500 places, mostly in new houseblocks. Another six new prisons are to be built with private sector finance. The first two, at Fazakerley on Merseyside and Bridgend in South Wales, are expected to open in 1997–98.
As a result of this sustained commitment to our prisons, over 95 per cent. of prisoners now have access to sanitation in their cell, compared to 46 per cent. in 1981. The service is on course to provide all prisoners with access to sanitation at all times by February 1996, the target recommended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. That will mean an end to the much criticised practice of slopping out.
As recently as 1987, over 5,000 prisoners were sharing three to a cell designed for one prisoner. The practice of "trebling" was eliminated in 1994, and no prisoners have been held three to a cell since then. Furthermore, on 31st December 1994, 7,754 prisoners—that is, 16 per cent.—were held two to a cell designed for one. That is a far lower proportion than only a few years ago. All that has been achieved despite the very substantial rise in the prison population in the past two years, to which noble Lords have referred, and is due to the major building programme which has been, and is being, carried out.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, queried the point about trebling—where three prisoners share a cell designed for one. The noble Lord was absolutely right to say that no prisoners have been held three to a cell designed for one since March 1994. The service's target for the current financial year, 1994–95, is to ensure that the average number of prisoners held three to a cell is fewer than the previous year. I have referred
1096
to three prisoners having to share a cell designed for one. There is no trebling at all now. In 1993–94, an average of 81 prisoners were held three to a cell. The service's target for 1994–95 was to do better than that. It has done so. No prisoners have been held three to a cell since then.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I do not understand what she has said. I shall, however, be content to read it in Hansard.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the point that the noble Lord ought to remember is that no prisoners are being held three to a cell. We hope that that will remain the case.
The pace of change and improvement has continued since the service became an executive agency in April 1993. Since then, there has actually been a 40 per cent. reduction in escapes; a 43 per cent. reduction in temporary release failures, and a 23 per cent. reduction in prisoners absconding. Prisoners are spending more time in purposeful activity founded on work, education and training. Until recently, it was not unknown for prisoners to spend 23 hours a day locked in their cells. Now, about half our prisons are unlocking prisoners for 12 hours or more on weekdays, and on average prisoners are spending over 26 hours a week engaged in purposeful activity. Furthermore, the average cost per prisoner place was actually reduced by 3 per cent. in real terms last year.
From what I have said, it will be clear that the Government are not backtracking, as some, including the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, have suggested, on the seminal report on prisons prepared by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the subsequent White Paper, Custody, Care and Justice. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the way in which he has recognised the Prison Service's achievements since his report was published. The White Paper, published in 1991, welcomed the Woolf Report and accepted almost all of its recommendations. Most of them have since been implemented. Progress has been made in all of the 12 areas identified by that White Paper as priorities.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the Government both recognised that a balance has to be struck between security and control on the one hand, and just and humane treatment of prisoners on the other. That philosophy is at the heart of the service's work, and is reflected in its statement of purpose. However, in the light of recent events—I stress those words—it is clear that the service's priority for the present must be to focus on basic security and security procedures. I make no apology for that.
To that end, the first task is to implement the recommendations of the report of Sir John Woodcock's inquiry into recent events at Whitemoor. The Home Secretary announced on 19th December that he had accepted all 64 recommendations in that report. A timetable for implementation will be published very shortly.

1097
In addition, the Home Secretary has appointed General Sir John Learmont to conduct a comprehensive review of security. The terms of reference for this review are:
"in the light of the report of the inquiry into the attempted escape from HM Prison Whitemoor on 9 September 1994, to review physical security and security procedures in the Prison Service in England and Wales, and to make recommendations".
The Home Secretary has asked Sir John Learmont to report by December 1995 on progress made on the implementation of Sir John Woodcock's report. He has also asked Sir John Learmont to carry out an independent assessment of events at Parkhurst, and the findings of his reports will be published. Other immediate measures include security audits at all closed establishments, which are being carried out now.
The Learmont inquiry will not cut across the work of the inspectorate. The Learmont inquiry is to focus on one major aspect of the Prison Service's activities; that is, security. The inspectorate looks at the regime and conditions, including security, at specific establishments.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, was concerned about geophones. Parkhurst is undergoing a major programme of building work, including essential security work. The installation of a perimeter alarm system, including geophones, had to wait—that was on advice—until building work was complete. The Home Secretary was advised that the system would not have functioned effectively while that building work was under way. Work on installing a perimeter alarm system began on 5th December—as your Lordships know that was before the escape—and will be completed by March.
An independent disciplinary inquiry led by Sir David Yardley into events at Whitemoor is under way, and a separate disciplinary inquiry into the events at Parkhurst, led by the Deputy Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service, will start shortly.
Noble Lords have mentioned the circumstances surrounding the removal of the governor of Parkhurst. As a disciplinary inquiry will be taking place, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that in any detail. I can confirm, however, that the decision to move the governor was taken by the Director General of the Prison Service, not the Home Secretary. I should also emphasise that that decision was taken for operational reasons, to ensure effective, undistracted management of one of our high security prisons. It does not in any way pre-judge the outcome of the forthcoming disciplinary inquiry.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is generally understood that the director general took that step at the firm suggestion of the Home Secretary. Is that incorrect? It is only understood.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lord means by "firmly understood".
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, put to the Minister was that it was generally understood that the Home Secretary had
1098
indicated firmly that it was his suggestion that the governor of Parkhurst should be removed. The noble Earl asked for the Minster's response to that suggestion.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Earl said that it was firmly understood. He did not say what the noble Lord has just said. The noble Earl said that something was firmly understood. Will the noble Earl repeat what he believed was firmly understood?
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, to the best of my recollection I said that the director general took that step at the suggestion of the Home Secretary. Is that correct or incorrect? That puts it in a simple form. The Minister has a lot on her mind. She could not understand the simple way in which I put it previously. That should be simple enough. Was that step taken at the suggestion of the Home Secretary?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it was not that I did not understand, it was that I did not hear. But I have heard now. I find it deeply depressing. I repeat that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and the Director General of the Prison Service have all put the matter firmly on record in the formal annals of this House and in another place. Noble Lords have been persuaded by the press and the media. There is a readiness to understand the press and the media and not my right honourable friends.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, it is no good the Minister getting in a great state and telling us what does or does not depress her. Perhaps she will answer the perfectly simple question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Longford.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, noble Lords will have to forgive me for sounding a little irritated on this. I have said—and I have repeated what my right honourable friends have said—that the decision was taken by the director general. It was not interfered with, pre-empted, or predetermined by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I do not know how many times I have to repeat that. It has been made clear on so many occasions that I can only believe that if any doubt arises, it arises from the popular press.
Mr Marriott's future will depend upon the outcome of the disciplinary investigation. Pending the outcome of that investigation, he will be carrying out other non-operational duties at Prison Service HQ. Any question of Mr Marriott's return to Parkhurst or any other prison is a matter for the director general at the appropriate time. No option is ruled out.
Let me now turn to other aspects of the Prison Service's work. In the coming year, in addition to security, the Prison Service will be implementing three key changes which have the common theme of meeting legitimate public expectations of what imprisonment should be like and improving protection of the public.
First, more rigorous criteria for the temporary release of prisoners were announced by the Home Secretary on 18th November. That will protect the public by setting tighter criteria for temporary release and ensuring that there is a fuller assessment of the risk to the public. I

1099
can give the House a categoric assurance that public safety will always be the paramount consideration in determining whether a prisoner should be granted temporary release.
In response to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, there is of course a place for temporary release in appropriate cases, but a balance needs to be struck, and the paramount consideration must at all times be the protection of the public.
Secondly, a system of incentives and sanctions for prisoners will be implemented across the service, to encourage prisoners to behave well and use their time in prison constructively. Prisoners will be required to earn facilities over and above the minimum through good behaviour and hard work. The facilities will be withdrawn if behaviour deteriorates. There is no confusion here. The policy is that of the Home Secretary, and the management of that policy will be the responsibility of the Prison Service.
Thirdly, a major new strategy is tackling drug abuse in prisons by reducing supply through better control and detection, including random urine testing, while reducing demand through support, education and counselling. I take all that has been said about improving all the counselling and other therapeutic methods that can be employed in the vexed area of treating prisoners.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, referred to performance indicators. The Prison Service's key performance indicators do not tell the whole story about the service's performance. A small number of key indicators cannot, by definition, cover all the service's activities. They cover, among other things, escapes, assaults, overcrowding, sanitation, regime activities, time unlocked, and cost per place. It is entirely right and proper that the service's performance in those areas should be monitored and that targets for improvements should be set by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
In terms of prison numbers, since 1989 the number of prison officers has increased by 4,000, while the prison population has increased by only 1,000.
After recent events, it is bound to take time to restore public confidence in the service. But the programme to improve security, and the other measures I have outlined, form a coherent and challenging programme of work which the Prison Service is determined to deliver.
In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is proving to be resolute, firm and calm. I believe that he deserves the support of us all, particularly in this House, in this most difficult of policy areas.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who felt it right to join in our short debate, although I am disappointed that there were no speakers from the Conservative Benches. I am sorry if questions got under the Minister's skin at any time, but in the last analysis it was up to her—because she
1100
said she was present at every meeting between the Home Secretary and the director general—to give a reply of her own to the question: did the Home Secretary make any suggestion at any time to the director general about Mr Marriott's future? It was a simple question, and it deserved a simple reply.
We are grateful to the Minister for being here. We took a great deal of interest in what she said. I hope that on some future occasion we will focus on what was the central question. It was put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, when he said that the relationship of the Home Secretary to the Prison Service is difficult and delicate. We know that that is so. No speaker has suggested otherwise. We have all been trying to find a way out and a way ahead. If we have failed to do so, these are matters to which we shall return at a future time.
The Prison Service is passing through a critical and difficult time. Morale is low. The country is deeply disturbed by recent events. Perhaps today's debate has opened up the issues a little wider, even if it has not resolved them. In that light, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Accidents at Sea
5.30 p.m.
Lord Perry of Waltonrose to call attention to the increase in the number of serious accidents at sea, and to the 1993 annual report of the Port State Control Committee; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are 80,000 ships of over 100 gross tonnes afloat on the seas today. In 1993 only about 1,500 of them were registered under the British flag; but no fewer than 6,500 of them visited British ports.
We may nowadays be a relatively small flag state but we are a very important port state and round our coasts are some of the busiest waterways in the world. Thus we are much at risk from accidents and pollution. Despite that, only three vessels have been lost in the past three years in our waters and not a single life has been lost. But those figures do not include smaller vessels, including the bulk of the fishing fleet. That is not such a satisfactory story. In the same period, 91 ships were lost and 33 fishermen lost their lives.
Today, however, I want to talk about the world picture and the big ships. In the report of the Institute of London Underwriters, one finds that in 1993 the number of lives lost at sea in vessels of 500 gross tonnes and over was about twice the number lost in 1992; and the number lost in 1994 was more than twice the number lost in 1993. Those are disturbing figures. The most recent example was the loss of 900 lives on the "Estonia", which sank in the Baltic. That drew attention again to the problems of the safety of ro-ro passenger ferries, publicised by the accident to the "Herald of Free Enterprise" in 1989.
But there are many more ferry accidents not included in those figures because the ships are of less than 500 gross tonnes. Figures about them are extremely difficult

1101
to obtain. In 1993, two such accidents caused over 2,000 deaths. Furthermore, there have also been several major accidents in which, although no one was killed, there was enormous damage to the environment. Pollution from the "Braer" in 1993 attracted major attention and reminded the public of the other major oil tanker disasters of previous years.
That concern would be very much greater if the public were aware of the vastly greater number of incidents that occurred when there was great danger and where, either by extraordinary good luck or the dedicated efforts of all kinds of rescuers, damage to life or the environment was miraculously avoided. Sometimes those incidents involved serious damage to ships; in other cases, they were near misses which occurred without any accident ensuing. Several of them were mentioned in the report of the inquiry chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, entitled Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas, published in May last year. I am glad to see that the noble and learned Lord is to take part in this debate.
The inquiry had been set up as a result of the "Braer" disaster. I want to refer to one set of incidents from his report concerning what are called "dead ships": ships which have lost all power. In 1993, there were several incidents. The "Oligitria B", having lost power, anchored in one of the traffic lanes in the Dover Strait and remained there for 48 hours; the owner and the master failed to arrange for a tug, even when requested to do so. The hazard to other ships in the Channel requires no emphasis. The "Gran Piedra" lost power near the Scilly Isles and nearly ran ashore. The "Eloisa" lost power in the Thames Estuary. The "Ice Star" drifted close to oil platforms near Sumburgh Head.
What was truly frightening about all those incidents was the reluctance of owners and masters to incur the expense of a tow, despite the obvious danger that they were causing, not only to themselves but to many other ships. None of those dead ships gave rise to any loss of life, collision or pollution but they are all to be regarded as tragedies that might have happened. I was moved to suggest this debate by reading the 1993 annual report of the Port State Control Committee, which arrived on my desk last summer. I was horrified when I read it and wanted other people to read it and recognise the dangers.
Let me start with a little background which many noble Lords will know. A ship is subject to all the laws of the country in which it has been registered; namely, its flag state. Those laws require all ships to be of suitable standard and suitably manned. International standards are set by the International Maritime Organization and a number of conventions, which are then ratified by member states. They have no force of law until the member states legislate and have no effect unless that legislation is implemented. It is the implementation that is inadequate in many flag states.
In the United Kingdom the Marine Safety Agency, an executive agency of the Department of Transport, is responsible, but it delegates some functions to the classification societies, such as Lloyd's Register, which carries out much of the survey work for the issue of the necessary certificates. Without wishing to be
1102
complacent, it is fair to say that the United Kingdom as a flag state does a good job and is backed by responsible classification societies.
When the IMO conventions were introduced, most ships were registered in the major maritime powers. Nowadays, most ships are registered elsewhere, since many shipowners seek the cheapest registration in those flag states—sometimes referred to as flags of convenience—which fail fully to implement the international standards, even though they have ratified them and legislated to cover them.
In 1982 the problems created by the inadequacy of such flag states were such that 15 European states signed the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (which I shall refer to as the Paris MOU) which set up the Port State Control Committee. Other states had joined it and recently the European Union has drafted a directive which will give the Paris MOU the force of European Union law but which will still be based on the IMO conventions. All the states which are party to the agreement agree to inspect 25 per cent. of all foreign ships entering their ports. Each year the Port State Control Committee issues a report. It is the report for 1993 to which I refer.
In that year the signatories of the MOU carried out 17,294 inspections of 11,252 different ships which came from 111 different flag states. It is clear from the figures that some of the ships were inspected on more than one occasion. That can readily be understood, because one of the types of ship that is targeted for inspection by all those states is ships which have previously been found deficient. Nearly half of the ships inspected were deficient in one respect or another. The average number of deficiencies noted was over five per ship—43,000 in all.
It is bad enough that there should be so many deficiencies. But the very disturbing discovery was that 24 per cent. were deficiencies in lifeboats, liferafts, lifebuoys and lifejackets. Another 17 per cent. had inadequate and neglected firefighting equipment. Other major categories of deficiency were of navigational equipment, the construction of the hull, bulkheads and hatches and the equipment carried to prevent marine pollution.
I cannot resist referring again to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, where he outlined the history of the motor vessel "Stella". It was a ship built in 1965 which arrived in Southampton in November 1993. In the previous two years she had been detained in various Paris MOU ports on three occasions and was therefore a prime target for inspection. There were cracks in the ship's hull; there were hatch covers that were not watertight; there were perforations between the hold and the weatherdeck; the anchor had punctured a hole in the anchor recess; the emergency fire pump could not be started; the main engine room fire dampers could not be closed; and the main engine cooling water pipes had been mended by a temporary bonding material.
The ship was detained for a fourth time in Southampton and further inspections showed that it was wholly unseaworthy. The captain was told that the conditions for release would either be extensive repairs

1103
in Southampton or a tow as a dead ship to another port. I have quoted this example at length because it is a case where four different port state control inspections were necessary before the ship was certified as wholly unseaworthy.
I find it frightening that so many of the ships sailing around the coasts of Europe and of the United Kingdom are in such very poor condition and that so little is done about it. Port state control inspectors have power to delay and detain ships in ports if in their opinion the deficiencies which they uncover are so serious as to render the ship unseaworthy. Detention should always be enforced if the inspector believes it is necessary for him to inspect essential repairs before the ship leaves. However, inspectors are always conscious that delays may cost a lot of money and that shipowners are liable to claim compensation should there be any undue delay; and "undue" is a very vague term. It is not surprising perhaps that inspectors are reluctant to act unless very sure of their ground. Nevertheless, in 1993 no fewer than 926 detention orders were issued in Europe. That is a sharp increase from 588 in 1992. It is striking that of the 926 detention orders issued in Europe, no fewer than 309—one in every three—were issued in the UK, although only one in every eight inspections was made here. Either our inspectors were more stringent or, more probably, they were more courageous in risking the wrath of the owners about the costs of the delays. Yet their judgment must have been good, for no owner ever sued for compensation.
Finally, I turn to the quality of the crew rather than the quality of the ships. That depends upon training and it is in that regard that I claim a little experience. The initial training of officers is in three parts. First, there is a period of education in a maritime college—of which some are good and some are not. I am told that, for example, of 57 colleges in the Philippines, only four are recognised as of high quality. Some of the others may be delivering courses up to international standard, but from reports many clearly are not. College education is followed by a required period of sea-time training and practice. The quality of that depends upon the master who certifies it, and the standards of masters vary widely.
Finally, the responsible government authority gathers evidence through direct examination or otherwise and issues certificates of competency. A questionnaire was issued by the Nautical Institute on "Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Convention (STCW)". It was published in July and gave some quite dreadful replies. One stated:
"far too many flag authorities are able to issue so-called STCW certificates of competence which are not worth the paper they are written on".
Another stated:
"national certificates here [country not named] are of an appalling and unacceptable standard".
Port state inspectors are required to accept such certificates without question even when they know that they are wholly spurious.
1104
Recognition of the numbers of ill-trained officers and ratings was one reason for the introduction by the IMO and national governments of mandatory on-board training. I must declare an interest in that form of distance education, having worked part-time with Videotel Marine International for 15 years to provide training materials on board several thousand ships for many nations in many languages. While that is undoubtedly helpful, it is not a substitute for proper initial training.
It is a sorry tale that I have told. It is not a new story; much of it has been told before, notably in the second report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, 1991–92, and in the report of the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, to which I have referred. But it is a story that needs to be told over and over again for it needs to be brought home to the Government and the general public in this country. The underlying reasons for the sorry tale are that shipowners are living in an intensely competitive market and some are prepared to cut corners in order to save money so as to reduce freight rates.
They often know little about their ships or crews because they employ a managing agency to operate the ships and hire the crews. Some flag states either actively or passively permit owners to cut corners by delegating the implementation of their control to inadequate classification societies whose main loyalty is to the owners or agents who employ and pay them.
Knowing the underlying reasons for the mess that we are in does not, however, help us to make progress in solving the problems. The report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, made 103 different detailed recommendations. But even if the Government were to implement all the recommendations, it would not solve the problems, for that requires the full co-operation of all member states of the IMO and they cannot be forced to act. But action by port state control authorities could greatly improve matters and fortunately there are encouraging signs that things are moving. The Paris agreement has been copied first in Latin America and secondly in the Asia Pacific region and it is hoped that it will be implemented in the Caribbean, Africa and the southern-eastern Mediterranean.
Thankfully, the IMO is now much more favourably disposed to port state control. It is currently trying to amend the convention to delete the clause which requires port state inspectors to accept without question certificates issued by flag states. The British Government have made a grant of £20,000 to the IMO to support seminars on port state control and the IMO hopes that it will be repeated because training of the inspectors is vital if the system is to work fairly.
Despite the excellent job that the inspectors do in this country, many people believe that there are still too few of them to do a really thorough job and many inspections are necessarily too short and too superficial since the expenditure on each is strictly limited. Regrettably, the budget of the Marine Safety Agency is due to be cut this year. Much of the work of the Marine Safety Agency consists of inspections carried out as the flag state authority, although some of them have been

1105
delegated to the classification societies. In Lloyd's List of January 18th there is a report that the Government plan to delegate the inspection of the stability of ro-ro passenger ferries will be postponed because of public concern about the "Estonia" disaster. There are fears that such delegation may lead to a deterioration in safety standards. It is indeed true that those flag states which delegate the largest section of their responsibilities to classification societies have the worst records in port state control inspections. It is very regrettable that, especially at this time, the Government should cut the budget of the Marine Safety Agency and that they should plan to delegate any further powers to the classification societies.
As far as I can see, it is only through the operation of a reinforced and extended port state control that the steadily worsening state of the world's shipping can be improved in the relatively near future. Were unseaworthy ships and ill-trained crews to lead to detentions in many more ports, the message would soon be learned by unscrupulous owners: detention would cost them more than improving their ships and crews. The resulting inevitable increase in freight costs is the only way in which the ageing world fleet can be replaced by high quality and, consequently, safer ships. The Government must surely promote that by setting an example, not by cutting costs. With our busy waterways, we have an enormous amount to lose if we fail to act. I beg to move for Papers.
5.50 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Perry, for initiating a debate on such an important subject. The noble Lord mentioned the ro-ro ferry accidents, and it is to that topic that I should like to devote most of my remarks. However, I should also like to support and reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Perry, and his concern about the worsening of conditions, especially as regards pollution due to owners being reluctant to seek the assistance of tugs in sufficient time.
There is no such thing as absolute safety. The sea is a dangerous and unpredictable place, but it is our duty to ensure the safety of travellers to the maximum possible extent. Good seamanship demands two things: first, preventing accidents happening and, secondly, effective plans to deal with them if they do occur, so as to save lives. In the case of the ro-ro ferries, that second requirement has not been met. They are still very vulnerable to accident. It is clear beyond peradventure that the problem is the rapid loss of stability when water gets on to the car deck and the rapid capsize of the ferry, without giving any time, or giving very minimal time, for the evacuation of passengers and crew.
There are several important factors which help to minimise the chance of water getting on to the car deck which, as I say, is the main problem. We can look at the structures, improve the bow door sealing and the like; we can improve the operational procedures, which is already being done; and we can ensure that the ship is so constructed that the danger of serious damage in the case of a collision is reduced.
1106
However, I should emphasise that those issues are important but secondary. The problem is the rapid capsize of a vessel —a ro-ro ferry—when water gets on to the car deck. They are serious problems and we must tackle them more rapidly. Design standards must be improved so as to ensure that no disaster of a catastrophic nature occurs when there is an accident. Let us compare what happens in public places where many people gather. For example, a cinema or a theatre. Everything possible is done to prevent fire breaking out. Electrical installations and the structure are inspected, along with everything else. But arrangements are made—and inspectors make much of this—to ensure that, if the disaster of a fire does occur, people in that public place can get out in time by exits which are clearly marked so as to save at least the vast majority of those in that place.
The present situation on ro-ro ferries is unsatisfactory. Unmodified ro-ro ferries built before 1990 are quite unacceptable in the sense that they capsize very quickly when water gets on to the car deck. Those vulnerable ferries—that is, vulnerable when there is an accident, but perfectly safe under normal conditions—can operate into the next century. Even those ferries that were built after 1990 in accordance with the IMO safety of life at sea 1990 agreement are not entirely satisfactory. For instance, there is no requirement for ensuring safety after water enters the car deck and floods it. The improvements in the agreement relate almost entirely to helping to prevent flooding in a sea state of three, which is not a rough sea at all. I submit that that agreement needs to be strengthened very considerably if lives are not to be at serious risk in the event of accident on those ferries.
Her Majesty's Government have done their best to make progress with this difficult problem. After the "Herald of Free Enterprise" disaster, they sought to get IMO agreement to improve the standards of those ships. However, they found that that was impossible. Instead, a limited European agreement was achieved; but that still allowed some vulnerable ro-ro ferries to continue operating too long, as witness the "Estonia". In answer to a Question that I tabled last October, my noble friend Lord Goschen replied that, if she had been governed by the present regulations, the "Estonia" could have continued to operate into the next century to the year 2004.
New requirements are urgently needed. First of all, it should be a condition of issuing passenger certificates (in addition to meeting the SOLAS 1990 agreement) that owners should have to satisfy national authorities that, should flooding of the vehicle deck occur with or without associated spaces underneath, the ferry will survive nearly upright for a time sufficient to evacuate the passengers and crew and for rescue work to be effective. That is a most important point.
Secondly, modifications to existing ferries must be completed in the minimum possible time, abandoning the current extended time-scale, and reaching, as I say, well into the next century. That is not a hopeless proposition. It can be done. We know at least six different ways which have been proved by research whereby such ferries can be made less vulnerable in the

1107
event of water entering the car deck. Some ferry companies are already carrying out those modifications. Some of them have already completed the modification of some of their ferries. Of course, it can be a fairly expensive business and it will not be worth while modifying some ferries. However, we must enforce regulations that prevent those unmodified, dangerous and vulnerable ferries operating for so long as is now permitted. I suggest that they should no longer be allowed to operate after 1996. That should give time for a reasonable number of ferries to be modified and if the others cannot be modified, or if it is not worth modifying them, they can be scrapped.
Time must not be wasted on further research into the main problem. As I have said, the main problem is quite clear. However, research is needed to help to determine more effective evacuation arrangements should the ships run into trouble. The IMO should also continue to press home the adoption of regional agreements on acceptable behavioural standards and to impose them under the umbrellas of port state control to which the noble Lord, Lord Perry, referred. That is also a very important point. More work is necessary in that connection. Thirdly, sponsorship of research is required into the development of the SOLAS 1990 agreement for higher sea states than are now effective under that agreement.
I must stress again that there is great urgency in taking action on the matter. We cannot continue to accept the risk of another catastrophic accident where 500 to 1,000 lives might be lost. For example, if one of those ferries came into collision in mid-channel, there would be a real catastrophe. We cannot accept that responsibility for longer than is absolutely necessary.
As I said earlier, modifications are available and some are already being carried out. We must press for that process to be carried along much faster. A timescale must be set after which ferries cannot be operated unless they satisfy new and more stringent agreements. If necessary, if we cannot get agreement with IMO, which I expect will be difficult because of its ponderous procedures, then we can perhaps get another agreement on a European basis. But if in the last resort we cannot get anything that is satisfactory to us, then we must act unilaterally through port state control and insist that all ro-ro ferries operating out of UK ports, of whatever nationality, come up to satisfactory standards which will remove their great vulnerability to the type of accidents which I have described.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Perry, for having brought this debate forward today. It is a subject in which I have long been interested and about which I am greatly concerned. I would like to say how much I agree with the remarks just made by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, on the subject of ferries. I am glad that I did not, in my notes, address the same subjects—as well I might have—because the noble Viscount has covered them too well.
1108
I wish to speak about ocean going cargo vessels because I think that that is a wider subject which may be even more difficult to solve. This report of the port state control committee is horrifying. It will be horrifying to those who have been unaware of unsafe ships. However, it will be helpful, as it goes a long way to explain why there are so many marine casualties each year. The fact is that there are many ships trading which are either structurally unsound or without essential navigating equipment or which have unqualified watch-keepers, perhaps even unable to communicate with each other. There is no obligation to speak a common language. This situation is getting worse and it will continue to get worse as able young men are not going to sea because pay at junior levels is poor.
The underlying reason for unsafe ships is that there are gentlemen in various parts of the world who do not mind how they make their fortune. They buy a worn out ship cheaply, which they can now do as scrap prices are low. They flag from a state that pays little attention to its international obligations as a flag state, and they crew at minimum cost. They are able to get the ship classed and insured. That may seem surprising, but the insurance companies have no way of determining the real risk which they are taking on. If the ship sinks after a few voyages the owner will have made his money and if the crew are lost as well he does not seem to mind, and the fact may hardly be reported in the UK press.
In spite of all that the International Maritime Organisation and the plethora of regulatory bodies can do, this situation is getting worse. However, here I must commend the Ministry of Transport for inspecting more than the required number of ships calling at our ports and for publishing the list of ships detained each month with the reason and the name of the classification society. If only other countries would follow that example and accept Recommendation No. 34 of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, on safer ships and cleaner seas, that would make a big difference. That was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Perry. Recommendation No. 34 would require ships, under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding, to carry log books which would be signed off as ships were inspected.
This horrific situation is complex and to discuss it fully would take all day, but in the few minutes at my disposal I wish to make a proposal which I hope will be helpful. Records show that approximately 80 per cent. of marine accidents are primarily due to human error. But the only international requirement is that members of the crew hold the necessary relevant certificates. In my view current training and certification do not take account of the increasingly high technology being used in ships and ship management. In addition, forged certificates can be bought in Bombay and in the Philippines. Unless port state inspectors have reason to believe certificates are forged, they do not have the power to question or to examine watch-keeping officers further. To navigate and manage a modern ship in confined waters requires much more than a crew with certificates. The crew must work together in a carefully co-ordinated way; essential maintenance must be attended to and all equipment kept in good order. At

1109
present, insurers have no way of finding out how well a ship is crewed and managed, but insurance must be one of the keys to this problem because, if ships could not obtain insurance, ownership of these ships would no longer be attractive.
It seems to me that there must be some way of setting up a body or bodies which would inspect ships with respect to crewing, management and all that goes with it. However, it is not easy to see how that could be done. There have, for instance, been suggestions that the classification societies should take this over and that they should charge the insurers. However, there are so many classification societies now of such differing standards that I doubt whether that would be practicable. It would require inspectors to have different backgrounds and training from those they presently employ for inspection of hull and machinery, and there would be additional costs. However, I hope that the cost of this would be accepted by insurers and P&I clubs. It would have to be passed on but it would be to everyone's advantage, as insurers would then be able to make a realistic assessment of risk, which they cannot do at present. I do not think it is unreasonable to hope that a heavy penalty would apply to poorly crewed and poorly managed ships and that modem well equipped ships with a good safety record might well obtain lower rates of insurance than at present.
Unsafe ships and the high casualty rate have significance far beyond that of loss of life, serious environmental threat and so on. The fact is that worn out, cheaply crewed ships have depressed deep sea freight rates to a level that has meant that well managed British flagged ships can no longer make money. There is no question of being able to write off the cost of depreciation of a new modern ship. The future of British shipowning is threatened and the future of British shipbuilding is threatened. Our Government are probably doing the best they can at the moment but I hope and trust that, perhaps with nudging from Government, the various other interested parties who have recently been fighting each other will come together to find a solution. I refer to the owners, the classification societies, the insurers, the regulatory bodies and so on. These interests are probably concentrated in London to a greater extent than anywhere else and it should be possible for them to get together and agree on a proposal such as I have suggested; that is, that they should arrange for a means of examining and checking on crewing and crew management.
I have been pleased to note that our new Commissioner in Brussels, Mr. Kinnock, has moved quickly in his new role with responsibility for transport and is energetically attacking the question of marine safety. I wish him luck and I hope that he will be supported by all interested parties. It is only a matter of time before we have a quite horrific accident—for example, a gas tanker colliding with a VLCC in confined waters. The fireball, the environmental pollution and the risk of endangering life if the accident happens near the coast, are almost unthinkable. It must be only a matter of time before that happens. The risk is there. The only thing we do not know is whether it
1110
will happen next week or next year. Some way must be found of improving this whole question of ship safety quickly.
6.9 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Perry for introducing the debate. It is timely that we should be discussing the subject in your Lordships' House because last year produced more deaths at sea than in the air and more seafarers were lost at sea than at any time since the Second World War.
I should like to follow the road taken by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, and speak about ocean-going bulk carriers in particular, because that is where I have some experience, albeit more than 25 years ago.
Loss at sea was commonplace in the 19th century. Such tragedies became so extraordinarily common that in the middle of the last century action was forced upon Parliament through Select Committees. If in a leisurely moment any of your Lordships were to delve into the bound copies of The Times going back to the origin of the newspaper in the late 18th century, you would find in almost every edition accounts of losses at sea of a horrifying and dramatic nature. Such incidents were followed very closely by the public. Nowadays I am afraid the public only take notice when there are tragedies such as the loss of the ferries which occurred recently.
The marine Act of 1850 came about as a result of many losses at sea, but particularly due to the heavy loss of life among those emigrating to the Americas and on convict ships. However, what really caused Parliament to sit up and introduce regulatory law through the merchant shipping Act of 1854 was the enormous loss of life in the transatlantic timber trade from North America to Europe, in which large numbers of ships were lost over a few years. That was due to the overloading of ships in order to earn more from freight. When those ships met heavy seas the result was shipwreck.
It would be an omission not to mention in a debate such as this the extraordinary work that was done by the flamboyant Member of Parliament for Derby in the 1870s, Samuel Plimsoll, through whose efforts load line legislation was incorporated in statutory form. That made a great difference to world shipping and is an example of the way in which we led the world in this area.
Nowadays accidents at sea are due to a number of factors. When I left ship management in 1970, shipping, particularly in the case of bulk carriers, was entering a new era of larger ships and new technology. That created problems in terms of training seamen, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords. The larger vessels presented problems with loading and discharging. However, in the early years there were encouragingly few casualties.
I sailed on an early voyage of a large bulk carrier. The company for which I worked had purchased a vessel of 44,000 tonnes, which was very large for that time. I went on a voyage across the Atlantic. The ship was in ballast from Antwerp; it was loaded with iron ore pellets in the St. Lawrence and sailed to Baltimore, where the

1111
cargo was discharged. I was discharged from the ship there while the ship continued to Japan. I was able to observe for myself some of the problems that faced the officers and engineers of the ship and the problems that might arise in the future as vessels became larger, and those problems have occurred.
Since the mid-1970s, well over 70 bulk carriers in excess of 100,000 tonnes have sunk. The reasons are the cause of enormous anxiety now. The causes of those shipwrecks have not been tackled seriously enough. The increasing size, the economies of scale and the pressure on speed of turnaround are factors. In particular, the speed of loading of iron ore into ships and the related discharge of ballast is now seen as creating extraordinary and unforeseen stresses on the structure of vessels.
There is perhaps a false sense of security both within and outside the shipping world because there are already onerous requirements on shipowners to have their ships registered, insured, inspected and classified by well-known and mostly reputable organisations throughout the world. However, there are no universal standards. Nor are there any recognised or universal minimum safety standards for ships or for the training of crews.
International confidence in the shipping industry is not high. That is not surprising, bearing in mind the record of losses and the muddle that exists among the various organisations involved. The financing of new tonnage, which is an extremely important aspect of creating world fleets that are safe and reliable, is a problem. In the case of a large bulk carrier, the most vulnerable period for a ship is between the ages of 12 and 20 years. Generally the age before scrapping of a ship of that type is 20 years. There are too many old vessels in the world, and, due to the current situation there is not enough confidence on the part of those who could finance new tonnage. There are too many problems, too many organisations and too much fragmentation of shipowning. In the case of tankers, the average fleet size is only 1.7 vessels. The oil companies themselves have very little interest in owning vessels these days.
My overriding memory of my days in shipowning, which I enjoyed, is, apart from meeting very charming, able and brave people, the tradition of secrecy which prevailed in the industry. Secrecy and the inability or unwillingness to share information went from the bottom to the top. That is still a traditional aspect of shipowning and it has to be overcome.
Ship inspections are undertaken by various bodies, including flag states, insurers, charterers, owners, protection and indemnity clubs, and potential purchasers. No information is shared properly between those bodies and it is not available to other interests. There is a huge and costly duplication of information. The secrecy is probably due to fear of competition, fear of legal liabilities and fear that a privileged position may be lost. That has always been the case in shipowning. However, the problems will continue until some way is found of collating all the information about ships in an international ship register which will meet the needs of
1112
all those who are interested in having an international fleet in which safety at sea and the protection of the environment are paramount.
The lack of financing for new tonnage will result in a continuing number of ships which are substandard and improperly manned. As has been said, the solution is the provision of an international database. The International Maritime Organisation has already announced that it is considering the possibility of undertaking that. But there has been a great deal of unease about the international database in certain quarters with regard to confidentiality, and so on. That unease must be overcome.
Much can be learnt from the aviation industry. It has developed a method of international control and inspection which is simple and effective compared with that which prevails in the international shipping world. Surely that is the way to proceed. I hope the Government will do everything they can to encourage the achievement of that aim.
6.20 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Perry, for giving us the opportunity to discuss shipping, a subject dear to my heart.
However, before doing so, I omitted an important matter when I last spoke. Therefore, I should like to put on record my grateful thanks to all the officials with whom I had the honour to serve when I was a Minister for their extremely hard work and conscientiousness. I believe that sometimes in the press and in this House they are somewhat knocked. But those officials did a very good job for me, and I am grateful to them.
There are two aspects to the debate today: first, the number of serious accidents; and, secondly, the question of port state control. There is a link between the two but not a major link. Let me first deal with port state control.
Anyone or anything which adds to safety is surely to be welcomed. But port state control is very limited. It is but the last line of defence. If one presses too much on port state control, it diverts attention from the more important issue of flag state control. Shipping is a worldwide business, but port state control is a regional operation. It is particularly good in Europe; but there is now port state control in Latin America and the Asia-Pacific region. However, within Europe itself there are differences between ports regarding the uniformity of standards applied, the interpretation of the conventions, and communication. The noble Lord, Lord Perry, referred to MV "Stella". I wonder whether the MV "Stella" was not a classic case of a ship obtaining different treatment in different ports before it came to Britain and received the proper treatment.
If we become too regional, the problems which already exist in Europe will become magnified, and discrepancies and differences around the world will be multiplied. I do not think that that is good for safety. The problem of language is a difficulty which also needs to be addressed with regard to safety.
A lesser but important point is this. It has been put to me by captains that if we impose too many inspections on a vessel when it is in port, the people who should

1113
be doing other important jobs—I refer to the captain supervising the loading, and checking documents—could be distracted. They can be distracted by port state control, the insurers' inspectors, the underwriters, and the hull people coming on board in that short period in port.
More importantly perhaps, the memorandum of understanding under the Paris convention has already been amended and needs updating on a regular basis. If we become too regionalised in port state control, we shall see those discrepancies appearing time and again in different parts of the world; and those discrepancies will be magnified.
Port state control is useful, but it is merely a snapshot of a vessel in port at a specific time. There is no doubt that such control catches some substandard vessels, but others will get through. I hope that we do not pay too much attention to port state control at the expense of other matters which I believe may be more crucial to safety at sea and preventing accidents.
Let me turn to what I believe is the important part of the debate: the number of serious accidents at sea. There is no doubt that shipping is safe in most areas of the world. If one compares the statistics on shipping and aviation—they are very safe forms of travel—with the statistics on cars, one will see what a good and safe form of transport shipping is. But it is not perfect. Of course I agree with what has been said before: that absolute safety cannot be guaranteed in any form of transportation.
When considering passenger vessels, one bad accident can distort the statistics. However, if one considers the cargo vessels, some rather different statistics appear. According to Lloyd's Register of Shipping, all cargo carrying ships of 1,000 dead weight tonnes or over had an average loss ratio of ships at risk between 1980 and 1993 of 5.3. What is interesting is that if one considers the individual years, in each year between 1980 and 1986 the average for each year was above the 13 year average. In the years 1987 to 1993, the average for each year was below the average for 13 years. Therefore I contest the point made that the number of serious accidents at sea has increased. The issue needs attention, but I believe that there has been an improvement.
Shipping is very different from aviation. There is a different structure. It is a diverse and fragmented operation by its history and nature. It is possible for one person to own a ship. He can lease that ship to a company in a different country. That company or individual could have the ship managed by a management company in a different country which could employ a multinational crew. Although different from aviation, that factor in itself is not necessarily bad. Things could go wrong if that ship were flagged in a state which did not take its duty seriously, using a multinational crew which held dubious certificates; using no common method of communication or common language so that they could act in concert at a time of accident; and if the ship traded in ports where there was no port state control—and that, of course, is easily possible.
1114
How do we address those problems? I believe that we should have one worldwide body to do just that. We are lucky that we have such a body in London: the International Maritime Organisation. It is by far and away the best and most suitable organization to address the shipping problems of the world. I pay tribute to the secretary-general, Bill O'Neil, for the enormous amount of work that he has done to improve the standing of the IMO.
The IMO comprises member states which agree standards and monitor those standards. I believe that position to be fundamentally wrong. The member states are gamekeepers and poachers because they are also the flag states. We should separate those functions, as we have done so well in this country, and allow the member states to set the standards. It is worth considering whether the IMO should be the enforcement agency throughout the world.
Having said that I believe that the IMO is good, it follows that I do not believe that regional bodies are the right answer. The European Commission gave a great deal of assistance to me in obtaining the ferry standards that I believed we should have had —an issue which the IMO ducked. However, although the European Commission has competence in the area of shipping, it is not competent to act in the area of shipping. I hope very much that although it can play a part, it will recognise that the proper body is the world body, the IMO.
I turn specifically to the UK. I congratulate the Government on all the work that they have done to raise standards, and in encouraging our shipping companies to raise standards. But what really matters is the crew. I would rather have more poor ships on the seas with good crews than class ships on the seas with poor crews. As has been pointed out it is human nature which causes and aggravates accidents, and sometimes alleviates them.
We should do more on training. I am glad that we introduced the development of the certificated seafarers scheme. That, plus the general assistance for training scheme, has helped. I hope that my noble friend Lord Goschen and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look at the issues again and strengthen the provisions. I believe that we have the potential to face a difficult situation in the years to come. The UK sits at the high table when it comes to safety. Unless we have men of experience, of the right training and the right qualifications who have been to sea, then I fear that in future years we will not have the force that we have now when we sit at the high table. Our voice is listened to now and I hope that it will be listened to in the future. That is where training and encouragement to join the merchant marine is so important.
However, it is not just a question of the Government and our shipping companies, there is the whole area of the classification societies and the insurers. We have the best classification society in the world in this country—Lloyd's Register. It is doing a good job through the International Association of Classification Societies. But what about those who are not members of the society and who do not have the same standards as Lloyd's? I

1115
think that the insurance industry could do more, too. It does not differentiate enough between what is and what is not a class ship. Last year, 1,100 ships left the books of the major classification societies. Where did they go? Some were undoubtedly scrapped, some probably are casualties and are not sailing. The others are still on the high seas. The serious question is: who has classed them and who has insured them? They should not be allowed on the seas if the major companies do not do that.
In summary, I believe that we are heading in the right direction. We need to strengthen the one world body that we have—the IMO. I do not believe that the regional bodies should be given any more encouragement to take up the mantle. The Government should continue to press on the training and continue to fund it. What is important is safety, the environment and instilling into every company throughout the world that the safety culture is inherent, from the managing director to the directors, to the divisional head, to the captain. If those people think safety, then so will the newest recruit.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords who have spoken in thanking and congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, on raising an issue which, I have no doubt at all, is of great importance and great urgency. It is also, sad to say, a matter of great complexity. It is extremely difficult within the time that noble Lords have to discuss the subject, to go into the matter in any depth. Listening to the speeches that have been made up till now, I kept thinking: "Ah, but there's a qualification". However, I have put aside qualifications because it is necessary to deal with the matter broadly.
Lack of safety at sea has two obvious results. First, it endangers the lives of the seamen concerned, including those who go to sea to try to rescue people. Secondly, it exposes the coastline to pollution. Both are important and it is quite wrong to try to rank them in any order. They are different, but they have the same cause.
It is worth remembering that the United Kingdom coastline is 8,000 miles long; it is the third longest coastline in Europe. Furthermore, all that coastline is subject to passing traffic and merchant ships seeking to call at our ports. I have said it before and I say it again, we live virtually in the middle of a maritime spaghetti junction.
The sea is inherently much more dangerous than the roads. It follows from that that we need safety standards for shipping which are much higher. We have safety standards. I do not compare them particularly with standards for the roads, but they are certainly not as high as they ought to be, for the simple reason that they require international agreement. The lowest common factor invariably obtrudes.
Even on the basis of those standards, it is clear that of every 100 ships sailing past our shores or calling at our ports, 60 will be found to be deficient in one respect or another. It is also clear that of every 100 ships, eight are so seriously unseaworthy that they cannot be allowed to sail the seas until repairs have been effected.
1116
Of course, we do not inspect all the ships, but that is a perfectly fair and reasonable extrapolation from the results of inspections of ships which we are able to examine.
In this country alone, during December there were 26 ships under detention because they were in the serious category. I add—if further evidence is required as to the risks which are involved in our own waters—that during the course of the inquiry which I chaired, we asked for details of all incidents occurring round the coast of the UK which either caused pollution or had the potential to cause serious pollution. The answers are set out in the appendix; in summary, there were 34 incidents in 61 weeks. That is a serious incident every fortnight. If we were concerned with similar low standards on the roads or similar obvious risks on the roads, there would be a public outcry.
Clearly we shall not put it right unless, first, we find out why it is happening. The primary responsibility for the state of ships, both in terms of structure and of manning and training, is that of shipowners and ship managers. Some succeed—and it is only right that tribute should be paid to them—in putting high standard ships to sea. On a recent visit to Australia I was pleased to hear people refer to international standards and the Shell standard. I am sure that they would equally have said the same of other major oil companies. However, that illustrates that it is accepted that higher standards are adopted by really good shipowners.
Some shipowners succeed; some try but fail. However, a great number of shipowners simply do not try. Let us be fair about it, they have considerable problems. Shipping is an international activity with international competition. Furthermore, there is over-capacity and the two add up to low freight rates. The solution, in essence, is that it must no longer pay, and it must be seen not to pay, a shipowner to run an unsafe ship. That, of course, immediately raises the question of how on earth we achieve that. I agree that the first line of defence is the flag state. It is the flag state's responsibility. The flag state has far greater facilities than any other state to achieve safety in the shipping flying its flag. But again, the story is a sad one. Some flag states undoubtedly succeed, and I hope that by ignoring the odd accident we are one of them. I believe that we probably are, although I would be happier if there were a greater degree of self-monitoring. However, let us assume that we are among those who succeed. Again, there are some who try and fail but, alas, there are a large number of flag states which do not even try. They deliberately refrain from trying because it costs money. They are able to attract more and more vessels to their flag as a nice little earner.
The Institute of London Underwriters has shown that the flag states which have the greatest number of total losses are those whose fleets are now expanding; contrariwise, those who have the least losses appear to be unable to attract ships.
I listened with a mixture of amazement and despair to the plea of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that we leave it to the IMO. I mention, merely en passant, that it is true I am older than he is. But I am certain that I shall never live to see the day when the IMO is in a

1117
position to control shipping on a world-wide basis, which is how he would like to see it controlled. I hope that he will live long enough. But that is the sort of term that we are talking about, and we cannot afford to wait. I very much regret that the Paris memorandum suggested that there should be a limit to the amount of port state control, as that would merely relieve flag states of their responsibilities. There are other ways of dealing with flag states, but it takes time.
Port state control is our only defence at the moment. I congratulate the United Kingdom on raising its rate of inspection to 30 per cent. when its obligation is 25 per cent. I congratulate the UK on publishing the monthly list of "ships of shame", to borrow the Australian term. I congratulate the UK upon the leadership which I happen to know it has exerted in recent months, albeit without much self-publicity. But it will not succeed until shipowners are convinced that the risk of sending an unsafe ship to a European port is just not worth it. We cannot do it on our own; we have to do it on a regional basis. There is not time to try to do it on a world basis; it just will not happen.
I hope that it will be possible for the Government to extend their "ships of shame" category to include United Kingdom ships. They are not inspected under port state control, but under a different system with a different name. I have always thought it wrong that none of the Paris memorandum states publish the results of snap inspections on their own ships. They ought to do so, in order that there might be a comparative picture.
As has been pointed out, there are other players in this game apart from government. There are charterers who have to be convinced that it really is not worth paying the cheapest rate in the light of the risk of the cargo not arriving or arriving damaged. There are hull and machinery underwriters who have to be persuaded that it is not very sensible to take a low premium to get business which turns out to be unprofitable. There are cargo underwriters who are in much the same position, except that there are special problems for them. There are the P&I clubs' underwriters, who are undoubtedly in a very special position because there is no "them and us" mentality. It is not a case of "us" making the claims and "them" paying them. They are self-insured on a mutual basis. Their standards of information are very high indeed. What all those have in common is that they need a pooling of information. I would like to see a sort of Dun & Bradstreet of the sea, but we shall not arrive at that for a little while. There should be a permanent flow of information between government and each of these organisations. It is beginning to happen, but it needs encouragement.
Then there are the classification societies. I should like to be able to express my unalloyed admiration for the big classification societies, the members of IACS. I regret to say that I cannot do so. If one looks at the monthly statements made by the Government it will be found that the classification societies are to some extent unfairly blamed in that they are named when all that is wrong is that the radio operator does not have a certificate, which is nothing to do with them. If one looks down the list carefully one finds cases of wasted and corroded hulls which must have been passed by
1118
major classification societies within a time which casts grave doubt upon the standard of their work. They are improving—let us say that loudly and clearly—but there is room for more to be done.
Perhaps I may just make a few more points very quickly; I appreciate that I risk running over time. Of all the bodies that noble Lords may find surprising, there are the missions to seamen. They do an immensely valuable job in providing a channel of complaint which seamen dare use and that information can very often be passed on to those who can take action. And there is the media. The media highlighted the case of the "Stella". I hope that they will continue to highlight similar events.
I seem to have slipped out of the congratulatory mode, but I have one last word of congratulation for Her Majesty's Government on having stationed the two support tugs in the guise of salvage tugs in Stornoway and Dover. Both have been used already, which speaks for itself.
I return to the point that I have been making all along. It would be nice to tackle this problem on a world basis, but we have no chance of doing so within any reasonable time. We have to pin our faith on port state control. There is a crucial, indeed a critical, level of effort in port state control at which shipowners will begin to come into line. I cannot put a figure on it, but until that critical level is reached, things will merely continue as they are at the moment. I hope that we can increase our effort until we reach that critical level.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, for moving this Motion, and in particular for drawing the attention of the House to the interesting 1993 report of the Paris memorandum on port state control.
The noble Lord, Lord Perry, has already mentioned that the Select Committee on Science and Technology published a report almost three years ago on safety aspects of ship design and technology. I chaired the sub-committee which produced that report. I find it gratifying that the Paris memorandum report shows that significant progress has been made in improving certain aspects of port state control in the direction that we recommended. However, I do not intend to discuss those aspects. Other noble Lords have enlarged upon them. I wish to draw attention to some other aspects of ship safety.
The Paris memorandum report itself emphasises that port state control is only one element—a secondary tier—in the enforcement of ship safety regulations, and that too great a reliance on it could create a disincentive for negligent flag states to improve their safety performance; and would, in fact, contribute to a situation where port states would implicitly subsidise non-compliance by flag states.
The main burden of our report was the lack of scientific background to the methods by which ship safety is regulated and the regulations enforced. We proposed that in the long term—we accepted that it would be in the long term—prescriptive rules should be replaced by a safety case, based on quantified risk

1119
analysis, covering all aspects of ship design, construction and operation. In their official response to our report, the Government gave that idea a cool reception. But, during the year that followed, the more progressive minds in the marine directorate of the Department of Transport prevailed over the traditionalists. In April 1993 the Government forwarded an excellent paper to the International Maritime Organization, drawing attention to our report and recommending that the Marine Safety Committee of the IMO should set up a working group to consider proposals made by the Government for the introduction of formal safety assessment, as they preferred to call it, as the basis of regulation in addition to prescriptive rules covering hull and machinery design and construction. I understand that a further paper on the subject was submitted to the Marine Safety Committee at its meeting last month. I should be grateful if, when he replies, the noble Viscount can say how it was received and report on what progress there has been in this field.
There was one specific recommendation that we made in relation to that concept to which we had no clear response and on which, so far as I am aware, no action has been taken. It was that the European Community (or Union as it now is), should adopt a standard of verifiable safety management systems for shipping based on ISO 9002 and IMO Resolution A647, and impose it as a compulsory requirement for ships of any flag carrying passengers, oil or hazardous cargoes in European Union waters. That might go some way towards what my noble friend Lord Cooke suggested. I hope that the Minister will clarify the Government's attitude to this and, if they do not regard it as acceptable, explain why.
This brings me to the difficult issue of what part the European Union and the Commission in particular should play in the field of ship safety. The Commission produced a document in February 1993 called A Common Policy on Safe Seas. I hope that the noble Viscount can tell us when he replies whether any of its recommendations have been accepted and what is now the status of that document.
Our report made no other recommendations specifically related to the European Union. But a certain body of opinion felt that the Union should play a larger part. It was suggested that, as around 28 per cent. of world trade at that time passed through European ports, it would be possible, if all littoral nations co-operated, to impose higher standards than those accepted as mandatory within the IMO, and thus exclude ships of flag states which refused or failed to enforce those higher standards. It was even suggested that there should be a European coastguard with responsibilities and powers akin to those of the US Coastguard.
But there are arguments in the opposite direction, largely indicated by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, a fundamental one being the importance of maintaining the greatest possible freedom of operation of shipping worldwide. Those who support that suggest that any move towards different mandatory standards in different areas could operate against freedom of operation and lead to discriminatory measures in retaliation. There was also a certain fear that the Commission was trying to
1120
take over the Paris memorandum organisation of port state control, important members of which, such as Norway, Poland, Russia and Canada, are not members of the Union.
It seems to me that the best way forward is to encourage members of the Union to make mandatory for their own shipping safety resolutions which have been recommended by the IMO but not yet made mandatory because of failure to obtain wide agreement on them. I shall be grateful if the Minster, in his reply, can explain what he sees as the role of the European Union in this field.
There are one or two other matters to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. The first is the quality and quantity of ship surveyors available not only to the Marine Safety Agency but also to classification societies. With the drastic rundown in both the shipbuilding and the ship operating industries in this country, is there not a danger that there will develop a severe shortage of experienced surveyors of the quality needed both to inspect and to maintain high standards? What are the Government doing about that?
Another factor is the future of the Marine Safety Agency. We welcomed its formation, though it did not go as far as our recommendation that it should be a statutory authority similar to the Civil Aviation Authority. But, since its formation, the Government have attempted to farm out a significant proportion of its survey work to private bodies, which, in practice, means generally to classification societies, which are the clients of the shipbuilders and operators. Are the Government satisfied that the MSA has the funds, the personnel and the powers which it should have in order to maintain high standards of safety in all respects? There are some of us who doubt it.
We also recommended that the MSA should become responsible for functions other than those it inherited from the Surveyor General's organisation, including marine traffic control. Are the Government satisfied that their relations with the coastguard, Trinity House and the air-sea rescue services, including the RNLI, are as good as they should be? Finally, we recommended that the Government should find ways to encourage ship science. What have the Government done in that respect in the three years since we reported? Not much, I think. I believe that I have asked the noble Viscount enough questions.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Kirkwood: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Perry for initiating this debate on accidents at sea. He and other noble Lords very clearly and adequately dealt with some of the issues of the 1993 annual report of the Port State Control Committee. That document concentrates mainly on organisational and management issues; the problems of the responsibilities of port state control as against those of the flag states; the standards of inspection; the penalties of delay and detention; the selection of ships for inspection; and collaboration and co-operation with other countries. On the technical side, the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, referred to the stability of ro-ro ships. I want to

1121
concentrate on another technical issue; that is, the technical aspects of the deficiencies encountered during inspection.
The report refers to,
"alarming levels of corrosion in essential structures, particularly older bulk carriers".
Consequently, members (of the Paris memorandum) embarked on special bulk carrier inspection programmes, focusing on the structural integrity of those ships.
Annex 4 to the report provides information on the number of deficiencies in various categories. Perhaps I may briefly outline them. The major categories are life saving appliances, 24 per cent. deficiencies; fire fighting, 17 per cent.; safety in general, 13 per cent.; and navigation, 12 per cent. The rag-bag category termed "Safety in general" is further broken down, and within that defects in the construction, hull and bulkheads of the ships amounted to something like 20 per cent. That may appear to be a small part of the whole, but since such things as life saving appliances and to some extent fire fighting equipment are needed only where failure of the structure occurs, structural integrity is clearly of prime importance.
For much of what I am about to say I am indebted to Mr. John Jubb, who is an expert on structural failures in hulk carriers. This is in fact the title of a lecture that he is giving at this moment at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. I am concerned with catastrophic failures of ships at sea—catastrophic in human terms, with the loss of life of crew and officers, and catastrophic in engineering terms because failure of the ship's structure is so rapid, perhaps a matter of seconds, that there is no opportunity to send out Mayday calls or to take to the lifeboats.
The reasons for those catastrophic failures are complex. They include bad design resulting in stress concentrations in critical parts of the hull; corrosion which results in the thinning of ship's plate and structural members; and fatigue, which causes cracks to grow slowly at first to a critical length, at which point the crack propagates as a brittle failure through the whole structure at the speed of sound (several hundred metres a second). Brittle fracture is catastrophic and occurs without warning, and corrosion can aggravate the situation.
An important factor in the whole problem of structural integrity is the critical crack length above which catastrophic failure occurs. This is primarily a property of the material—in this case steel. A high strength steel—which is an attractive material to ship designers because it is a way of saving weight and more cargo can be carried—will have a critical crack length of only a few millimetres, almost undetectable by normal visual inspection. A grade A steel, usually required for shipbuilding, will have a critical crack length of a few inches, though no fracture toughness requirements are specified for that steel. A grade D steel, which is required for naval ships, will have a critical crack length of about one metre. That clearly gives a hugely increased safety margin as well as making a sub-critical crack easily detectable. It seems incredible that, when the steel industry has been
1122
developing over the past 10 years very clean steels with fine grain size for constructional purposes—both of which give greater toughness to the steel—for little or no extra cost, those materials should not be made mandatory in the construction of present-day ships.
I want to finish by making some remarks on inspection for defects, with quotations from Mr. Jubb. In his paper he writes:
"Actual structural failures highlight the uncertain ability to detect defects before they reach a critical length … Unfortunately while there are many references to quality management in shipbuilding literature, there are no quality systems that address visual inspection including cleanliness and illumination".
Further on he says:
"The enhanced survey requirements concentrate largely on thickness measurements and fail to address quantitative and authoritative assessment of crack size at any location, and local corrosion losses at the edge of plates adjacent to the weld".
He goes on to recommend the inspection procedures developed by the CAA and the FAA for the aircraft industry to be adopted also by the shipbuilding industry. That was also the conclusion of the Carver Select Committee, of which I had the honour to be a member.
There is no single or simple solution to the problem of the structural safety of ships. But it should begin with a requirement to design structures from first principles so that high stresses in critical parts can be avoided. Secondly, the minimum fracture toughness requirements of materials used in construction should be specified and the use of new tough steels should be encouraged. Finally, a quality system of visual inspection for structural defects should be established and adhered to.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Perry, for instigating this debate today. It is more than six months since last we had an opportunity to discuss shipping and all its ramifications.
I do not have to remind the House that the sea is, and always has been, a dangerous element. If we look way back we see that there has been a constant rise and fall in accidents at sea, often relating to certain types of ship. In the last century gross overloading went on for many years. That was finally put an end to by Mr. Samuel Plimsoll. The loss of the "Titanic" ensured that enough lifeboats were available for passengers. In the 1920s there was a spate of collier losses due to broken hatch covers. Research into that resulted in the arrival of modern steel hatch covers. More recently we have had many accidents involving explosions on large tankers, which has led to the introduction of all kinds of systems with inert gas and so forth. Today, as we have heard, the spotlight is falling on bulk carriers and ro-ro ferries. I shall have more to say on that subject in a moment.
Against all of this one must put the decline—the quite drastic decline in some instances—in the fleets of traditional maritime nations. Among that number is the United Kingdom. There has also been a drastic decline in well trained personnel. I shall have more to say on training and personnel later. This has been counterbalanced by a rise in nations new to shipping which in many ways cannot hope to emulate the

1123
standards that we have built up over the years. It is a complex and wide-ranging problem but things are being done.
Port state control is one example. I join my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson in saying that port state control is one of the most effective ways yet devised to assist in raising standards. I do not think it will eliminate substandard ships entirely, but it is a good step in the right direction. The problem is that the inspecting authorities vary in their forms of inspection. If we can tighten up that area, the whole system will be very much more efficient. Against that, as I said a moment ago, some of the nations new to shipping find it very difficult to enforce certain of the standards that come out of the IMO. However, we are making progress and reports of offending nations and ships are now being circulated.
While I am on that subject, perhaps I may turn to some points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, in his report. He thought that a better way of doing this would be for the shipowners to pay for port state control. Not all shipowners are entirely happy about that. Their argument is that the system that exists at present—not everywhere but in a good many cases—under which offending ships pay is a far better way of going about it. It is a similar concept to that relating to pollution, under which the polluter pays. I believe I am right in saying that when a ship is inspected it is not charged. If it passes it does not have to pay anything. But, if a ship has faults, the surveyors might have to come back once, twice or several times. From that second visit they charge. The defaulting ship owners are in effect paying. That is the right way to go about it.
The noble and learned Lord also proposed a self-targeting system for ships coming to our shores and other shores for the first time whereby they would have to give 48 hours' notice of arrival, thereby allowing the authorities suitable time to gather an inspection committee. It sometimes happens that, for a number of reasons, a ship is unable to give notice. I am slightly worried that such a ship might fall into the category of being detained, which is the stick, for 48 hours. That may cause problems if it happens to be a passenger ship or a tanker, which may be dangerous. There is a slight worry on that principle and I think that we shall have to look at it a little more carefully.
The noble and learned Lord's report is excellent. It has been very well received. The Government's reply is fairly imminent and we all look forward with great interest to hearing what they have to say. Before leaving that subject, I would endorse fully what my noble and learned friend said with regard to the missions for seamen, which do a tremendous job.
I shall now turn to safety at sea and to bulk carriers, which have been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. A large number of those ships have been lost. By and large they have been elderly ships, 19 or 20 years old, and almost all of them have been carrying iron ore, a particularly heavy cargo. This problem is being addressed in a number of quarters. Lloyd's Register carried out an investigation in 1992 which revealed the disturbing fact that operators expected their ships to be damaged as a consequence of the environment in which
1124
they operate. Studies continue and one particular project which is under way at the moment is being undertaken by a number of learned bodies such as Lloyd's Register, a Japanese shipbuilder, the Australian Maritime Engineering Co-operative Research Centre and BHP Transport, a large Australian operator of bulk carriers, particularly ore carriers. The study is looking into all kinds of ways of monitoring stresses in bulk carriers with meters and a variety of electronic equipment. That is a very good way forward which in due course may help enormously, though I have a certain worry in that it probably means more VDU screens on ships' bridges and the poor officer of the watch these days has quite enough to look at without extra screens.
Perhaps I may now turn to ferries. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in his general safety comparison with other modes of transport, was quite right. Despite the press coverage, ferries are not necessarily dangerous, although they can be under certain circumstances. Indeed, all ships are dangerous under certain circumstances. I do not believe that the noble Earl mentioned an actual figure, but I understand that it is something like seven times more dangerous to travel in a motor car than it is on a ro-ro ferry. That must be taken into account. The problem is being addressed. Naval architects are hard at work trying to produce ideas to keep these ships afloat longer, and that is very much to be welcomed. I believe that Her Majesty's Government were quite right to resist the sealing of bow doors because I do not believe that to be necessary. Some of our ferry companies know exactly what they are doing. Some of them have fitted third doors to the ferries they brought from the Baltic. Their feeling is that they prefer to implement some of these features themselves. They know what is best in many instances. They have tightened up their procedures, insist on not sailing until all doors are shut and various other things.
I refer quickly to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Perry, as regards the Government postponing the delegation of ro-ro ferry inspections to the classification societies. My understanding is that those societies are already involved. They inspect ships as do the Government inspectors. That applies to all passenger ships and not just ro-ro ferries. The Government have put this delegation on ice because of the IMO studies, and that is quite understandable. I ask the Minister: what is the position as regards cruise ships? Are the Government to go ahead and try to save costs by doing away with double inspection?
I should say a brief word about manning, as time is running out. It is estimated that there will be a shortfall of 750,000 mariners by the year 2000. I find that very disturbing. Where are the new crews to come from? Are we training enough people? A great many intelligent people want to go to sea but there are no berths for them. Some are going into marine-related industries but they have no sea experience. Today those jobs are filled by former seafarers, so there is a shortfall. Basic seamanship, which is most important, is lacking and tends to be overlooked. I believe that that may possibly have been one of the problems with the "Estonia",

1125
which may have been travelling too fast in conditions that did not warrant it. It is a problem of basic seamanship.
My time has run out. Finally, I concur with what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, as regards the IMO. It is the best body to deal with many of these problems. Shipping is an international world these days and it should be dealt with internationally by the IMO. At times I am slightly worried by Europe. There is a danger that it might come in and add another level of bureaucracy, which is something the shipowners certainly do not want.
7.14 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, in entering the debate in order to wind up for our side, I feel a good deal of trepidation. We have listened to speakers, all of whom, as I learned before I came into the House, have a specific expertise in the subject which we have been discussing. It would be ridiculous of me to claim any such expertise. Therefore, I shall try to stick to making comments in a way which reflect my knowledge of life in general rather than pretending to be an instant expert for this occasion.
A great many speakers have spoken vividly about something which struck me when I began to look at the briefing material with which I have been supplied; namely, the enormous number of different agencies which are operating in this field—the owner, the insurer, the classifier, the person who looks after the ship and the crew. There is a mass of people, all of whom are scattered across the world and who operate in the private sector. I do not mean that in any derogatory sense; it is simply a matter of fact. It has been suggested by one noble Lord or another that somehow we need to regulate them in the interests of safety at sea, which is a subject in which this country has historically taken a long and sometimes quite distinguished interest. If the Minister wishes to respond to any of the comments which I make, I hope that he will do so in the sense that I have put all my questions to him in the context of this very difficult situation where, as I say, we want a regulatory function over international organisations, all of which operate, as my noble friend said, in mutual secrecy and in the private sector. It is obviously an extremely difficult situation.
I now turn briefly to the subject of insurance, which is obviously connected to the ageing of vessels. As my noble friend and others have said, it is one of the proximate causes of accidents at sea, particularly among bulk carriers. Is there anything which the Government can do, either alone, with other states or through the IMO, to get at or influence the more irresponsible classification societies which, looking at the matter from my inexpert position, are one of the niggers in this particular woodpile? Are there any specific objectives which the Government should set themselves in dealing with the particular problems associated with the insurance of ageing ships?
For example, I have read suggestions from at least one person, and probably more, that as bulk carriers grow older they should perhaps have their loading limits reduced. That is something which we might pursue. The
1126
noble Earl, Lord Caithness, suggested that the IMO should become the policeman of these and other matters. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how he believes such a policing function can be set up and put into effect. I come from a background where there is a great deal of interest in international organisations of every kind and a great willingness to believe in their effectiveness. Nevertheless, it is precisely in this area where the difficulty lies of reconciling the individual and the regulatory power of an international organisation. That is where we get into our greatest difficulties.
I turn briefly to the subject of policing, or port state control, which set this whole debate going. Not only do several noble Lords who have spoken consider that control by the flag states is what is really desirable; the Paris Memorandum is also in favour of it. The 1993 report says in several places that the policing is only a fragile substitute for what should be happening. I was struck by the fact that the area of influence is actually growing.
We have a not fiercely dynamic, but nevertheless dynamic, institution here which is gradually extending its powers of control and inspection by encouraging the spread of its methods of operation to other regions, most notably the Caribbean, Latin America and the Pacific Basin. It is also in favour of establishing something to which many noble Lords have referred; namely, a database through which countries can exchange information about the ships which they have inspected, the faults they have found and the really bad eggs, as it were, that they have discovered. Again, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response, but I should have thought that Her Majesty's Government might take an interest in trying to extend the operation of port state control to other areas of the world. Areas that are conspicuous by their absence are the Mediterranean basin countries, the Middle East and a good deal of the Far East. Is there any way in which we can use our influence to encourage the continuing expansion of the role of port state control through the activities of the member states of the Paris Memorandum?
I should like to refer briefly to the basic problem of ship construction. I was struck by the words of, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, who, like my noble friend Lord Kirkwood, described the inadequacies of the design and construction of bulk carriers and ro-ro ships. That made me think about the enormous care that is taken to ensure that aircraft are constructed in a very controlled way. With aircraft we do not have the same problems of deficient standards or the inability to control the standards to which aircraft are constructed. That may be because airline construction is in the hands of relatively few large companies, whereas shipbuilding is far more widely scattered across the world. Other noble Lords have referred to the newcomers in the world of shipbuilding. But even if more companies are involved in shipbuilding than in airline construction, it seems to me that the number of companies is relatively limited. It is extremely important that all governments begin to impose, or to require, more severe certification as to a ship's seaworthiness along the lines that we have gradually begun to require for aircraft, particularly those

1127
used for passenger transport. That would have to be carried out through an international organisation of some sort or another.
Following the tragic loss of life on the "Estonia", everyone was made aware of the way in which ro-ro ships operate if water enters either through holing below the waterline or because of faulty front or bow doors. We have all become aware of the extent to which water can destabilise a vessel. Many people and organisations, including most recently the Royal Academy of Engineers, are urging the Government to take unilateral action in response to such disasters and to insist that all such vessels should be able to remain upright for 30 minutes following an accident at sea.
I believe that it was the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, who made it plain that, although older ships are not required at present to conform to such standards, there seems to be retrofitting of, for example, stabilising bags and other equipment such as that to subdivide the vehicle deck once it has been filled. Even if, for reasons of competition, we cannot insist on a car deck being permanently divided, I understand that there are ways in which the deck can be divided after it has been filled in order to prevent water rushing through the ship and destabilising it, as happened with the "Estonia". What are the Government doing to further that important aim of trying to ensure that existing vessels are safe for the future?
In reading for this debate, I noticed that a number of people are suggesting that the situation is becoming so competitive for the companies which operate ro-ro ferries that it is difficult to insist on increased safety standards. However, in conclusion, I draw your Lordships' attention to the comments of Sir Alastair Morton of Eurotunnel who spoke recently to a group of risk assessors, making an interesting point which is relevant to this debate. He said that whereas the Channel Tunnel has had to be created to what are almost super-safe standards, Eurotunnel and the lines using the tunnel are nevertheless competing directly with shipping which does not have to comply with the same level of safety standards with which he, quite happily, is having to comply.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, on having initiated this excellent and well informed debate which has enabled a good deal of expert opinion to be offered. Perhaps I may touch first on one of the points that has just been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and say that one of the most significant reasons for the safety differences between aviation and shipping is that so far, thankfully, there is little evidence of flags of convenience in relation to aviation.
We have had the great benefit of listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, who, with his committee, has produced a superb report. I ask the Minster to recognise that this short debate must not
1128
be seen as a substitute for a major debate in government time on that report when the Government have published their reply. The report deserves no less.
I am delighted to see the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, back in harness. It was nice of him to do what he did vis-à-vis his officials. I am sure that they appreciate it. I do not agree entirely with some of the noble Earl's points; but I shall come to them in a moment.
Tonight we are talking essentially about sub-standard ships which shame their owners and their flags and which are a source of major risk to the marine environment and the marine facilities of the nations that they visit. We are also talking about ways of at least mitigating, if not eliminating, some of those risks. We are therefore reflecting not only on the role of port state control in relation to that, but also on that of flag state control. I entirely agree with all those who have said that flag state control has to be improved. Indeed, we must improve our own.
Back in 1977 when I was the Minister responsible for shipping, I put forward an idea to IMCO, as it was then—the IMO succeeded it—to set up a marine safety corps. That idea was adopted and implemented for a time. The idea was that the developed shipping nations would make surveyors available to the developing countries, providing expertise so that they could create a better infrastructure for flag state control. Sadly, that idea seemed to fall into desuetude after a couple of years. Is there any chance of it being revived? The need is great.
Port state control must never be seen as an alternative to flag state control. I am not in any way seeking to diminish its importance, but all it does is to identify deficiencies in ships that should never have been allowed to develop in the first place—the fault of flag state control; the fault of the shipowners. But we are talking as well tonight of the flags of shame where flag states have virtually no connection with the vessels sailing the flag, let alone any proper infrastructure of regulation.
Some of the statistics we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Perry, and others illustrate how some flags have declined in terms of effectiveness. That means there has been a diminution of effective control. That has arisen through economic stress, the recession and other reasons. But over the past 40 or 50 years, the maritime world and administration have been slow to recognise the iniquity of flags of convenience. After all, what is it? It is a system designed to enable shipowners to contract out of fundamentally important responsibilities; responsibilities for civilised treatment of seafarers; to contract out of taxation and internationally agreed obligations.
It has been commercially tempting for some shipowners to overlook technical and structural deficiencies; to cut corners; and too many have been aided and abetted by shippers and charterers—all in the name of commercial pressures.
The Paris memorandum arose because there was widespread concern about ineffective monitoring and supervision by large numbers of flag states. It did not however seek to tackle the basic problem posed by the very concept of flags of convenience. It focused on

1129
substandard ships. It may have been easier to do that. Perhaps it was the only pragmatic way of proceeding. What is reflected vividly in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, is "the quite appalling record" of defects in vessels visiting our ports. Some of those statistics have already been alluded to.
Too many geriatric rust buckets sail between ports or, perhaps more accurately, almost sink between ports. It is all catalogued in the report—corroded ballast tanks and safety brackets; the widespread neglect of lifesaving appliances and fire equipment—amounting all-in-all to a callous disregard of human life. When a flag of convenience seeks to improve its standards, like Liberia, what happens? It loses out. It is deserted by many, once again on the ground of commercial pressures.
The task of responsible maritime administrations must be to wage unremitting war against the type of practices that have been described. The price of failure is, indeed, unacceptably high. What has led to that catastrophic state of affairs? Undoubtedly, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, it is the decline in influence of respectable flags.
A number of noble Lords referred to the classification societies, some of which collude deliberately in declining standards and compete unfairly with the long-established societies. They all too readily accept changes in class of vessels rejected by the more reputable societies; they issue certificates which bear little relationship to the true condition of the vessel; they force down standards all the time so far as concerns the more respectable classification societies, but they, too, are belaboured by the fact that they are in a somewhat invidious position, because they are in a client/adviser situation. That weakens the force of their activities.
A good deal has been said tonight about the IMO. I do not believe that it is to blame for tardy behaviour and ineffectiveness. It is the fault of the member states of the IMO. Too many have a vested interest in opposing reform. Some are too poor to undertake the necessary changes. Combined, that can so easily, and has so frequently, frustrated reform. I do not believe that we can place entire faith in the IMO. I support completely what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said about Bill O'Neil. He is a superb leader, but he has what I have just referred to in the background of all his activities.
It is possible to engage in a limited form of regionalism to make progress. It has been done. It was done by the French, effectively, in 1976 with the "Amoco Cadiz"; it was done by the noble Earl with regard to the "Herald of Free Enterprise" in another limited way. It can take place, and it needs to be stimulated. The IMO should not be replaced by the European Commission. Of course not. It needs to be stimulated by regional activity and influence. There is a critical need to buttress international co-operation; to ensure that the Paris memorandum has wider effects in other parts of the world.
Some of your Lordships referred to the number of surveyors. I posed a number of questions in advance to the Minister who is to reply to the debate. I share the concerns expressed on that subject. Do we have sufficient surveyors? How many are employed by the MSA as compared with, say, five years ago? What is
1130
the potential for recruitment now that our own fleet is in a state of decline? We rely upon those seafarers to become surveyors in the public and private sectors.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, and others, referred to social affairs, in effect, on board ship. So much human error is responsible for shipping accidents. We hear a great deal about that, but we do not hear much about the poorly trained crews; the crews unable to communicate with one another; the appalling conditions found all too often on board; bogus pay books, suggesting that seafarers have been paid much more than they actually receive; and so much fatigue through working excessive hours. Will the Government be committed to the draft ILO Convention 109 in that regard? What steps are they taking to ensure that Convention 147 is applied in our port state control procedures?
I shall say a word about flag state control and the "QEII". That episode did not reflect well on our flag state control. I ask the Minister to indicate why that ship was allowed to sail to New York last December. We saw on our television screens frightening pictures of debris in the corridors, which could have had a devastating effect in the event of an accident. Why did that ship go to sea? Why did the United States coast guard feel compelled to intervene and detain the ship? How consistent was that with the surveyor's report at Southampton?
Many speakers have spent a good deal of time—I do not have much time to deal with it—on the issue of ro-ro vessels and bulk carriers. We need to take particular care in relation to vessels of those classes. We seem all too often to react to catastrophe: the "Estonia" incident happened and so we geared up our activities. When the "Herald of Free Enterprise" incident happened, we did the same. Why is there not more continuing vigilance over those types of vessels? We know that a great deal of work is being done in the IMO and DG.7, and I wish my friend Commissioner Kinnock well in everything he has to undertake. But speed is of the essence. Solutions must be dictated less by cost in financial terms and more by cost in human life.
I want to end on a matter which I consider to be serious. On 21st December 1994 the Secretary of State wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the scope for greater private sector participation in ship survey and certification work, as part of the deregulation process. The Secretary of State said that in the case of ro-ros, the brake would have to be applied. So far so good; I agree with that. But we have to look at the motivation. I have the letter, and he made it clear that if a major accident were to occur after safety supervision had been sold off, then the Government would be accused of putting commercial considerations above safety. In the light of the "Estonia" he suggested that delegation of hull and machinery surveys of ro-ro passenger vessels should not proceed. He said:
"When the decision was made in 1993, we had no reason to believe that the inspection of hull and machinery was especially safety critical".
What rubbish! Who advised him to come to that conclusion? I have never heard such nonsense.

1131
This matter needs explanation. Short-term postponement is wrong. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that that is out of the window once and for all.
7.40 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, this has been a most interesting and well-informed debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, for providing us with the opportunity to discuss this most important issue of maritime safety. I echo the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, concerning the expertise of the other speakers, which of course includes the noble Baroness herself.
I shall attempt to answer many of the points raised this evening but there has been a great range of matters raised. I should begin by assuring the House that it remains this Government's firm commitment to seek and maintain the highest practical standards both for marine safety and for the prevention of marine pollution. We are currently acting simultaneously on a number of different fronts in pursuing that commitment, not least through our consideration of the report of the inquiry chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, to which I shall turn later.
The Motion tabled by the noble Lord calls attention to recent serious accidents at sea. By far the worst of them was the "Estonia" disaster last September. Such a tragedy reminds us all of the ever-present dangers of the sea. As a result of that tragedy, maritime safety in all its aspects has once again assumed a high profile and is undergoing a period of rigorous reassessment.
Preventing such accidents is of paramount importance. But such is the international character of the shipping industry, that no single country acting alone can hope to achieve that goal. That is one of the strong threads that has emerged from the debate this evening.
It has also been highlighted that international negotiations can be painfully slow, as we learnt in the aftermath of the "Herald of Free Enterprise" disaster. Our research, commissioned in the wake of that disaster, demonstrated conclusively the shortcomings of the then existing survival capability requirements for ro-ro passenger ferries in the event of damage following a collision or other severe accident. That is why we pressed hard in the International Maritime Organization for the worldwide adoption of a superior standard. We were not successful with that pressure. That is why consequently we brokered an agreement with our European Community partners, plus Norway and Sweden, to apply the desired higher standards to all ro-ro passenger ferries which were engaged in international journeys to and from United Kingdom ports.
We shall shortly be publishing a list of all ferries plying international routes to and from our ports, giving details of their current post-damage stability capability and the dates by which they must be modified to meet the requirements of the higher standards or be withdrawn from service. The list will show that the majority of those ferries already meet the required new
1132
standards. We are awaiting further details on some of those vessels for which our information is not yet complete.
It is regrettable that we were forced to act outside the forum of IMO negotiations in order to implement the higher standard. There has been much discussion this evening with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and my noble friend Lord Caithness, about the value or otherwise of smaller regional solutions, or indeed unilateral action. I firmly believe that the problems affecting shipping today require worldwide rather than regional solutions. But, if one cannot get exactly what one wants, in some circumstances it is wise to press for what one can get. As my noble friend Lord Caldecote recognised, and indeed the IMO must appreciate, we reserve the right ultimately to act alone, if necessary, to ensure implementation of the safety standards that we consider appropriate for our passengers and for the protection of our marine environment.
Since the loss of the "Estonia", enormous international attention has once again been paid to the question of the safety of such vessels. We are confident that those ferries serving our ports are safely maintained and operated. I am sure that the House will recall that in the immediate aftermath of the "Estonia" disaster, we ordered the Marine Safety Agency to conduct urgent checks on the bow doors of all such vessels which serve our United Kingdom ports. The results of those checks confirmed that generally high standards were being maintained. That is to be expected on ships which are already subject to a vigorous inspection regime. We have not stopped at that and action is being taken in respect of such ferries that were found not fully to comply with international requirements.
A great deal has been said this evening also about the value and the role of the IMO. I am pleased to add my backing to the remarks concerning the secretary general which have been made this evening. The IMO has now established a steering committee and a panel of experts to consider urgently what extra measures might now be taken on ferry safety. Experts from the United Kingdom are actively participating and are represented on that panel. We expect the panel to look again at the question of damage stability and to consider whether the standards that we have in place at the moment are adequate, following the likely circumstances in which we believe the "Estonia" was tragically lost. The results of the panel's deliberations should be available in May, with a diplomatic conference to adopt any agreed amendments to the SOLAS Convention later this year.
One area for particular consideration will be the question of the need for a safety case regime for ro-ro ferry operations. In 1992 the report of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, recommended the adoption of performance rather than prescriptive standards and that for the longer term—he acknowledged the longer term in the course of his remarks—we should consider a safety case regime for ship operations.
The Government's response to that recommendation highlighted the difficulties arising from the international character of the shipping industry and especially the potential for wide variations in interpretation and

1133
implementation by the various maritime administrations around the world, as well as the need for international agreement on safety standards.
Nevertheless, we have developed and taken forward those recommendations in international discussions. In 1993, the IMO reacted favourably to the United Kingdom proposal for the adoption of what is termed "formal safety assessment". That is an approach which is goal orientated. It facilitates the introduction of performance-based requirements and embodies the philosophy and principles underlying a risk-based system of safety management. The objective is the adoption by the IMO of formal safety assessment as a means to ensure that the regulatory framework for international shipping is both risk-based and consistent, and thus avoids the emergence of differing approaches. Significant research work is in hand in support of those objectives and to demonstrate the benefits and practicability of the new approach.
It would be absurd to suggest that the maritime world does not face very significant problems indeed. Too many of the world's maritime administrations are failing to honour their obligations under international agreements, whether through lack of capacity or lack of genuine commitment. The work of the IMO's relatively new Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation is therefore to be very warmly welcomed indeed.
Perhaps I may turn to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. It is the flag state failure which has led to the necessity for port state control. That was a theme developed also by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. The fact that those administrations have failed in their responsibilities as flag states is not encouraging in relation to any potential responsibility in terms of being port states. The noble Baroness suggested that there should be wider imitation of the action taken by the Paris memorandum of understanding. Port state control is active in other areas of the world. The Tokyo memorandum is now active in the Asia-Pacific countries and is using similar guidelines to those used in the Paris memorandum. The Latin American MOU is also developing along similar lines. There are similar plans for the Caribbean.
Those seafaring nations which accredit themselves with responsibility in the implementation and enforcement of international standards cannot afford to stand idle while others fall short of the mark. That is why the inspection of foreign ships has become a major line of defence since the Paris memorandum on port state control was agreed in the early 1980s.
Real progress has been made by those countries, including the United Kingdom, which are members of the Paris group. The noble Lord, Lord Perry, referred to the 1993 annual report produced by the secretariat of that group. That report shows clearly that there is still much to be done to eliminate the use of sub-standard ships. On the other hand, it gives evidence that MOU administrations are not only inspecting more ships but that they are learning to target their inspections with increasing accuracy. That idea of targeting was one of the themes developed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson.
1134
This improves the chances of identifying and, if necessary, detaining the worst offenders. Since that report was published, more work has been done to improve targeting, including the consideration of the proposals made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson.
We take very seriously our responsibilities for the inspections of foreign ships. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, and that of other noble Lords for the activities of the Marine Safety Agency's inspectors in inspecting so many vessels. We inspect at least 30 per cent., as against the 25 per cent. that is our undertaking.
Attention has also been drawn to the fact that we now publicise cases where ships have been detained. That is a strong, positive measure. It met with some opposition initially but, on balance, I believe that that has been a very worthwhile measure indeed.
It must be stressed that the recent attention focused on port state control should not be allowed to detract from the need to ensure that flag states honour their international obligations. The MOU annual report makes that point and it is a sentiment which the United Kingdom supports wholeheartedly.
The report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, which was commissioned in the wake of the loss of the "Braer", contains many recommendations aimed at improving safety and preventing pollution. It offers a comprehensive agenda for future action by us and others. The Government have already welcomed the report, as has the shipping industry, and it has generated considerable interest abroad. Discussions with other shipping Ministers in the Paris MOU and the European Union have left me in no doubt about the importance which they attach to the report and its recommendations.
Many of the report's recommendations cannot be implemented unilaterally but require international consultation and agreement. The Government intend to publish their response very shortly. That will identify those areas in which we have already taken action where we feel that unilateral action is appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, my noble friend Lord Caithness, the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and other noble Lords identified, as did the report, the human element as a key factor of most maritime accidents. Good management is important, and we are encouraging the widespread use of the IMO International Safety Management Code before its mandatory introduction. We welcome, and have encouraged, the European Commission's proposal that the code should be applied to ro-ro ferries operating to Community ports by July 1996. And we continue to support strongly the current revision of the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping at IMO.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, asked about how we view the role of the European Union within this issue.
We believe that the European Commission is to be commended for its efforts in developing a Community policy on safe seas. Since the Ministers of the member states welcomed that policy in June last year, a wide

1135
range of proposals for Community legislation has been discussed. Many other proposals are currently being developed, and we shall continue to play an active role in EC negotiations.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised the issue of the "QE2". Bearing in mind that I am slightly short of time, I shall address that matter as quickly as possible. That incident provoked a great deal of comment in the national press. Before the vessel left Southampton for New York, it was thoroughly inspected by the Marine Safety Agency to ensure that it met the international convention standards. Refit work was not complete in all areas and hence the agency was able to issue a safety certificate only for a limited number of passengers for the voyage to New York.
Although I am satisfied that proper standard procedures were followed in that case, I have asked the chief executive of the Marine Safety Agency to consider the matter as part of his review of the agency's survey and inspection instructions.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of delegation of survey and certification. I should like to reassure noble Lords that safety will in no way be compromised by that measure. There has been extensive consultation on those regulations. Our plans have been publicly known since August 1993. They have received support from the industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, mentioned, it is important to note that the classification societies to which the functions will be delegated already have sole responsibility for major areas of ship safety under the international conventions. We are confident that they are capable of increased responsibility under delegation.
A number of points were raised in relation to the Marine Safety Agency to which I would be delighted to respond but I do not have time.
There is still much work to be done to make our ships safer and our seas cleaner. But we are confident that our active approach to the development of maritime safety policy, both at home and in the international sphere, testifies to our commitment to the highest standards. The Government accepted all the recommendations made in relation to the "Herald" disaster, and we have been building on those important lessons ever since. Our strategy must be to continue to anticipate potential threats to safety and correct them in advance.
We believe that United Kingdom ships and seafarers are as safe as any in the world. Our survey and inspection regimes are as stringent as those of any other respected administration. The expertise of our professional staff in the Marine Safety Agency is unparalleled. But we cannot afford to be complacent and we shall not be so. I thank all noble Lords for all their comments and suggestions. I consider that this debate marks a further step towards our common goal of safer ships and cleaner seas.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I have learnt a great deal. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that flag state control is the best way in which to achieve
1136
everything, but it will not work and it will not work in time. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, for reinforcing what I was trying to say and for saying so much better than I that port state control is the only way in which that will be achieved quickly. I thank the Minister for his remarks and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
8 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Human Rights Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to incorporate the rights declared by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the First Protocol to the Convention into the law of the land. The Bill authorises British courts to provide speedy and effective remedies to the victims of breaches by the public authorities of the United Kingdom. It gives practical effect to the European principle of subsidiarity and to the domestic remedies rule. That is what was intended by the makers of the convention. It requires judgments to be made locally by our own courts before recourse may be had internationally to the hugely overburdened European Commission on Human Rights and European Court of Human Rights.
In introducing the measure, I am following the path of many remarkable Members of this House over many decades: notably Viscount Samuel, the Earl of Arran, Lord Wade, Lord Broxbourne and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. I walk in their footsteps with gratitude and humility. I am very sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, is unable to be present for tonight's debate because Lady Scarman is seriously handicapped by illness. The noble and learned Lord has given wise and inspiring leadership to the movement for constitutional reform for 30 years and has asked me today to express his strong support for the Bill.
The convention is the jewel in the crown of the Council of Europe. It reflects universal human rights and freedoms, as well as duties and responsibilities. It owes much to British legal drafting and much to the philosophy and values of British thinkers of the past three centuries—ideas and values bequeathed to us by Edward Coke, John Locke, John Milton, William Blackstone, Tom Paine and John Stuart Mill as part of our precious heritage. The convention's makers also drew upon the English common law tradition, including the ancient writ of habeas corpus, and the great British constitutional charters which are our birthright: the Great Charter (the Magna Carta), the Petition of Rights, the English Bill of Rights, the Scottish Claim of Right and the Act of Settlement.

1137
The convention has been ratified by 30 European states. By this summer all but two of the 30 states—the United Kingdom and Ireland—will have incorporated convention rights directly into their national legal systems. Sweden has done so recently and Norway is doing so. All other contracting states, including Ireland, also have constitutional Bills of Rights defining state power and protecting the individual citizen against the tyranny of majorities and the misuse of government power by public officials.
Even though it is not part of our law, the convention is well known in this country as an important means of protecting civil rights and liberties against the misuse of the powers of public authorities of the state. That is because of the many well-publicised and significant cases in which the United Kingdom has been found by the European Commission and Court of Human Rights to have breached the convention. In the absence of effective domestic remedies, there have been more findings of serious and significant breaches of the convention by the UK than by any other contracting state.
The relevant convention provisions are contained in the first schedule to the Bill. I shall not attempt to summarise them. The UK was the first state to ratify the convention on 8th March 1951. The convention came into force on 3rd September 1953. Since January 1966, successive governments have permitted alleged victims to have recourse against the UK to the European Commission and Court of Human Rights.
The Cabinet papers which I have read show that in 1950 Lord Chancellor Jowitt regarded it as axiomatic that the Attlee Government would have to introduce a measure to incorporate the convention's rights into domestic law as a necessary consequence of ratification. However, for the past 44 years since ratification successive governments have refused to do so, compelling our fellow citizens to take the long and costly road to Strasbourg instead of obtaining speedy and effective redress from British courts. Successive governments have refused to have their considerable powers limited by law or judicially reviewed against the standards of the convention.
Again and again, the European Commission on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights have had to deal with UK cases because of the absence of effective British remedies. Britain's dirty linen has been washed slowly, expensively and inefficiently in Strasbourg, much of the fabric still stained afterwards or cleaned far too late to be of value to the customer. Meanwhile, British judges are unable sufficiently to help at home because they have no parliamentary mandate to do so. Failure to incorporate also means that we lack a coherent legislative framework to guide our courts when deciding cases involving human rights questions, where choices have to be made between competing human rights and between individual claims and the interests of the community as a whole.
In November 1968, in a lecture given to a Fabian Society audience, I first called for the incorporation of the convention into UK law so that the people of this country, like the citizens of the other states parties, could obtain speedy and effective remedies before our
1138
own courts. That was then regarded as rank heresy by many supporters of the Labour Party, just as it has remained an anathema to successive Conservative administrations.
In 1972, a Conservative Government persuaded Parliament, upon our joining the European Community, to incorporate Community law into UK law. As noble Lords know, Community law takes priority over inconsistent national legislation and is directly effective in our courts. Community law also confers rights on individuals which national courts must protect. Where Community law is directly effective, our courts are commanded by Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 to interpret all existing and future UK legislation in conformity with Community law, where necessary displacing national legislation to give effect to Community rights and duties.
The present Bill seeks to give similar effect to European Convention law as the 1972 Act gave to European Community law. Parliament retains its sovereign power to repeal or to amend the Bill; but, unless and until it does so in plain terms, British courts are directed to interpret existing and future legislation so as to comply with convention law, just as they now do in giving effect to Community law.
I shall revert briefly to the history. In June 1976 the then Home Secretary, my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, published a discussion document on legislation on human rights, with particular reference to the European Convention, summarising and analysing the relevant issues fairly and in depth. Later that year, Lord Wade introduced the second of his Bill of Rights Bills. It was referred to a Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. The Select Committee took evidence from many quarters. One of the most eminent Conservative supporters of the Bill was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, who stated that, as part of,
"a radical overhaul of our constitutional arrangements, a Bill of Rights entrenching the European Convention is a modest, but desirable, addition to the armament of liberty against populist or bureaucratic intrusion and oppression".
I respectfully agree.
Meanwhile, in November 1977, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland published a report, to which I was privileged to contribute as a special adviser, strongly recommending incorporation of the convention. That was also the view of the Northern Ireland Constitutional Convention, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, which reported in November 1975, and is the prevailing view among both traditions, Republican and Unionist, in Northern Ireland.
In May 1978, the Select Committee of this House reported that it was in favour of the Bill, although its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was in the dissenting minority. Lord Wade's Bill was duly passed by this House but was defeated in another place in December 1979. In November 1980 the indefatigable Lord Wade made a third attempt. Once more his Bill was passed by this House and once more it was defeated in another place. A yet further attempt was made almost nine years ago—the last attempt—when Lord

1139
Broxbourne, with the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, introduced a Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Bill which was passed by this House in April 1986, but after receiving a Second Reading in another place, on the initiative of the distinguished Conservative Member of Parliament, Sir Edward Gardiner, QC, the Bill progressed no further.
In passing these Bills, this House has been in close harmony with the popular will and informed opinion. Independent polls show that incorporation has the support of most of our fellow citizens. The early judicial supporters of incorporation, led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, included two former Lord Chancellors, Lord Gardiner and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. They have been joined—I hope he will not mind my taking his name in advance or in vain—by the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Bingham, and several Law Lords. The Bar Council and the Law Society also now favour incorporation. So does Justice, under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, and a former Home Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan.
The Liberal Party was the first political party to advocate incorporation. For some 40 years the Labour Party, as I have said, was implacably hostile. But there has been a sea-change in its attitude. It now makes common cause with Liberal Democrats in supporting incorporation. Indeed, all of the Opposition parties, including the Ulster Unionists, are now in favour of making the convention directly enforceable in our courts.
In the absence of incorporation, our courts have done their best to give effect to the convention. They have treated it as persuasive where the common law is uncertain or incomplete or where statute law is ambiguous. Whether sitting in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and interpreting the Bills of Rights of Commonwealth constitutions or interpreting and applying European Community law, our judges have shown themselves as well equipped, in my opinion, as any courts anywhere in the world to use convention law in a wise and enlightened way.
But unless and until Parliament gives them a clear legislative mandate, there are limits to what our courts can do. Crucially, they cannot provide effective redress in cases involving the misuse of public powers in breach of convention rights; and our exceptionally able judges cannot make a full and powerful British judicial contribution to the progressive development of European legal principles in the human rights field. So we unnecessarily add to the excessive burdens of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights and weaken the potential influence of our own legal system right across Europe.
Four years ago, in the Brind case, which sought unsuccessfully to challenge the Government's ban on the direct broadcasting of statements made by Sinn Fein and its supporters, the Law Lords rejected the judicial incorporation of the convention to review the scope and operation of Ministers' powers. They decided that, if
1140
they were to interpret Ministers' very broad statutory powers—in that case to censor broadcasting—as being limited by or subject to the convention, they would be usurping the functions of Parliament by incorporating the convention through the back-door. So legislative incorporation is plainly necessary.
The Government have recently accepted—I refer to the Official Report, House of Lords for 7th December 1994, col. WA 84—that Ministers and civil servants must comply with the convention in discharging their public functions. But the Government have not accepted that Her Majesty's judges in discharging their public functions have a similar duty to comply with the convention—Official Report, House of Lords, 9th January 1995, col. WA 1. Unless and until Parliament makes the convention part of our law, the duties of public authorities under the convention are not legally enforceable. They give rise to no legal remedy in our courts. The present Bill is designed to fill that major and significant gap.
Another consequence of the failure to incorporate the convention is that there is no constitutional citizen's charter prescribing core rights, freedoms and duties for everyone within the jurisdiction of the UK on the basis of equal citizenship. This Bill prescribes a binding code to strengthen the unity of our somewhat disunited kingdom. It encourages national unity by prescribing core standards which a future Scottish Parliament, or Welsh Assembly, or Northern Irish governing body, or English regional or local authority, like central government departments, will have to respect.
The statutory code enshrining the convention encourages everyone, everywhere within the UK, to cherish the positive value of being a British citizen. The code also gives guidance to Ministers and civil servants, to Parliament and the courts, and to ordinary men, women and young people. In place of ethical aimlessness and excessive bureaucratic discretionary powers, it encourages a culture of ordered liberty under the rule of law.
I shall not detain the House with a detailed account of the Bill's provisions as they are described in the explanatory memorandum. However, I will, if I may, draw attention to a few salient points. Clause 1(1) makes section 1 of the convention and the first protocol part of the law of the United Kingdom and ensures that they will be given full legal effect. I have confined the Bill to incorporation of the convention, together with the protocols so far ratified by the UK, as there is a consensus in the three main political parties that the rights set out in the schedule to the Bill should continue to be enjoyed by everyone within our jurisdiction. I am well aware that there are additional rights in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which the UK is also bound to implement effectively in domestic law. That is a matter which requires further consideration once the present Bill is enacted.
Clause 1(2) has the effect of abrogating any existing rule of law in so far as it is inconsistent with the convention. Clause 1(3) prevents any Act of Parliament or statutory instrument from being enforced or from being relied upon in any way in any legal proceedings to the extent that it is inconsistent with convention law.

1141
It is similar in its legal effect to Section 2(4) of the European Communities Act 1972, in that it requires our courts to interpret and apply existing and future legislation in accordance with European law. However, although Parliament cannot effectively legislate in contravention of Community law, that is not the case with the provisions being incorporated into this Bill. If it is enacted, it will remain open to a future Parliament to alter the position by clear and explicit amending legislation. In the absence of such legislation—which might risk being declared by the European Court to breach the convention—the task of our courts under Clause 1(3) would be to eliminate any mismatch between our statute law and European convention law.
Clause 1(4) provides that judicial interpretation of the convention shall follow the precedents set by the European Court. Our courts will not have to start from a completely fresh standpoint in construing the convention and determining the extent of its rights and obligations but will follow Strasbourg case law.
Like Lord Broxbourne's Bill, Clause 4 creates a right of action as breach of statutory duty for violation of the incorporated convention rights in the performance of public functions. It does not create a direct right of action against persons acting in a private capacity, because that is not the object of the convention. The Bill creates what is in essence a constitutional tort. However, the incorporated convention would, as at present, continue to influence our courts' interpretation of private law as well as of public law; for example, the contours of defamation law or the protection of personal privacy.
In other common law jurisdictions, including Canada, India, the United States and Ireland, it is well established that compensation is payable for some breaches of constitutionally guaranteed human rights and freedoms. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has held that the same is true of breaches of Commonwealth and Caribbean constitutions.
As with any other statutory duty, the circumstances in which a breach gives rise to a claim for compensation will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. The cases in which compensation is recoverable for breach of the convention are mainly well recognised categories of our existing law: cases not only of misfeasance in public office, but also trespasses by public officers involving assault and battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and wrongful interferences with the right to property. All those wrongs are actionable in our own courts now.
There may be other cases in which our courts will fashion appropriate remedies for the constitutional tort of breaching the convention, depending upon the nature and circumstances of the particular breach. They will have to do so, not least because of the need to secure effective domestic remedies in accordance with Article 13 of the convention.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who unfortunately cannot be present tonight but who has, I believe, authorised the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, to explain his position, has kindly informed me of his doubts about the particular terms in which Clause 4 is drafted. I well understand his
1142
concerns about its potentially broad reach. I suggest that that is a matter which will merit careful scrutiny during the Committee stage so as to ensure that our courts are able to give effective domestic remedies, including compensation where appropriate, for breaches of convention rights.
Neither the European convention nor the Bill is a panacea. As the eminent judge, Learned Hand, reminded his fellow Americans a half century ago:
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it".
But a constitutional guarantee surely acts as a rallying point and a bulwark for all who cherish freedom. It strengthens the sinews of democracy and promotes good governance. It provides orderly legal redress for infringements of civil rights and liberties, and it contributes to public education in winning hearts and minds. The power of government needs to be matched by the power of the law if the individual is to be secure. The law of the British constitution should encourage the spirit of liberty, and our courts should give redress where basic civil rights and freedoms are infringed. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
8.24 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. The Bill before us is short, and I venture to suggest that our speeches should reflect that. Nevertheless, it is of great importance. My noble friend, Lord Lester, has already outlined the main arguments in favour of the Bill, and I should like to endorse the points he has made. I should add that, although I cannot comment for the judiciary as a whole, I can assure the House that what follows has the strong support of the Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Bingham, and of my noble and learned friend, Lord Woolf, who, as has been mentioned, regrets that he is unable to be present during the debate.
We have a proud tradition of freedom in this country, a freedom which has largely derived from the strength and vigour of the common law. But, strong as that tradition is, I do not think that we may safely rely on it for all purposes in the modern world. Nor have successive Governments thought so.
We ratified the European convention that forms the schedule to the Bill as long ago as 1950. We have allowed our citizens to enforce their rights under it through the European Court of Human Rights since 1966. The convention is therefore as much a feature of our constitution as life peerages or the holding of a referendum.
We are bound to give effect to decisions of the European court, and if our law does not accord with it we are bound by treaty to change our law. Despite our tradition of freedom, there have been many instances in which our law has had to be changed. One field in which that has occurred a number of times concerns the rights of prisoners, and especially the procedures regarding life prisoners.

1143
It is not helpful to debate our record of compliance with the convention or to compare it with that of other signatories. The question is: why should any of those litigants who have exercised their right of petition in order to enforce their fundamental human rights have been compelled to go all the way to Strasbourg—distant not only in space but more importantly in time—to obtain a remedy which could have been granted by a domestic court in the United Kingdom?
The answer usually put forward in response is that to allow United Kingdom courts to apply the convention directly would involve the judiciary in political issues from which they are supposedly sheltered at present and would displace the supremacy of Parliament. I do not believe that those arguments withstand serious scrutiny.
Judges have, with the growth of judicial review, been increasingly required to consider issues having a political dimension. For example—and it is only one example—they have had to review the conduct of Ministers. They have on occasion struck down decisions of Ministers. That has not led to any collapse of confidence in the political impartiality or independence of the judges. Rather the reverse.
As to the supremacy of Parliament, in the field of European Community Law the Factortame case is an example of our own judges having to give an EC directive precedence over an Act of Parliament, the very thing which opponents of the Bill say would make the constitutional roof fall in.
In fact it is not the proposed change but the present situation which is worrying from a constitutional viewpoint. At present, the aggrieved citizen is advised that his or her fundamental rights under the convention have been infringed. He or she cannot obtain any immediate remedy but must pursue a hopeless application through all the United Kingdom courts, including your Lordships' House. At the end of this procedure, the case can be argued in Strasbourg (with all the delay which that involves). The European Court eventually decides that the Government are in breach of their obligations, with the attendant criticism and embarrassment to which I have already referred. Finally, many years after the actions complained of, the law has to be altered by Parliament. Is that any way to offer protection for freedoms which have existed under our constitution for nigh on half a century? All it does is to put off what the Government see as the evil day when we have to come into line with our treaty obligations. As I have said before, and I repeat it, it is as though when we signed the treaty we were saying, "God, make us good, but not yet".
It is because of that anomaly that I support the Bill. However, I must qualify my support in two respects, in both of which I am authorised to say that the Master of the Rolls and my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf concur. First, I would wish there to be a power whereby Parliament could expressly override the provisions of the convention if an exceptional need arose. The power of the New Zealand Parliament to override its Bill of Rights is a workable precedent for that. I would expect
1144
such a power to be exercised very rarely, if at all, but it is conceivable that some need special to the United Kingdom might make it necessary.
Secondly, I am concerned by the suggestion in Clause 4 that a violation of the convention should give rise to an action in damages as of right for breach of statutory duty. I should have thought that the range of discretionary remedies which has been developed by the courts in judicial review, including, where appropriate, compensation, would be much more suitable. I am glad to know that my noble friend Lord Lester agrees that this should be subject to review at the Committee stage. But the overall purpose of the Bill is in my view incontrovertible and I commend it to the House.
8.31 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for introducing the debate. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, for his suggestion that speeches may be kept fairly brief. I cannot match the expertise and knowledge of the noble and learned Lord, but I certainly hope to match his brevity.
The rights of the individual and the responsibility of nation states to maintain those rights are matters to which the Christian community is deeply committed. I therefore welcome the possibility that the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms should be incorporated into the domestic legal system of this nation.
Whereas we hear much said about the encroachment of European legislation and bureaucracy upon our lives, what we are talking about in this instance is something completely different. Our Government played a key role in drafting the convention that we now consider. For 40 years we have adhered to it. Countless numbers of ordinary people have over those years sought redress through its provisions for situations in which they have been the victims of injustice. In short, we have benefited as a nation from that convention.
Yet to this present time those remedies have had to be sought outside the United Kingdom. To incorporate the European convention into British law would make the entire process more transparent and much quicker. It would not undermine rights or freedoms, but would enhance them. That theme was touched upon by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in the speech which he made to the Council of Europe in 1993. In recognising the importance of the convention and expressing his admiration for its achievements, he concluded by saying:
"The arguments for incorporation of the Convention into British law grow more pressing".
In the two years that have passed since he made that speech, the pressure has not grown less.
There is also a dimension to this in which I have a more personal interest. There would be real additional advantages to the incorporation of the convention with respect to the future of Northern Ireland. As part of the domestic legislation of the Province, it would provide additional safeguards for the people so that justice is both done and seen to be done in that particularly

1145
difficult context. The incorporation of the European convention into domestic legislation in both Britain and Ireland was, as we heard, urged in the 1988 report, Human Rights and Responsibilities in Britain and Ireland, a project for which the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York served as president, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the current President of the Republic of Ireland, Mary Robinson, served as consultants.
We are already bound by the provisions of this convention. We already have the opportunity to have recourse to the remedies for which it provides. What we should be supporting here is the opportunity to make the citizens of this nation more aware of their rights and providing them with more speedy and accessible opportunities to right wrongs. Though I cannot claim any expertise in the legal and constitutional issues that are necessarily bound up in our consideration of the legislation before us, I believe that fundamentally we have nothing to fear from the proposal but much to gain.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I very much welcome the Second Reading of the Bill because it gives a full opportunity to Members of the House to express their views on what undoubtedly are important issues which have been much debated over a long period. My only reservation is that I have a shrewd suspicion that I shall find myself in a minority of one.
I have great concerns about the Bill—concerns which, I confess I was surprised to learn on lunchtime television were not shared by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice and my most distinguished successor as Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Bingham; but there it is. When several lawyers are gathered together, it is not unusual to find a certain difference of opinion, albeit perhaps unusual to find so deep a division as may well exist here.
I think that it is important to remember that in this country our approach to human rights is, and always has been, different from that of many others. It is a difference of which I personally am very proud. It lies in the fact that in this country the citizen does not have to identify any right to justify his conduct. He has total freedom of conduct unless restrained by law; and it is for those who complain of his conduct to identify what law it is which interferes with his freedom. He has no need of a list of freedoms, or rights of freedom. He has them anyway.
Those legal restrictions to his otherwise unfettered freedom arise in two different forms. First, there are the restrictions imposed by the common law. When sitting as a judge, I have from time to time been referred to the convention as an aid to an argument as to the law. But I do not remember it ever being suggested that there was any inconsistency whatsoever between the common law of England and the terms of the convention, at any rate as understood by an English lawyer. Secondly, there is the statutory law, which provides restrictions on the freedom of the citizen.
I have no doubt that all, or virtually all, Members of both Houses of Parliament accept the principles set out in the convention. But they are necessarily broad
1146
principles to which exceptions may need to be made in the public interest outside any derogations contemplated by the terms of the convention. I have also a strong feeling that, while all, or most, Members of both Houses of Parliament would say, "Yes, of course we accept the convention wholeheartedly", when one puts a particular case in front of them and says, "Now this is said to be a breach of some term of the convention", they would say, "But good heavens no, of course it isn't".
Then the question would arise of whether they are right or wrong. I can give the House a small example which I think would cause dissension as to whether or not the convention was breached. I take Canada, which in effect incorporated the convention a few years ago. There was a challenge under Article 6, I think, of the laws relating to the illicit trade in drugs, on the basis that the burden of proof had been reversed where a criminal was found in possession of drugs. I think he then had to show that he was not a supplier and the burden was on him to prove it. That was challenged. I can well imagine that some authorities might say, "Yes, that is a breach of his rights". But many others would say, "Well, it isn't, when you come to consider the principle which underlies the appropriate article of the convention". Ironically, in that case there would undoubtedly have been no breach of the convention if one had taken away some of the accused's rights and made the possession of illicit drugs an absolute offence so that there was nothing left for him to prove. That kind of consideration is important before we rush to incorporate the convention.
However, I have a much greater worry about the convention. I firmly believe that we live in one of the greatest and best functioning democracies that the world has seen. I am not saying that it is not capable of improvement; of course it is. But it is in the front rank of true democracies. The Members of the other place are elected and, under the Parliament Act, they have the last word. Accordingly, I do not have to go into the interesting discussions as to how democratic this House is. For the purpose of the present discussion, it suffices that the other place has the last word and it is an elected body.
What is proposed is that Parliament's right to govern should be restricted by the convention. I find that constitutionally totally unacceptable. I have often thought that Parliament—and I use these words colloquially and in quotation marks—"had taken leave of its senses". However, I recognise and still believe that ultimately it is the right of Parliament to make some stupid decisions. If someone else thinks that they breach human rights, again that is the right of Parliament. It is not said that the courts should have the opportunity to override Parliament, operating on an ordinary domestic jurisdiction. Personally, I would think that that too was unacceptable. I go along with the idea that the courts could express an advisory opinion for Parliament to consider, but that is a different matter and is not what is proposed here.
What is proposed is that the United Kingdom courts shall set aside Acts of Parliament, not because they think that the Acts of Parliament breach the convention, not because Parliament thinks that the Acts of Parliament

1147
breach the convention but because—and I must refer to this because it is accurate—a foreign court thinks that those laws breach the convention. That must, in large measure, be a matter of interpretation. A significant factor in deciding what is and what is not a breach of the convention is the background, the history and the social background as well as the attitudes of the British people. It is they who should decide that, either through the ballot box or, if they wish to give the power to the courts, so be it. But it should not be decided by an external body. I find the whole principle of the Bill totally unacceptable. The basic assumption is that Strasbourg knows best and I am quite convinced that it does not know best.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, suggested that the courts' powers of judicial review were in some way inhibited by the fact that the convention is not part of our law. I have spent a lot of time in my judicial career exercising the judicial review jurisdiction and, I hope, extending it. In fact, I know that I extended it in ways which were distinctly disagreeable to the Government but which I regarded as being absolutely essential and part of what one might describe as the common law approach. But I never felt in any way that anything I was unable to do involved an inability which stemmed from lack of the convention as part of English law. I dare say that Ministers would say: "Well, goodness me, look at what the courts do to us without the benefit of the convention. We tremble to think what they would do with it". That may be, but it is a partisan view. I merely say that I never found the lack of the convention any problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, also suggested that the Bill would create something in the nature of a constitutional court. I have never heard of a constitutional court which was constituted in its vast majority by citizens of another nation.
I should just mention one practical objection, which I am sure could be dealt with in Committee. It is that in the face of Clause 1(3) and (4) it seems to me that it would be very difficult to enforce any act or instrument to which there was a bona fide challenge until the European Court and the commission had ruled upon it. Indeed, it goes further than that because I may have misread the Bill. I think that the requirement is to give effect to the views of the commission as well as the court. We could have the situation which we have at the moment where the commission has expressed a view and the court has not yet got round to expressing a view. Whether I am right or wrong about that, I have little doubt that if my construction is basically right, we shall be faced with a species of "convention blight" which would make government extremely difficult.
One other point which might be cured in Committee is this. The Bill is designed to be fully retrospective to whatever the earlier statute is on the statute book. We have had the disappearance of the power to bind over under a statute of about the 1300s. I am not sure exactly when it dates from, but the statute has been around for a very long period. The Canadian experience, which can easily be checked with our Canadian colleagues, is that when they introduced their Charter Act, as I think they
1148
called it, which provided that any citizen could challenge any Act or instrument of whatever antiquity, the courts—in particular the Supreme Court—became totally and completely blocked with charter cases. Initially it was not possible to strike them out. No doubt I would have said, "That's nonsense", but it may be that my noble and learned friend Lord Taylor would say, "That is extremely plausible". Until a body of case law had been built up—which took a considerable time—the courts were clogged up. If there were a special court dealing with this, it could clog itself up, but we have enough trouble with the ordinary courts at the moment without that being brought in.
If the Bill goes ahead—and I devoutly hope that it will not—it may be possible in Committee to have another look at the fully retrospective aspect, which I regard as being undesirable. I have taken up too much of your Lordships' time, but, as I am probably the only member of my party—a party of one—opposing the Bill, perhaps I may be allowed a little extra time.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, I join the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark in welcoming the presentation of the Bill. My noble and learned friends Lord Lester and the Lord Chief Justice have illustrated the extraordinary anomalies from which we now suffer. We have a treaty obligation, under Article 13 of which this country and this Government are bound to afford to everyone whose rights and freedoms are set forth in the Convention and which are violated, an effective remedy before a national authority. I do not know, but at first reading it appears that the failure to incorporate and provide an effective remedy before the national authority of the member state—in this case the United Kingdom—is itself in conflict with the treaty obligation. However that may be, this country has an honourable record in complying with decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Retrospectively it complies.
One asks oneself: how did we get to a position where this country—which, as my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington so graphically described, prides itself on its freedoms going back over the centuries, it being in the forefront of democratic freedom; its principles of freedom being the very basis on which much of the convention was based in drafting; being one of the progenitors of the convention itself—is found more often to be in breach of that convention than any other member state? It is an astonishing position. I am tempted to call it an Alice in Wonderland position. We are in breach of the international obligation. All our governments for the past 40 years have accepted this obligation. They have accepted the duty to observe these human rights; and yet we do not allow our own courts to do that very thing themselves. That must be a major reason why we are so constantly and so publicly disgraced—I am afraid I use the word "disgraced" with deliberation. That this country with its history should be found so repeatedly in breach of its international obligations to provide freedoms is very shocking.

1149
The objection, as usual so eloquently presented by my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson, always comes down at the end of the day to sovereignty—the supremacy of Parliament. I am not one to disregard that factor. I do not share it, but I believe it is a very real consideration, and that to confer on the court the right to strike down the statute—which is effectively what this Bill will propose —is a very major constitutional step indeed. I fully recognise that different views can be held about it. I just hope that the Bill does not die the death in any form on that ground alone.
I hope not to be too technical—this looks too much like a lawyer's party anyway. The main reasons why this country has been held in breach of the convention is not that Parliament has specifically enacted any measure which is in breach of the convention. It is not because, save on one or two occasions, the common law of this country has been found to be in breach. It is for the very reason that my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington mentioned; namely, our traditional English freedoms are freedoms, not rights; and like any other common law freedoms they are subject to abridgement and curtailment by Act of Parliament. That is where we have been found to be at fault—not in our general institutions but by the operation of Acts of Parliament. It is not in the substantive provisions of the Acts which this House and the other place have passed that we have been found wanting. We have been found wanting by accident.
It is an essential feature of any legislation in the modern state that it is bound to confer discretionary powers on the Executive to operate the powers that are conferred by Parliament. Ministers are given power to make such regulations as they may think fit to achieve this result or that. It is the operation under those powers that has given rise to most of our infringements.
Contrary to the view of my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson, I believe that if people walking through the Lobbies in this place or in the other House were asked, as they voted on the usual Act which contains 123 discretionary powers conferred on the Minister to make regulations and do all the other things: "Have you voted to allow the Minister to infringe the European Convention on Human Rights?", they would say, "Of course not. We have given powers to act in accordance with law and in accordance with what this country has undertaken to do". I only suggest this. But I hope that this Bill does not disappear, because it seeks, in typically wholehearted fashion, to go the whole way and enable the courts to strike down legislation completely. I hope that if, as seems possible, a "whole hog" Bill is not attractive to a majority in the other place (if not here), consideration will be given by everybody concerned to putting right a ludicrous Mad Hatter's tea party position—and in this way: simply by providing in this Bill that the courts shall, to the extent possible, construe the Acts of Parliament so as to take effect on the basis that they are not intended to confer powers designed to infringe the convention. That is what the Nordic countries have done for many, many years and they have complied. That is what everybody else who has not had incorporated rights has done, and they have complied.
1150
Unhappily, my experience is contrary to that of my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson. I have on occasion had to reach conclusions in cases which I knew to be contrary to the convention because I was not able to do otherwise. Why cannot we enable our courts to administer what the European Court of Human Rights does many months, many years, many hundreds of thousands of pounds later? Why should the courts here not give effect to what is undoubtedly the implied intention of Parliament, stopping short if necessary of declaring invalid any Act of Parliament? That brings about a position of true constitutional reform. I am, I am afraid, at much greater length saying what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said in about three words; namely, what about the New Zealand approach? That approach does not override Parliament's right to say, "We are going to contravene the convention". The courts are simply being allowed to apply legislation in accordance with what I believe most people would understand to be everybody's intention; namely, not to breach the convention.
Finally, and very shortly, I make one further comment in the hope that it can be considered in Committee. I am anxious about matters of this kind coming up all over the judicial system. A point taken that legislation, or executive powers, are contrary to the European Convention could as well arise in the Puddletown magistrates' court as in the High Court. If any power of challenge of this kind is to take place, considerable care has to be given to where and when that matter shall be adjudicated. Much of the trouble that has occurred in Canada, whose Bill was far more sweeping than anything that was proposed here, has arisen from the fact that it arises in multifarious jurisdictions. But that is a matter for the Committee. I commend this Bill and hope that it produces a fruitful result, putting an end to the absurdity that currently exists.
9 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I am taking the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, and I shall not give the speech that I had intended to make. I wrote it having read, and frequently re-read, all the proceedings in this House on this subject, to which my noble friend Lord Lester also referred. I finished that task in deep depression because the pages were filled with the hostilities, as I felt, of lawyers towards the convention. This evening has transformed my feelings on that subject. I now feel extremely cheerful having heard what the noble and learned Lords, Lord Taylor of Gosforth and Lord Browne-Wilkinson, have said.
I cannot reconcile the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, in regard to the situation that would develop if we incorporated the convention with what in fact is our actual situation. My understanding of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, was that he was also hinting at that. In fact we are committed to the

1151
convention by a treaty. We can neither escape nor avoid it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has made this point repeatedly. He has said,
"Rightly or wrongly, we have got a Bill of Rights. We have signed the European Convention on Human Rights — and what we have done is to put ourselves in the hands of judges at Strasbourg, instead of putting ourselves in the hands of judges at Westminster or Edinburgh. Now personally, I mean no disrespect for the judges of Strasbourg. I think the judges at Edinburgh or Westminster or Belfast have a better feel for the way in which those rights to which we are committed in international law ought to be applied in the English, Scottish or Northern Irish context than the chaps at Strasbourg".
That seems to me to be self-evidently true. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, added:
"Is it to be supposed that our own judges are so stupid or so biased that they are not to be allowed to decide these matters for themselves?"
I wish to make only one other point—again a point of dissent from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, was saying. Like him, I am very proud of many of the British traditions and in particular of our tradition of freedom. We have promoted that tradition throughout the world. The European convention was in a real sense a British initiative to which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, said, we contributed massively. Let us take pride in our contribution of what is a universal development of human rights.
Many international instruments and treaties today guarantee some 40 distinct human rights. The past 40 years have witnessed an astonishing proliferation of legal safeguards for individual rights which previously in most countries had been no more than aspirations. In 1950 the only binding treaty which mentioned human rights was the United Nations charter. Now there are three global treaties, four regional treaties and two declarations. The late Paul Sieghart saw the development of this code of international law on human rights since Hitler's and Stalin's time as,
"a change in international law so profound that it can properly be called a revolution. Today, for the first time in history, how a sovereign state treats its own citizens is no longer a matter for its own exclusive determination, but a matter of legitimate concern for all other states and their inhabitants".
Moreover, the codes are not merely hortatory. In Europe, 21 sovereign states established a commission and a court of human rights for enforcing the rights guaranteed by the convention. They thereby relinquished the power to treat their own citizens as they chose. Member states have been compelled to rewrite some municipal laws, to change their administrative procedures and to compensate their own citizens when they have been held in breach of the convention. In the same way, the American Convention on Human Rights is enforced by an Inter-American Commission and a court of human rights set up by the Organisation of American States. Now, some 17 independent nations, though not the United States, are party to this structure. The latest of the regional treaties, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, was adopted by the Organisation of African Unity some 15 years ago but has not yet been implemented in a continent rich in dictatorships and tyrannies.
1152
Thus, what used to be the unenforceable natural rights of eighteenth century rhetoric—what Bentham called "bawling on paper"—are being endowed with legal sanctions and an effective machinery of enforcement by international courts across national frontiers. I see these conventions on human rights as staging posts on the human road of moral progress. In the history of morals, it is not mankind's sense of duty to neighbours which has changed over the centuries, but the answer to the question: who is my neighbour? In primitive morality, obligations were confined to very small groups of people. As the group widened, so the range of rights and duties extended and new meaning was given to the Biblical injunction:
"Whatsoever you would that men should do unto you, even so do you unto them".
The extension of moral obligation backed by legal sanctions which treats as one group the 400 million inhabitants of the nation states which have adhered to the European convention is indeed a turning point in the history of freedom. Similarly, the American convention now draws rather more than 200 million people into a single group within which a jurisdiction on rights and enforcement procedures is developing.
This is something of which, having played a part right at the very beginning, we ought to be extremely proud. We have played a role in establishing international and enforceable rights. I support my noble friend's Bill because I wish to have a charter of human rights and freedoms in the law of the United Kingdom, where it will be enforced by an independent judiciary, to give British citizens a remedy at home without having to make an expensive and delaying journey to Strasbourg. I believe that incorporation in this country will strengthen a highly desirable development in other parts of the world. I see no benefit to us or to our law or to the principles for which we have stood in being insular about these matters.
I have a particular concern for freedom of the press as a vital social end to be secured in a democracy. I believe that incorporating Article 10 of the convention would provide essential guidance for balancing the rights and responsibilities of the press which we lack within our system at the moment. I very much hope that my noble friend will continue with his efforts in respect of his Bill.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, your Lordships will have noted with relief that I am the last—and I am sure noble Lords will say the least —of the Law Lords who will be speaking on this subject and so I want, if I may, to speak more as a layman than as a lawyer. I do so only because I am a relatively late convert to the campaign which my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, have been waging for so many years, with increasing support on all sides. How sad it is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, cannot be with us tonight. I am a convert because initially I was opposed to the idea of incorporating the convention in our domestic law even though we have been bound by it since we signed the convention in 1951 and even though, as we have been

1153
reminded by the right reverend Prelate, we played a large part, if not the leading part, in formulating its provisions.
If I ask why I was opposed, I am almost ashamed to admit that my attitude was that the convention was perhaps all right for abroad. It was all right for other countries. Most of them have long since incorporated the convention in their domestic law. But I believed that we did not need it here. Human rights in this country were adequately protected by Parliament and the courts. I believe that that was the principal reason.
There was another reason at the back of my mind: whereas the courts are very used to applying our common law and are more or less at ease at construing and making sense of Acts of Parliament, it seemed to me that they might not be so good at handling these rather vague concepts which are enshrined in the convention.
My eyes were first opened when I read in The Times some years ago that the United Kingdom had just lost eight cases in a row at the court in Strasbourg. That did not seem like a very good human rights record. They were all cases in which our citizens had been compelled to go to Strasbourg to get justice in accordance with the convention. They were all cases in which, despite what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, has described as the overriding protection of the common law, that did nothing whatever to help them. That was the position then and that is still the position today 30 years later. The delay in taking a case to Strasbourg gets longer and longer, and the expense becomes greater.
In four cases decided by the court at the end of 1992 the average delay in getting the cases on and having them decided was six years. That does not seem a very sensible or economical way of going about things. As Sir Thomas Bingham, the Master of the Rolls, said in a lecture not so very long ago,
"If this is a match which we are going to have to play, why should we always play it on an away ground?"
We cannot stop our citizens going to Strasbourg. The record shows, alas, that they are all too often right. Therefore, would it not be better in plain common sense that their claims should first be decided by English, Scottish and Northern Ireland judges? That is a point which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, quoting from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. It is also a point which was made by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, and other speakers. That can only be done if the convention is first incorporated into English domestic law.
My other concern is this: are the judges up to the task? With all humility, I suggest that they are for the position has changed beyond all recognition in the past 30 or so years. The reason is the incoming tide of Community law. In applying that law, as we must, we are no longer confined to our traditional English rules of construction.
We try to construe Community law through European eyes. Indeed, we are obliged to do so by numerous other conventions now incorporated in our domestic law. The
1154
Brussels Convention and the European Patent Convention and many others, spring to mind. If in the case of those conventions, why not through a human rights convention? Indeed, many of the concepts which would have seemed so vague and woolly 30 years ago are now part of our domestic law in other contexts. A good example of that is the Interception of Communications Act, and the legislation which followed on from that Act. Furthermore, the concepts of national security and economic well-being to which we are now used are taken directly from Article 8 of the convention.
Therefore, I suggest that the judges have been learning fast, that they would be able to cope with the convention and, indeed, that they may even have something to contribute so that in those cases that do end up in Strasbourg we should have made some sort of input ourselves.
With your Lordships' permission, I should like to quote just two sentences from a splendid short book by an American writer, Professor Ronald Dworkin, a distinguished jurist. I stress that he is an American writer, not a British writer. On page 22 he states:
"If British judges began to create as well as follow constitutional jurisprudence … their decisions would be bound to influence the Commission and Court in Strasbourg, as well as the courts of the other nations … Britain could become once again a leader in defining and protecting individual freedom, instead of a sullen defendant giving ground to liberty only when ordered to do so by a foreign court".
My Lords, I support the Bill.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, it is with much diffidence that I join this debate which, of its nature, is dominated by the contributions of four noble and learned judges and by at least three other highly qualified legal Members of your Lordships' House.
I wish to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, in particular on what he said about Northern Ireland. Perhaps I may mention that it fell to my lot to be the honorary treasurer of the distinguished inquiry which he mentioned into human rights and responsibilities in Great Britain and Ireland, both north and south. I am glad to say that that study was eventually published as a solid volume by Macmillan Publishers.
I began to visit Northern Ireland in the civil rights period which is now quite some time ago. By then there was already a demand for a Bill of Rights of some sort. By the mid-1970s, as has been mentioned, very nearly all of the major political parties in Northern Ireland were agreed that they wanted a Bill of Rights. What is more, whatever their other disagreements, they are still in agreement on that point. I think I can say quite confidently that they would be very happy with the incorporation into United Kingdom law of the Bill that we are now considering even if perhaps a tailor-made Bill for Northern Ireland might also be necessary or desirable to deal with some of the special circumstances which arise there. As has already been mentioned, if this Bill becomes law, the long and costly road to Strasbourg will be very much shortened. To my knowledge, there

1155
have been quite a number of cases arising from Northern Ireland which have taken that four to seven-year-long course.
Again, if this Bill can be passed through Parliament, it will have the effect of reducing the importance of the very complex system that has evolved over time for dealing with complaints, for trying to redress them and for trying to ensure fair play for all the inhabitants of Northern Ireland. That involves not only having an independent Police Complaints Authority, but also an Army complaints system, a variety of ombudsmen, the Fair Employment Agency and the Equal Opportunities Commission. One might consider that that elaborate structure is complicated for a population of only 1.5 million people. If we can have the Bill, the workload of that system will be reduced considerably to the benefit of everyone.
When there has been a longish period of violent and deep-rooted conflict, as in Northern Ireland, people look around, especially once a ceasefire has been achieved, for guarantees for the future. They want to know, under whatever new system can be agreed, that they will be free from oppression and discrimination, and that no one will end up as a second-class citizen.
The Bill will assist considerably in providing such a guarantee. It is in my view a confidence-building measure, one that is badly needed to create trust in a situation which has been bedevilled for a long time by mistrust and deep-seated fears. For those reasons, I greatly hope that the Bill will not just receive a successful Second Reading here but a successful passage through both Houses.
9.26 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I rise with some trepidation to take part in what has already been described as a lawyers' party. I first became aware of this issue when I saw in the Sunday Times a letter from the honourable Member for Nottingham North, who speaks for Labour in the other place on constitutional affairs. It said how delighted he was to see that the Law Society human rights debate, sponsored by the Sunday Times, had endorsed the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British legislation. The letter mentions the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in introducing into your Lordships' House this year a Bill to incorporate it into British legislation, following his own Bill.
I have looked at the Bill introduced by the honourable Member. It is more comprehensive than the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. It leads us more towards accountability and, I should like to think, public acceptability. The noble Lord trailed his Bill earlier. An article by Simon Reeve states:
"Lord Lester … told the Law Society annual conference"—
during the debate sponsored by the Sunday Times that I have already mentioned, about introducing the Bill. The article went on:
"Such a move would enable British citizens to get justice more quickly and more cheaply".
1156
I must confess that to hear the profession talking about getting justice more cheaply wrings the strongest of responses from me.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has been in the news recently because he resigned from the Garrick Club over its admissions policy, having, we are told, wrestled with his conscience for some 20 years. He was no doubt clearing the decks in order to become politically correct. Perhaps I may just say as an aside that the same report about the Sunday Times conference mentioned the video it had produced about legal backing for human rights. It highlighted the case of Mordechai Vanunu. It stated:
"Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli nuclear technician kidnapped and jailed by the Israeli authorities after revealing in the newspaper that the country was amassing a nuclear arsenal"—
"revealing in the newspaper" is a sanitised way of saying "committing treason". I do not understand the apparent obsession with that one case when so many abuses of human rights are going on throughout the world. I wonder whether those who are so keen to press that case will shortly be asking for a posthumous pardon for Dr. Klaus Fuchs and Dr. Alan Nunn May.
However, I digress. With co-operation, I look forward to working with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to improve the Bill and incorporate some of the aspects from the Bill introduced by the honourable Member for Nottingham North, which would improve it further.
Yet I must confess that there is one small cloud in the sky. There is one doubt raised in my mind. I have already mentioned the Sunday Times conference which was arranged for this purpose. On 2nd November 1994, during a debate about the Liaison Committee report, I said that I suspected that a request for the Liaison Committee to set up a Select Committee to scrutinise legislation for consistency with the European Convention on Human Rights was in fact motivated by Charter 88. I subsequently wrote to the Leader of the House asking for the source of that proposal to the Liaison Committee. He told me that it had originated from four Peers: one was a Conservative, one was Labour, one was a Liberal Democrat and one was a Cross-Bencher. I said that apparently that gave an appearance of support from all parts of the House, but in fact the Peers were all barristers. So the community of legal interests quite overwhelmed any party considerations.
I explained to your Lordships how Charter 88 is perfectly open about developing lobbying. It seeks to influence your Lordships' House and uses the media for that purpose, having its own agenda. It is trying to cultivate public interest in constitutional changes where there was no interest before.
It is claimed that such measures stem from widespread public concern. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord said that it reflected popular will and had support from informed opinion. If we start to talk about informed opinion, we move into an intellectualist-elitist attitude. One begins to think how grateful the great unwashed should be that those great intellects deign to bend their minds to improving their lot.

1157
Three years ago we were told, in an article by Anthony Barnett and Paul Hirst, who were associated with Charter 88, that the campaign for constitutional reform had caught a rising wave of popular concern. I wonder how many of the noble and learned Lords present in the Chamber tonight have sat in court, or heard of court proceedings, where people have come in front of the court for having been involved in fights, brawling in public over the question of a European convention of human rights, getting into ugly scenes because this country does not have a written constitution or even squabbling over the lack of a freedom of information Bill. It is quite absurd.
If the great wave of popular concern about which Mr. Barnett and Mr. Hirst wrote three years ago was so evident, why do we see in the Independent of 19th January this year the headline:
"Charter 88 drives for pre-election mandate"?
The newspaper tells us that the noble Lord, together with others, were:
"at the opening of a drive yesterday to try to gain"—
I repeat try to gain—
"a popular mandate for Charter 88's policies".
If it is necessary all this time later to mount a drive in order to attract support, that is not good.
Charter 88's membership comprises mainly those in the professions in the middle of the economic spectrum. According to its own survey and questionnaire which it issued and to which it received some 4,000 responses, 10 per cent. of those who returned the questionnaire were associated with the arts and 0.5 per cent. were manual workers.
Charter 88 boasts of collecting tens of thousands of signatures. Indeed, I believe that it has collected over 50,000 signatures now. However, if one thinks back to the 1830s, the Chartists collected millions of signatures protesting when workers realised that the 1832 Reform Act had enfranchised only the middle classes. At that time the combined population of England, Scotland and Wales was only 16.3 million. Today the population is between three and four times greater and yet Charter 88 is boasting about a few tens of thousands of signatures.
The Chartists' anger arose because of the appalling conditions which they and their families suffered. Charter 88's advertisements are confined to what are known as the "quality" newspapers. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong about that. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me when he sums up the debate whether Charter 88 has ever advertised for signatures in the Daily Mirror, the Sun or similar newspapers. That selectivity gives the game away. In the 1830s people complained about cholera, child labour and slum housing. Charter 88 complains about judges, miscarriages of justice and lack of information. I sometimes wonder how many countries in the world would even admit that miscarriages of justice had taken place.
The noble Lord told us that the Bar Council and the Law Society support the Bill. One has to be rather cynical about that. Noble Lords will know that at the moment there is a major argument taking place about the wages of top people in privatised industries. The
1158
Government's line is that that is no cost to public funds. Today, when the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was answering a Question asked by my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick, he mentioned barristers' fees. That calls into question the fees which are paid to our legal representatives.
The fees that people in privatised industries receive begin to look like pocket-money when one considers some of the fees commanded by barristers. Those fees are coming from legal aid—ergo, the taxpayer. The chap driving the bus and the lady cleaning the office are paying those exorbitant fees to banisters. I mention once again the case of Mr. Colin Ross-Munro. It was stated in a Written Answer that he had received £671,000 in legal aid in respect of a case involving an Iraqi businessmen with which we are now all familiar.
Perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, how pleased I was to see today that he has ordered lawyers to "cut the waffle". We all go along with that. I hope that that is the beginning of a movement towards simplifying and curtailing court proceedings.
I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to an editorial which appeared in the Mail on Sunday last weekend headed:
"When we sell our souls to the lawyers".
It mentions the fact that every change in the law, for whatever reason, is always good news for the legal profession. It goes on to say:
"Lawyers thrive in provoking conflict, in formalising it, in extending it. And even when they deny that claim, it is only to present themselves as highly priced mediators and conciliators. As new so-called rights are invented by pressure groups and edicts from Brussels promise ever more scope for quarrelling and distrust in our lives",
and so on. We are constantly subjected to a barrage of propaganda about those constitutional changes from various sides. I believe that it is a concerted effort. The inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, which is now taking place seems, from what I have heard of it, to be concentrating on commercial aspects. But we have here a pressure group which has managed to collar a large number of opinion-formers and which purports to represent a groundswell of opinion which simply does not exist. I believe that its activities should be looked into.
In conclusion, I believe that this country is in danger of going down the path of the United States of America. Perhaps I may quote again from the article in the Mail on Sunday:
"In America the emphasis on legal rights is in danger of swamping any surviving concept of individual responsibility. When customers can sue a fast food outlet because it didn't warn them that hot coffee might scald, life is reduced to a lawyer's fee note".
It is a serious matter. I was talking about lawyers the other day to a very old lady who has been a friend of mine for many years. She said, "You know, Michael, they used to be on our side". While I am anxious to try

1159
to improve the Bill, I think that on occasions like this we should try to take stock of just what is happening today in our society.
9.41 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I do not intend to delay the House for more than a few moments. However, I should like, first, to say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill and also to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who cannot be present tonight, for having worked away for so long at the issue of the incorporation of the European convention into British law. I should like to congratulate them, once again, on having brought the Bill before the House.
I shall not pursue the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, beyond saying that my understanding has always been that one of the greatest prides of British justice was that it was available to every man or woman however poor or disadvantaged they may be, even if they are without power or influence. That principle is one that I believe would appeal as much to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, as to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, and indeed to any other Member of this House.
It is precisely for that reason that I rise to support the Bill. I do so not as a lawyer but because it is a Bill of such significance and importance that it is a great shame to see that the legal Benches are filled tonight, while those of non-lawyers are, generally, empty. It is too important a Bill to be neglected in that way by those of us who do not happen to be judges or lawyers.
As I understand it, the great problem that now confronts us—in a situation where no one is suggesting that this country should pull out of the European convention which we signed in 1950—is that we are making redress under that convention, which we ourselves accepted in principle, both slow and extremely expensive. There is no argument for that. It is most difficult for people to seek redress under the European convention, except after years have passed and much money has flown. That means, quite simply, that those who most need that redress are the least likely to be able to get it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, referred to the common law. There are just two comments that I should like to make in that respect. First, I see no conflict, although I am not a lawyer, between the European convention and the common law. Indeed, much that was already embodied in common law is part of the heritage of individual rights that all of us share. But the European convention and the broad revolution of individual human rights, to which my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris referred in his remarks, have swept beyond the common law; indeed, they complement it and go past it.
If the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, were prisoners, women or members of ethnic minorities, they might understand better than they do why the present situation seems to many of us to be so unsatisfactory. For the very groups in our society who have gone to Strasbourg, and found
1160
the justice there that they did not find here—not because our judiciary was not prepared to give it but because it was not able to do so—are precisely those groups in society who, a century ago, had few rights and who today have the same rights as everybody else.
When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, the Lord Chief Justice, referred to the difficulties of applying the common law to the modern world as a complete answer to the problems of that modern world, he was speaking of the world in which we live and of the country in which we live, which is multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious, as it used not to be. To rely entirely on custom, practice and precedent—to use the marvellous words of the former Poet Laureate, Alfred Lord Tennyson,
"broadening down from precedent to precedent"—
is a wonderful thing, but it is not enough to cope with all the changes in our society today. There is no conflict; there is a complement.
My next point refers to what my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris said very eloquently: that we are, in the words of another poet, John Donne, not members of an island but members of the main. The revolution of human rights, which is today trying to become the foundation on which we can build a world of order and law, is one that I very much wish to see our country not only part of but making a major contribution to. In that context I wish to mention three crucial categories. The first was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, when they referred to the great desire in Northern Ireland to have an underpinning of human rights behind both of the great religious traditions of that Province.
If the Republic of Ireland moves—as moving it is—towards the incorporation of the convention on European rights, then we will have the basis for at least a common understanding in both parts of Ireland of those individual human rights and respect for them which should bind us together as two modern democracies. The peace process is not so strong that we should risk not reinforcing it in every way that is acceptable to both of the major groups of Northern Ireland, and this is one important way in which we can do it.
The second issue I wish to refer to briefly is the important responsibility we bear towards the fragile democracies of central and eastern Europe. Those democracies today are profoundly bound up in the efforts by the European Council —the Council of Europe more precisely—to extend and enlarge the Convention on Human Rights to cover the rights of minorities and to cover group rights, responding to the terrible crises that we have seen in Bosnia and in other parts which today threaten the fragile democracies of central and eastern Europe. I would like to see the British judiciary contribute towards that crucial discussion which has already last year led to a declaration on minorities by the Council of Europe but which has not yet been embodied in any form of convention or in any form of international law.

1161
Thirdly, beyond Europe itself the concept of human rights, the belief in human rights and the attempt to try to establish human rights have now swept across much of the new Commonwealth as well as the old. Last year I had the pleasure of being in South Africa. If the great experiment of South Africa succeeds, it will succeed above all because in South Africa there is a real attempt in the constitution to get the acceptance of the individual human rights of peoples of all racial communities recognised by all other racial communities. It is a brave and important experiment and one to which I believe we should contribute our wisdom, our knowledge and our traditions.
I had the pleasure only last week of listening to the new Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission of India, Supreme Court Justice Raganath Misra. He spoke of the work being done by that commission, which was established only in 1993, in the areas of prisoners' rights and child labour.
If we are to begin to establish a world in which there are some basic rights which we all recognise and accept—and the forbidding of child labour is one of a number of examples all of us could think of—we must not stand in the path of the acceptance of international conventions but contribute to them, accept them and incorporate them in our own law. By doing that we shall put ourselves in a position to make a much greater contribution to the evolution of law, peace and liberty in the world than by resisting on the grounds of tradition, which, marvellous as it is, need no longer stand alone.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, on behalf of the Labour Party I give the Bill the warmest welcome in principle, subject of course to detailed scrutiny in Committee, as was mentioned by noble and learned Lords who spoke earlier.
If the Bill becomes part of our law, it will be a constitutional advance of great importance, on several bases. The first is a basis of deep principle—namely, that an individual's human rights are precisely that: attributes capable of being enforced by legal mechanisms which are not the mere bare consequence of state, governmental or sovereign donation. The right should have these characteristics: clarity, simplicity, ease of enforceability. The incorporation of the convention fulfils those criteria.
Secondly,—and this will be of increasing importance in the next few years—the full incorporation of the convention into domestic law will improve the quality of domestic legislation. It will improve the quality of judicial interpretation and performance. I profoundly agree with the remarks of the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, about the specific importance of the Bill in the context of Northern Ireland. On that point I have encountered no dissent from any part of the political spectrum.
Thirdly, the Bill will reduce the number of dismal occasions when the United Kingdom Government are found to be in breach of their obligations under the convention. It will allow those who are wrongly treated
1162
a more efficient, prompt and less expensive method of obtaining redress. The true analysis—and I respectfully disagree with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington—leads one to this conclusion: that is an exercise of sovereignty, not a derogation from it. It is too well known to need further specification that the record of the United Kingdom Government in this field has been lamentable. They have been at the bottom of every single league table on every possible occasion.
What will incorporation mean in practice in terms of legislation? I hope that it would have made us in this House a good deal more careful and critical in the scrutiny that we gave to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. For example, Section 81 allows a constable to stop and search any vehicle, driver or passenger and any pedestrian, and to make:
"any search he thinks fit whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting that the vehicle or person is carrying articles",
of a certain type.
That draconian power went through this House, I regret to say, late at night when there was very little attendance. There was virtually no dissent. The criminal offence is absolute. There is no defence of reasonable excuse. When this Bill becomes law it will be interesting to see how that power is capable of co-existence with Article 5(1) (c). Can the right to peaceable assembly and demonstration be wholly reconciled with Section 68 and the subsequent sections of that same Act?
I turn to Article 6, which states:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time",
and I emphasise those last words. I endorse the frequent and recent criticisms of delay and expense—those Siamese twins—made by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Taylor of Gosforth and Lord Woolf, on many public occasions. I particularly question whether the situation of a dismissed employee, whose only capital is his labour, having to wait in excess of two-and-a-half years for a concluded hearing at an industrial tribunal, can be said to fulfil our obligation. If we do not incorporate the convention, what redress is there for such people? I do not regard that as an elitist proposition.
Article 8 states:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life".
Where is the common law there? It is notorious that our law recognises no right to privacy as such. The common law is dumb. It is not effective. There is a right to confidentiality in limited cases—employment, commercial relationships, and matrimonial matters. The individual, however mean, lowly and insignificant, has no shield from the common law when his privacy is grossly interfered with and abused. If this Bill becomes law, the present Government would have to stop agonising and come to a conclusion about their final decided view on a distinct right of privacy, giving access to injunctive relief and damages.
Article 10 on freedom of expression has already been of great consequential effect, not least in the speeches in the Judicial Committee of this House in Bookbinder

1163
V. Derbyshire, where an encouragingly fresh view was taken about what proper restrictions on free press comment ought to be in this country. I echo, if I may, the tributes paid to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. I am sorry that he has not been present tonight, since he has been a lighthouse and a beacon to so many lawyers, students and practitioners over so many years.
We cannot simply say, "We do it better than foreigners", because experience sometimes demonstrates the contrary. As a country, a society, a parliamentary democracy and a legal system, we should be able to be sufficiently confident in our own virtues to recognise that an established framework can be a benefit. If we know that the convention is part of our domestic law, we are able to frame our judicial conclusions, legislation and general approach to individual human rights in a different way.
There is no cause for this country to be faint-hearted. We have plenty of historic traditions which have life only if they develop. The questions that I have put forward have been quite limited because, as always, I am obedient to the commands of the Lord Chief Justice and I intend to be brief. These are just a few matters which will arise if the Bill becomes law. It will improve the quality of political life in this country. It will transform people's attitudes to rights and responsibilities. It will provide a useful corrective for an Executive—I do not restrict that remark to the present Government—which has had insufficient control over the past 35 years. The control which has been offered has been substantially provided by the judiciary and not by what has been an over-acquiescent Parliament.
I recognise that those preliminary considerations are few. There are many others that we shall have to deal with on future occasions. I think the fact of their existence demonstrates the value of the Bill, in respect of whose introduction I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lester, deserves our full gratitude.
10 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the preservation and development of the rights and freedoms of the individual are central to effective and legitimate constitutional arrangements. This evening's debate has demonstrated the proper seriousness with which your Lordships address these matters, and the quality of this debate is testimony to that. I welcome this opportunity to set out the Government's policy on a Bill which raises issues of great importance.
It may be helpful for me at the outset to summarise the Government's position. It is in three parts. First, we consider that our present arrangements, both in principle and in practice, provide properly and effectively throughout the United Kingdom for the securing of rights and freedoms, including but not exclusively, those in the European Convention on Human Rights. Secondly, the claimed advantages of incorporating the Convention into our domestic law are, in our assessment, few and arguable. Thirdly, and by contrast, we believe that the disadvantages of incorporation would be considerable and fundamental. Notably, incorporation would strike at the constitutional principle
1164
of parliamentary supremacy. The areas of public policy covered by the general principles set out in the convention have traditionally, and rightly, been the province of Parliament rather than the courts.
Turning then to the principle of our present arrangements, the Government do not consider that it is properly the role of our legislature to purport to confer rights and freedoms, such as those in the European Convention, which are in fact already enjoyed by all members of society. It is central to our position, which is the same position as that taken by successive governments before us, that the rights and freedoms recognised in international instruments to which the United Kingdom is party, including those in the ECHR, are inherent in the United Kingdom's legal systems, and are protected by them and by Parliament, unless removed or restricted by statute.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for interrupting and I shall not do so again. If it is true that all the rights and liberties of individuals are adequately protected under the present British arrangements, why have so many cases which have gone to Strasbourg been decided against the views of the British courts?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall deal with cases that go to Strasbourg in a moment. What is afforded is that all the national laws of the country, together with the rights backed by the European Convention, exist and are available to all our citizens. What we are talking about and what the debate has been about —and it is interesting to me, after listening to all the contributions—is not whether the citizens enjoy the protection, it is about the mechanisms, the efficiency and effectiveness of using the system. I shall say to the House that I think that in terms of the mechanisms and with all the protections of the ECHR, the arrangements that we have in place and the protection of our national law, the citizens of this country are not in any way disadvantaged. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, made the points rather more eloquently and convincingly that I have been trying to make.
It is entirely consistent with this position that the Government attach great importance to the convention and take most seriously the United Kingdom's obligations under it. As we have been reminded earlier in this debate, the United Kingdom played a leading role in drafting the convention. Created very much with the horrors of the defeated war time regimes in mind, it was intended to give binding effect to the guarantee of various rights in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which had been adopted in December 1948. We were among the first states to ratify the convention, as long ago as 1951; and, again, we were among the first major countries to subscribe, nearly 30 years ago, to the right of individual petition to the European Commission of Human Rights, and to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.
Our present arrangements already provide for our commitments under the convention to be taken into proper account in our governmental, legislative and judicial systems. Our obligations under the convention

1165
are systematically and carefully taken into account by Ministers and officials in the formulation and application of government policy, and in the preparation of draft legislation.
As regards the courts, judgments of this House have made it clear that the United Kingdom's international human rights obligations are part of the legal context in which the judges consider themselves to operate. For example, the judgment in the case of Salomon v. the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, stated—if I may be permitted to quote from it:
"There is a prima facie presumption that Parliament does not intend to act in breach of international law, including therein specific treaty obligations; and if one of the meanings which can reasonably be ascribed to the legislation is consonant with the treaty obligations and another or others are not, the meaning which is consonant is to be preferred."
Another test of the seriousness and importance which the Government attach to the convention is our record in remedying breaches of the convention where these occur. If I may, I shall address the contention that incorporation might further minimise such breaches more fully later in my remarks. Perhaps it may suffice for the moment for me to say that, in our view, non-incorporation is not the reason why the United Kingdom is from time to time found to be in breach of the convention. Instead, the answer to that lies partly in the broad and general provisions of the convention itself—which are inevitably subject to different and changing interpretations—and partly in the inevitability of flaws in any human contrivance. I could not have explained that more eloquently than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson.
If and where the United Kingdom is found to be in breach of the convention by the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, effective arrangements are in place for remedying the matter. Any necessary changes in the law or administrative practice are made as soon as possible. The United Kingdom's record in this respect is second to none: of the 89 cases that are currently on the books of the Council of Ministers as awaiting substantive resolution under Article 54, only three arise from the United Kingdom, of which two relate to judgments given as recently as October 1994.
I come now to the second element in the Government's position; that is, our assessment of arguments made for incorporation. We have to ask in what respects, if any, incorporation would enhance the enjoyment in the United Kingdom of the rights and freedoms provided for in the convention. Any answer to this must entail a degree of speculation. But one objective test is to compare the United Kingdom's performance with that of other states party to the convention which have incorporated it into their domestic law. Information is available on which to compare both the extent to which, in the first place, states are found in breach of the convention; and the extent to which, in the second place, when such breaches are found, the necessary remedial action is taken by the countries concerned. By both these measures, the United Kingdom's record is good, and better than that of many countries which have incorporated the convention into their domestic law.
1166
I noted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, rather chided me on the possibility that I might introduce comparative figures. But I do not believe that we can dismiss this matter lightly. This debate has centred very much on speed, effectiveness, efficiency and justice for those at the receiving end. Such comparisons are very important.
We repeatedly hear claims (and we have heard them again in this debate) that the United Kingdom has a poor record before the convention institutions. In fact, such claims are ill-founded. In considering the figures for findings of violation, account should be taken both of the relative population size of states which are party to the convention and the date of acceptance of the right of individual petition. In the case of the United Kingdom, that was many years earlier than numerous other countries, including France, Italy, Portugal and Switzerland. Taking these factors into account, the United Kingdom is well down the so-called "league table" for breaches of the convention. We are 15th overall, below many countries which have incorporated the convention into their domestic law, including Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, France and Finland.
Comparative information on practice in taking action to remedy breaches of the convention tells a similar story. I noted earlier that the United Kingdom has an excellent record in this regard. Information provided by the European Commission of Human Rights shows that the majority of cases in which remedial action is outstanding arise from Italy, France, Belgium, Greece and the Netherlands. What all these countries have in common is that they have incorporated the convention.
Comparative information also casts doubt on the contention that non-incorporation places citizens at a real disadvantage in seeking to remedy possible breaches of the convention. It is far from certain that being able to litigate the convention in our courts would lead to a reduction in the number of cases, or to more rapid disposal and resolution of cases overall.
Although alleged violations of the convention may be considered in the domestic courts of countries where it forms a part of the law, what happens is that a large number of those cases still find their way to the European Commission and Court of Human Rights, where they must be examined afresh. For example, in 1994 62 allegations of violation were referred to the Austrian Government; 723 allegations to the Turkish Government; 118 allegations to the French Government, and 356 allegations to the Italian Government. Those are all countries which have already incorporated the ECHR. During the same period 46 such allegations—only 46—were referred to the United Kingdom. That would suggest that incorporation is hardly a way of reducing or speeding up the handling of cases.
Finally, as regards perceived merits, the delay in securing a decision or judgment under the convention, to which advocates of incorporation also sometimes refer, affects all applicants, irrespective of whether the countries concerned have or have not incorporated the convention. These delays are a matter of concern and one on which we, with other states party to the convention, have acted. Over recent years the United

1167
Kingdom has consistently played a leading role in the discussions in the Council of Europe which have resulted in various reforms of the ECHR procedures aimed at the speedier conduct of business. That work culminated most recently in Protocol 11 to the convention which provides, among other things for the present, part-time Commission and Court to be replaced by a single permanent court. The United Kingdom signed Protocol 11 as soon as it was available for signature. That was last May. We ratified the protocol last month, making us the fourth of the 33 states party to the convention to do so.
I come now to the disadvantages of incorporation which, as I indicated, the Government find serious and conclusive. As I have already said—and I make no apology for repeating—incorporation would strike at the long-held principle of parliamentary sovereignty which lies at the heart of our system of parliamentary democracy. The areas of public policy covered by the general principles set out in the convention have traditionally, and rightly, been the province of Parliament rather than the courts. Under our constitutional arrangements, it is for Parliament to enact detailed legislation on matters affecting the rights and liberties of the individual and to decide where the often difficult balance between competing public and individual interests is to be struck. In doing so, of course, it must have regard to the United Kingdom's obligations under the convention, as indeed it must in respect of all the United Kingdom's international obligations. Nevertheless, the final decision on such matters remains with Parliament. In our view they should continue to remain with Parliament.
That is a vital merit of our present arrangements. They provide that, if and when change is needed, often in areas of keen social and public interest, it is our democratically elected and accountable Parliament which decides how and when any such changes should be made. Among other things, that helps to ensure that change carries public support and understanding.
By contrast, to incorporate the convention into domestic law would transfer that final responsibility to the judiciary. United Kingdom judges would have to decide whether provisions approved in detail by Parliament, and clear in their meaning, offended against the general principles of the convention and, if so, whether effectively the courts should strike down that legislation. The question here is whether it is desirable or appropriate for these matters to rest with judges who are not directly accountable to the people rather than with democratically elected Members of Parliament. The Government's view is that the judges are not the right and appropriate people to be left with that power.
The Government also consider that incorporation would entail serious practical problems. In particular, incorporation would, in our view, have an adverse impact on the work of our courts. We could reasonably expect that, in innumerable challenges to action by public authorities, the convention would be invoked. Each complaint reaching the courts would have to be tried by reference to the principles of the convention but without the benefit of the initial screening process
1168
carried out by the Commission which currently sifts out as unfounded a very large number of cases—in excess of 80 per cent.
Further, if incorporation took the form the noble Lord's Bill proposes, the potential for allegations of "breach of statutory duty"—a key provision in the Bill—would be enormous: every time someone disagreed with, say, a decision by an immigration officer or social worker, proceedings for breach of statutory duty under the Bill could be instituted. These various factors could lead to a great deal of complicated and time-consuming litigation in the courts, with an inevitable effect on the conduct of other court business and without any real and corresponding improvement to human rights in practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, in a very eloquent introduction to the Bill which I enjoyed, said that the courts can already strike down provisions of United Kingdom primary legislation if they conflict with European Community law. I accept that the European Court of Justice and our domestic courts can suspend the operation of UK primary legislation where it conflicts with European Community law. There is no disagreement with us there. Such cases have, however, been very rare indeed. The nature of the international obligations which the UK assumed on joining the European Community on the one hand, and by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights on the other, are nevertheless different. Our obligations under European Community law tend to be narrow and well defined while those under the ECHR are broad and general in nature. In joining the European Community, the United Kingdom was obliged to accept that Community law could have the effect of suspending any national law with which it conflicted. We could not have joined without accepting that. In the case of the ECHR, however, we are under no such obligation.
The convention recognises that contracting states have a choice as to whether or not to incorporate the convention in domestic law and as to how best to implement the Court decisions. If the European Court of Human Rights decides that our law does not satisfy the requirements of the convention in a particular case, it is for Parliament to decide how our domestic law should be amended. Until it is amended, it remains in force.
I submit that it is a far more satisfactory state of affairs than that proposed under Clause 1(3) of the Bill, which would give every judge and every magistrate in the country power to decide not to enforce the law of the land if he or she, by their own judgment, formed the view that any person would thereby be deprived of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the convention. That really would represent a shift of power from the sovereignty of Parliament to the judiciary.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned that the extension of judicial review had weakened the case against incorporation. With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, that disregards the fundamental difference between judicial review and incorporation. In considering applications for judicial review, for example, the court is not concerned with the merits of a particular decision or a particular policy. It is concerned

1169
only to ensure that the appropriate procedures were followed in reaching that decision and that the decision was within the powers given by Parliament to the public body concerned. Incorporation, as proposed in the Bill, would require the courts to address the merits of decisions made by Parliament on matters of public policy and set down in detailed legislation. It would require the courts to adopt a much wider role very different from their current function in cases of judicial review.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, talked as though the citizens of the United Kingdom would not enjoy the protection of the ECHR unless the Bill was accepted for incorporating the ECHR into United Kingdom law. I have to remind the House that it was the United Kingdom which helped to draft the European Convention on Human Rights legislation. We were one of the first countries to sign the convention. We have a very good record, as I have set out, working within it. Whether we have incorporation or not, there is no disadvantage to United Kingdom citizens—either given the mechanisms that are in place at the moment in terms of delay or in terms of effective decisions at the end of the day. Full protection is afforded to all citizens.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, implored us not to stand in the way of the international conventions but to encourage and support them. We have not stood in the path of ECHR legislation. As I say, we drafted it and we have supported it. We are bound by it and, as I have said, we have a good record of operating within it. Therefore, no citizen of this land is disadvantaged by that.
It has been my aim to indicate why we consider that incorporation is not necessary to secure the rights and freedoms protected under the European Convention on Human Rights in our country. Claims that incorporation would enhance enjoyment of those rights and freedoms are arguable and are certainly not supported by the comparative performance of countries which have incorporated the convention. There are substantial objections to incorporation both of principle and practice. The fact is that whether or not the convention has been incorporated into the domestic law of a country bears no relationship to how well that country affords legal protection for its people.
The drawbacks of incorporation are not minor matters but involve major changes to existing constitutional arrangements which have developed in this country over many hundreds of years. The Government remain unconvinced that the Bill would mark an advance in the protection of human rights in the United Kingdom sufficient to justify such a major departure from our current constitutional arrangements. Over a very long time the United Kingdom has developed a careful network of arrangements to ensure good government and fairness, including parliamentary sovereignty and full participation of both our Houses, ministerial accountability and judicial review.
To elevate the convention to the status of the primary source of good government and fairness would run the risk of upsetting the balance of arrangements for doubtful advantage, if any. This is a Private Member's Bill and the Government, therefore, would not propose
1170
to vote against it. However, the Government consider that incorporation is undesirable and unnecessary both in principle and in practice and for those reasons would not be able to support this Bill.
10.22 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, on the last occasion when a Bill of this kind was introduced into your Lordships' House, in winding up the Second Reading debate Lord Broxbourne began:
"My Lords, that, naturally was a disappointing wind-up by my noble friend the Minister".—[Official Report, 10/12/85; col. 194.]
I hope that on this occasion the Minister will not mind my saying that this too has been a disappointing speech on behalf of the Government—for this reason. It would be perfectly open to the Government to approach the Bill in a constructive way, seeking, as many of the judges in your Lordships' House have done in the course of this remarkable debate, to focus on those aspects of the Bill which in the Government's view need to be improved but not opposing its central thrust. I very much hope that when this remarkable debate is read and considered by the Minister and her colleagues they might feel able to take a more positive view at a later stage if the Bill is given a Second Reading.
Perhaps I may say one or two things without wishing to detain your Lordships for long after what has been a remarkable debate. First, I have read all the previous debates on similar attempts to incorporate the convention. This occasion is quite different. In the first place, this is the first occasion on which the senior serving judiciary have with one voice, and a powerful dissenting voice from a very distinguished former Master of the Rolls, expressed the strong view that the time has come to give the people of this country really effective domestic remedies in our courts. That has never happened before.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has spoken not just on his own behalf but on behalf of the main Opposition party, making clear their determination that a Bill of this kind should be enacted. That again is a complete break from all previous debates.
Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, raised a number of matters which I have not seen referred to in previous debates on this subject. In case I forget to deal with them all, perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord on three points. First, the Bill will not touch the rules of my former club, the Garrick Club. Its members can continue freely to exclude women without being affected by the Bill.
Secondly, I am not here holding a brief for Charter 88. The noble Lord made it sound like a communist organisation of a most insidious kind. He spoke as though he was Senator Joe McCarthy. That is not part of this debate. Your Lordships' views are not formed by being lobbied. Each Member of the House speaks for herself or himself.
Thirdly, the noble Lord is entirely mistaken in thinking that the proposal that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and myself for better scrutiny by this

1171
House of primary and subordinate legislation to see whether it complies with the European convention is some kind of lawyers' ramp designed to encourage litigation or line the pockets of the Bar. That is completely misguided. The whole purpose of that proposal—not a Charter 88 proposal—is to reduce litigation by ensuring as far as one can that our legislation complies with our international treaty obligations. So the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, with his conspiracy theory need not worry about that any further.
In my opening speech, I quoted some words by a great American judge, Judge Learned Hand. As I listened to this extremely distinguished debate, I was reminded of some other words of that great judge when he said,
"The spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure that it is right".
I am not at all sure that I am right in the precise way in which the Bill has been formulated. All that I am confident of is the diagnosis that there is a serious constitutional and legal problem which needs to be tackled by legislation on these lines.
Since the Minister shakes her head, perhaps I may give the House one example to serve for all. As your Lordships know, there are many examples of serious breaches of the convention which have arisen from the common law, such as Spycatcher, Harriet Harman and Thalidomide; which have arisen as a result of legislation, such as the closed shop case; and which have arisen as a result of administrative discretion, such as the Golder and Silver prisoners' correspondence cases, the detention of mental health patients, and so on.
I should like to focus on one pending case—it is pending before the European Commission of Human Rights—to illustrate the gravity of the problem upon which, in my respectful view, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, rightly focused when he said that the main problems are not the clear, blatant and deliberate breaches by Parliament, but inadvertent breaches by over-broad delegation of power to Ministers and civil servants which then lead to breaches of the convention.
I refer to a case that is being brought by the Fair Employment Commission, a public authority in Northern Ireland, against the United Kingdom in respect of Ministers' certificates blocking access to industrial tribunals where Catholics complain of religious discrimination in employment in Northern Ireland. If those complainants were women and they were complaining of sex discrimination in employment and, as was the case some years ago, the Minister issued a certificate blocking their claim to access to justice in an industrial tribunal, they would have an effective domestic remedy straight away in the industrial tribunal because, under European Community law, a Minister's certificate cannot breach the European rule of law. The Luxembourg Court so ruled in Johnstone v. The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. So women across the United Kingdom cannot have their sex discrimination claims blocked by ministerial fiat, but they can (because Parliament has authorised it) have them so blocked if the claim is based on religious
1172
discrimination. The only remedy open to such alleged victims is to take their case to Strasbourg. Because all the new democracies are clogging up the courts, as we are, six or seven years later—by which time they may be old and unemployable—they may get a remedy.
That is a problem. I can describe many others, but I promised not to. The Government will be pleased that there are not domestic remedies because they prefer, understandably, as all previous governments have, to play it long; to wait as long as they possibly can for the Strasbourg institutions to rule; and meanwhile, the ordinary men and women affected by that practìce have no domestic remedy. English judicial review cannot reach the problem because the statute has authorised the issuing of that certificate; the purpose stated is deemed to be conclusive; the common law is helpless; and there are no positive rights for our citizens.
The central object of the Bill is to place our courts in exactly the same position as the European Court of Human Rights—no more and no less. Sovereignty was passed from this country to Strasbourg on 1st January 1966 when the first Wilson government agreed that there should be a right of petition to the European Commission and Court of Human Rights. It passed because the judgments of that court are binding upon Parliament as well as the courts and the public administration. I regret to say that the decision was taken without even a Cabinet committee discussing it. Therefore, it is not altogether to the point to speak of the sovereignty of Parliament. Parliament is no longer sovereign. It is bound in international law to comply with the European Court's judgments.
The purpose of the Bill is to return some real sovereignty and power to our own courts so that they can have the first bite at human rights violations before cases go to Strasbourg. I should like to make it clear that, if the Bill is seen in any way to threaten the right of a future Parliament to override the convention in extreme circumstances, or for that matter to amend the Bill of Rights in any way, it is not intended to fetter parliamentary sovereignty at all, and it will be sensible for it to be amended for that to be made clear.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, will forgive me if I do not seek to persuade him to take a different view of the matter. I am a poor advocate. I have argued before him as an advocate many times, and I have never persuaded him to take the convention in the way that I hoped he would, and I shall not succeed now. With great respect to him, perhaps I may leave aside the general arguments and philosophy and go to the particular points made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, speaking on his own behalf and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson.
I am intimidated to be faced by three jurists of such eminence, each of whom has looked so carefully at the Bill. Having heard them, perhaps I may say this—these are all points that would need to be pursued in Committee—first, I respectfully agree that Clause 4 is too broad and too rigid in creating a constitutional tort with an apparent right to damages. It needs to be amended so that the remedies, as the noble and learned

1173
Lord, Lord Taylor, said, would be discretionary, and would of course be capable of including compensation, but not as of right.
Secondly, I again agree that there is a need to ensure that Parliament can derogate under our domestic law, as it is entitled to under Article 15 of the convention. Article 15 is incorporated, and our law should match that right to derogate.
Thirdly, I agree that there is a need to ensure that parliamentary sovereignty is preserved expressly; and, fourthly, I agree with noble Lords that there is a problem about the choice of the appropriate court which is to tackle convention problems. The natural court is the Queen's Bench Division, the Divisional Court, acting under Order 53. But I respectfully disagree with the notion that in every case where a convention point arose there would have to be what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, happily described as "convention blight"—a situation in which a case had to be halted in its tracks while a possibly hypothetical convention point was referred to a more senior court. In my view, it is
1174
more sensible to make the litigant take his or her convention point in the appropriate court, get the facts found and then have it dealt with thereafter.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, suggested that there was a danger that one might be going too far by one's approach to statutory interpretation. My fear would be that the New Zealand approach would go scarcely further than the existing approach in this country of a presumption of conformity with the convention. But I strongly agree that most cases could be solved by a formula of that kind.
I have spoken for too long and apologise for doing so. However, I thought it right to try to deal with some of the points. I hope that I have succeeded in showing that at least I understand the problems, even if I do not have answers to all of them. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Sheffield Assay Office Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before eleven o'clock.

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCILS, 28–29 NOVEMBER AND 19–20 DECEMBER
  Viscount Davidson
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will report on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council meetings in November and December.

  Lord Inglewood
  My honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Davis) attended the Foreign Affairs Councils in November and December. The Council of 28–29 November covered the following subjects:

  On the White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment, M Delors introduced the main themes for the Essen European Council. He said that there would be two discussions, one focusing on White Paper themes generally, and the second on employment questions.

  Ministers agreed to release a first tranche of 15 mecu of the 35 mecu of EU macro-financial assistance to Albania. The release of the second tranche (20 mecu) will depend on a favourable Commission report on progress in economic and political reform in Albania and a subsequent Council decision.

  Foreign Minister held discussions with Mr. Perez and Mr. Arafat and issued a statement which reaffirmed their determination to continue their support for the Middle East Peace Process, both politically and economically.

  Ministers reviewed preparations for the CSCE summit in Budapest (5–6 December)

  The Commission introduced a support package of some 200–300 mecu for Northern Ireland.

  The Council agreed to put forward for consideration at Essen the interim report of the Consultative Commission on Racism and Xenophobia.

  Ministers discussed preparations for the interim conference on the EU's Stability Pact initiative to be held in the margins of the CSCE Summit in Budapest.

  A Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the EU and Moldova was signed on 28 November.

  The Council approved a negotiating mandate for Europe Agreements with Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

  Ministers discussed the Presidency's draft pre-accession strategy for the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The text was agreed, apart from a passage on cumulation of rules of origin.

  The Council discussed the Commission's communication on a strategy for strengthening the EU's political and economic links with the Mediterranean countries, in preparation for a further discussion at the Essen European Council.
  WA 80
  Ministers reviewed prospects for the Association Council with Turkey on 19 December. The Presidency underlined the importance of concluding negotiations on Customs Union at the Council.

  The Presidency reported on progress in the negotiations with Israel, Morocco and Tunisia. The agreement with Israel was close to conclusion, but the agreements with Morocco and Tunisia were delayed by unresolved questions on access for agricultural products to EU markets.

  The Council approved a draft report, to be issued by the Essen European Council, on measures to tackle illicit trade in nuclear materials.

  Ministers discussed a Commission proposal to provide balance of payments assistance to Ukraine.

  The Council discussed the EU position for the ministerial conference on the mid-term review of the Lomé Convention held in Brussels on 30 November and 1 December. Agreement was reached on a package of measures to be put to the ACP countries on the programming of aid.

  The Council discussed progress in implementing the Uruguay Round Agreements. It reaffirmed the determination of the Community and the member states to ratify the agreements before 1 January 1995.

  Discussion of the Commission proposal for the Council to approve the OECD Agreement on shipbuilding subsidies was postponed until 19 December.

  On Rwanda, the Council called for the UN to give high priority to actions to stabilise the region. Ministers supported a regional refugee conference, and endorsed an immediate rehabilitation programme to the value of 67 mecu, agreed by the Development Council.

  In a brief discussion of trade and the environment, the Commission confirmed they were preparing a Green Paper on the subject, and expected to issue this next year.

  On relations with the European Parliament, the Council noted progress on comitology and Temporary Committees of Inquiry. There was a brief discussion over lunch about some Member States' difficulties with the draft implementing provisions for the right to vote and stand in municipal elections of other member states (Article 8B1).

  At the Council of 19–20 December 1994, the following subjects were discussed:

  The Presidency listed items for action during the remainder of their tenure. M. Juppé highlighted five French Presidency Priorities.

  On relations with the European Parliament, the Council agreed texts on comitology, temporary committees of inquiry (TCIs) and consolidation of existing Community legislation. Denmark voted against the decision on TCIs. These texts were then adopted by the Commission and the European Parliament at an inter-institutional conference on 20 December.
  WA 81
  The Council unanimously adopted a directive which implements the right of EU citizens to vote and stand in municipal elections in member states of which they are not nationals.

  An Association Council with Turkey was held in the margins. It was agreed that a further Association Council should be held early in the French Presidency.

  The EEA Council on 20 December reaffirmed its wish to strengthen the political dialogue on foreign policy with a view to developing closer relations in spheres of mutual interest. The Norwegians are now preparing proposals for a framework for political dialogue under the EEA which they will present to the French Presidency.

  There was a discussion on ways in which the peace process in the former Yugoslavia could be taken forward.

  The Council agreed to discuss Russia during the French Presidency on the basis of an options paper.

  The Council agreed a new Community Generalised System of Preferences, to come into force on 1 January 1995. There were two votes. On the creation of a new scheme for industrial products the United Kingdom abstained, and set out its reasons in six statements for the minutes. The scheme passed by qualified majority. Renewal of the scheme for agricultural products was agreed unanimously; this scheme will be reviewed during 1995.

  Agreement in principle was reached on the EU/Israel Agreement. The agreement was expected to be signed at the January Foreign Affairs Council. There was no progress on the EU/Morocco and EU/Tunisia negotiations. Morocco has rejected the Commission's offer on access for tomatoes and courgettes. The question of Tunisian olive oil quotas remains unresolved.

  The Council agreed to endorse the results of the Uruguay Round comprising the Marrakesh Final Act, the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions attached to it, the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services, plurilateral agreements on bovine meat, dairy products, civil aircraft and Government procurement, and the bilateral EC agreements with Australia on coal and with Uruguay on bovine meat. The Council also agreed an accompanying package of EC implementing legislation. All the above texts were formally adopted by the Council of Ministers on 22 December. All the necessary processes have thus been completed to allow the Community to ratify the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation: the instruments of Ratification of the Community and the Member States were expected to be deposited in Geneva on 30 December.

  The Council received a progress report from the Presidency on the three EU/US Working Groups established at the July 1994 EU/US Summit. The groups' work covers Central and Eastern Europe, Drugs and international Crime, and the Mechanisms for EU/US Political Co-operation.
  WA 82
  The Council confirmed its Negotiating Directives, originally adopted in December 1991, for the Commission to negotiate a Co-operation Agreement between Euratom and the United States. The new agreement is to replace the existing US/Euratom Agreements of 1958 and 1960, the second of which expires on 31 December 1995.

  The Council approved the OECD Agreement on shipbuilding subsides and authorised the Commission to sign the Agreement. Signature took place in Paris on 21 December. The Council adopted a Commission proposal that the Commission and Council should make a joint declaration at the signing ceremony to the effect that they would monitor the implementation and respect of the Agreement by all parties.

  The Council agreed the adjustments necessary to the EFTA Accession Treaty following the non-accession of Norway.

  The Chairman of the Consultative Commission on Racism and Xenophobia gave an oral report on progress. This followed the Interim Report of the Consultative Commission, which was presented to the Essen European Council. The Consultative Commission will submit its final report to the Cannes European Council, in June.

  The Council approved Concluding Decisions allowing the entry into force of the Europe (Association) Agreements with the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria and the Free Trade Agreements with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Ministers approved in parallel implementing regulations governing the operation of the four Europe Agreements.

  DRUG LIAISON OFFICERS
  Lord Brougham and Vaux
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What contribution Drug Liaison Officers on attachment to British diplomatic posts overseas make to their efforts to develop international co-operation against the illicit drug trade.

  Lord Inglewood
  British Drug Liaison Officers, who are attached to diplomatic posts in a number of countries, play an important role in developing international co-operation in the fight against the global menace of the illicit drug trade. They are fully integrated into the work of the posts concerned, and carry out their duties in close co-operation with local law enforcement agencies.

  In their work, these officers fully observe Home Office guidelines. These state that no police officer or public informant should counsel, incite or procure the commission of a crime and make clear that an informant should be instructed that he must not act as an agent provocateur.

  KOBE EARTHQUAKE ASSISTANCE
  Lord Brougham and Vaux
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What assistance they have provided to victims of the Kobe earthquake.

  Lord Inglewood
  Immediately after the earthquake we told the Japanese Government that we stood ready to send any assistance they required and gave examples of what we could offer. They made a specific request on 21 January, and the Overseas Development Administration at once chartered an aircraft to deliver a first consignment of relief supplies. The cargo consisted of over 18,000 blankets, 35 rolls of black plastic sheeting, 500 collapsible 20 litre water containers and 500 plastic bowls, totally filling the aircraft by volume. The aircraft arrived on Monday 23 January at Kansai International Airport near Kobe.

  The Japanese authorities have requested some other items, including bandages, dressings and sanitary napkins. The Overseas Development Administration sent a consignment of 3 tonnes on 24 January; British Airways donated the freight space.

  In addition, the International Rescue Corps, a British charity which supplies fully trained, self-sufficient rescue teams, has sent a 16-member group to assist in the rescue operations.

  TREES: DAMAGE PREVENTION
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What steps are being taken to prevent further destruction of the United Kingdom's national tree heritage from trenching in the light of the figures revealed by the recent survey in the London Borough of Havering.

  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater)
  The Department of the Environment has been working with the National Joint Utilities Group, the Cable Communications Association and the arboricultural industry to produce general guidelines on how to minimise damage to trees by utilities, and to utilities by trees. They will be published very shortly.

  CORMORANTS
  Lord Mason of Barnsley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will co-operate with the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology in updating their report on the numbers of cormorants over-wintering on inland rivers, lakes and reservoirs; and to what extent stillwater trout fisheries are suffering from cormorant predation; and

  Whether they are implementing the recommendations of the Conference of Parties to the Bonn Convention regarding the introduction of a
  WA 84
  management plan to maintain a favourable status for the cormorant and to prevent serious damage by cormorants to fisheries; and

  Whether they have been informed of the increasing number of cormorants invading inland fisheries; which organisations have made representations and whether protection of the cormorants should be temporarily lifted to allow a cull of the population.

  Viscount Ullswater
  Research leading to the development of a long-term strategy for the conservation and management of cormorants and other fish-eating birds is currently under consideration by the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment. The research will cover cormorant predation in both still water and rivers.

  The Fourth Conference of the Parties to the Bonn Convention in June 1994 adopted a recommendation giving guidance on maintaining a favourable conservation status for the cormorant and action to prevent serious damage to fisheries. The Government are following this guidance.

  I am aware that cormorant numbers are increasing on inland waters. Representations have been received from a wide range of angling and fishing interests. There is no scientific case for a general cull of the cormorant population but licences will continue to be issued, where justified.

  UNMANNED AIR VEHICLES, CROATIA
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  If CINCSOUTH, the (US) NATO Commander in Naples "has no command over land or air forces other than those assigned to NATO" (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey's Answer of 5th December, col. WA66) and the unmanned US air vehicles which are operating from bases in Croatia are "under US national command" (Lord Henley's Answer of 6th December, col. WA 78), under whose command are the unmanned air vehicles operating out of Croatia.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley)
  The unmanned air vehicles operating from bases in Croatia are US national assets and their command arrangements are therefore a matter for the US Government.

  US DEFENSE COUNTERPROLIFERATION INITIATIVE
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the recently signed Memorandum of Understanding with the US to which the Minister of State for Defence Procurement referred on 16 December 1994 (H.C. Deb, col. 822) covers research, development, production, procurement, etc. connected in any way with the US Defense Counterproliferation Initiative.

  Lord Henley
  The Memorandum of Understanding signed recently by both the United Kingdom Secretary
  WA 85
  of State for Defence and the United States Defense Secretary, relating to the principles governing co-operation in research and development, production, procurement and logistics support of defence equipment, replaced the previously existing arrangement, which was due to expire. It is not directly connected with the US Defense Counterproliferation Initiative. It is for British companies to decide whether to bid for any programmes arising from the US Department of Defense Report on Nonproliferation and Counterproliferation Activities and Programs.

  VAT NET RECEIPTS
  The Lord Bishop of Norwich
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What was the total amount of VAT paid in 1993 from all sources and not subsequently recovered by those who paid it.

  Lord Henley
  Net VAT receipts by HM Customs and Excise during the financial year 1993–94 were £38,959.2 million.